Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ORIGINAL PAPER
Getting to Excess: Psychological Entitlement and Negotiation Attitudes
Lukas Neville1& Glenda M. Fisk2
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018
AbstractIn this paper, we extend the literature on psychological entitlement to the domain of negotiation. Psychological entitlementdescribes a tendency to demand excessive and unearned rewards. For negotiators, entitlement is associated not only withindividually beneficial attitudes, like aspirations, first offer intentions and self-efficacy, but also with contentious and unethicalapproaches to bargaining. As such, we argue that entitlement in negotiation may function as a social trap: The functionalnegotiation attitudes it engenders are likely to result in personally favourable outcomes for the entitled negotiator, reinforcingand exacerbating those attitudes. But these advantages are simultaneously accompanied by a suite of dysfunctional attitudes(unethicality, a Bzero-sum^mindset and a contentious style) that lead the entitled to seek advantage at others’ cost. In three cross-sectional studies of recalled, hypothetical and planned future negotiations (n = 615), we show both the functional and dysfunc-tional consequences of entitlement in negotiation. Importantly, we establish the ability of entitlement to predict these conse-quences above and beyond traits robustly situated in the personality literature (e.g. narcissism, low agreeableness, neuroticism).Our findings indicate entitlement may have pernicious effects for negotiation ethics. We close by addressing the methodologicallimitations of our study and by proposing a research agenda for management, personality and negotiation researchers interested inmitigating the effects of entitlement in negotiating.
Keywords Negotiation . Psychological entitlement . Personality . Individual differences
A half century of research in the bargaining and negotiationliterature might encourage negotiators to ask for as much aspossible. Classic bargaining research shows that negotiatorswith high aspirations earn better individual outcomes by mak-ing larger demands, offering smaller concessions and being lesswilling to settle on unfavourable terms (Siegel & Fouraker,1960).When negotiators focus on their aspirations, they achievehigher gains (Galinsky, Mussweiler, & Medvec, 2002), evenwhen they have poor alternatives (Brett, Pinkley, & Jackofsky,1996). Two meta-analyses affirm that ambitious goal-setting
drives individual profit and performance in negotiation (Zetik& Stuhlmacher, 2002; Halpert, Stuhlmacher, Crenshaw,Litcher, & Bortel, 2010). As Swift and Moore (2012: 266)summarize, Bthe more you think you deserve…the more youdemand, and the more you actually get^.
Some people reliably feel they are owed special treatmentand unearned rewards. This stable, enduring sense of personaldeservingness has been labelled psychological entitlement, atrait with pernicious effects on conflict, deviance and aggres-sion in classrooms (Miller, 2013; Taylor, Bailey, & Barber,2015), families (George-Levi, Vilchinsky, Tolmacz, &Liberman, 2014) and workplaces (Tomlinson, 2013;Naumann, Minsky, & Sturman, 2002), among other contexts.But little research has directly considered the impact of psy-chological entitlement in the negotiation context, despite arevival of interest in individual differences among negotiationresearchers (Elfenbein, 2015; Kong, 2015; ten Brinke, Black,Porter, & Carney, 2015; Elfenbein, Curhan, Eisenkraft,Shirako, & Baccaro, 2008).
In this paper, we develop and test the prediction that psy-chological entitlement will serve as a double-edged sword inthe negotiation context, promoting negotiation attitudes that
* Lukas [email protected]
Glenda M. [email protected]
1 Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba, 412 DrakeCentre, 181 Freedman Crescent, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 5V4,Canada
2 Employment Relations, Queen’s University, 227 Robert SutherlandHall, 138 Union Street, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada
Journal of Business and Psychologyhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9557-6
are individually advantageous, but at an ethical and relationalcost. In so doing, we describe entitlement as a Bsocial trap^(Campbell & Buffardi, 2008), in which destructive and uneth-ical behaviours may be rewarded and reinforced, further ex-acerbating their expression.
In particular, we demonstrate that (1) psychological entitle-ment is associated with attitudes related to effective claimingin negotiation but that (2) entitlement is also associated withattitudes that promote contentious conflict styles and unethicalnegotiating. We show that (3) entitlement explains variance inthese dark and light negotiation attitudes above and beyondpreviously explored personality traits. Finally, we conclude bysuggesting a research agenda for those interested in how wemight manage or mitigate the unethical and contentious be-haviour associated with psychological entitlement. Reflectingon our results, we suggest that negotiation is an importantcontext for entitlement, since it provides the entitled a venuein which tomake, and be rewarded for, excessive claims—andto exert their pernicious effects on others.
Psychological Entitlement
Individuals high in psychological entitlement ask formore thanis (objectively) their due and respond aggressively when theseexcessive demands are not met (Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton,Exline, & Bushman, 2004).1 While there has been interest inthe idea that certain situations may elicit variability inentitlement-driven behaviour, supporting the notion that per-sonality can encompass both trait and state-like tendencies (e.g.Zitek & Vincent, 2015; Piff, 2014), psychological entitlementis frequently and most commonly conceptualized and mea-sured as a personality trait (e.g. Campbell et al., 2004;Grubbs & Exline, 2016). Trait definitions suggest relative con-sistency in terms of how entitlement impacts individuals’thoughts, feelings and behaviour across time and context (seeCosta & McCrae, 1990). Generally speaking, and consistentwith this notion of it being a trait, entitlement is a proximaldriver of individual cognition (e.g. anxiety, depression; Muris,2006; Tritt, Ryder, Ring, & Pincus, 2010), emotion (e.g. angerat God; Grubbs, Exline, & Campbell, 2013) and behaviour(e.g. claiming, cheating; Brown, Budzek, & Tamborski,2009; Campbell et al., 2004). Other negative consequencesinclude hostility (Moeller, Crocker, & Bushman, 2009), con-flict (Harvey & Martinko, 2009), frustration and politicking atwork (Harvey & Harris, 2010), impatience (O’Brien,Anastasio, & Bushman, 2011), dissatisfaction (Byrne, Miller,& Pitts, 2010), the unwillingness to apologize (Exline,Baumeister, Bushman, Campbell, & Finkel, 2004), selfishness
and diminished empathy and perspective-taking (Campbell etal., 2004). As a result, dealing with the entitled can be a sourceof stress for others (Hochwarter, Summers, Thompson,Perrewé, & Ferris, 2010; Fisk & Neville, 2011). The dominantperspective in the literature is that psychological entitlement’seffects are negative, maladaptive and antisocial.
Psychological entitlement is related to, but distinct from, aconstellation of other constructs. Among them is self-servingbias or the cognitive and perceptual distortions individualsengage in to maintain or boost their self-esteem (e.g.Babcock & Loewenstein, 1997; Miller & Ross, 1975). Self-serving bias involves an attributional style that ascribesfavourable outcomes or events to personal factors and nega-tive outcomes or events to external factors (e.g. Campbell &Sedikides, 1999). But despite their conceptual relatedness,studies have found mixed results when examining the associ-ation between entitlement and self-serving perceptual distor-tions. Some find weak or null associations between entitle-ment and self-enhancing biases like unrealistic optimismabout the likelihood of obtaining positive outcomes oravoiding negative ones (Tamborski, Brown, & Chowning,2012: study 1; Zitek & Jordan, 2017: study 4). Others suggestthat entitlement’s effects may be mediated through variousforms of perceptual distortion, including self-serving attribu-tions (Harvey & Martinko, 2009; Harvey, Harris, Gillis, &Martinko, 2014). Jordan and colleagues, in their recent reviewof the entitlement literature, conclude that entitlement andself-serving bias are related but non-redundant (Jordan,Ramsey, & Westerlaken, 2017). Overall, self-serving biasescan mediate entitlement’s effects, or interact with entitlementto exacerbate its effects, but entitlement is conceptually andempirically distinct, with a wide range of mechanisms at playand effects on behaviours and attitudes that extend beyondself-serving bias.
Negotiation
Negotiation occurs B… anytime people cannot achieve theirgoals without the cooperation of others^ (Thompson, Wang,& Gunia, 2010: 492). While we often think of negotiation interms of infrequent, high-stakes, formal negotiations (buyinga home or negotiating one’s salary, for instance), the domainof negotiations is far broader. We negotiate with work col-leagues about how to divide tasks; we negotiate with familymembers about the division of household labour. Managersnegotiate with employees, clients, suppliers, partners,shareholders and board members. Academics negotiateabout authorship, artists negotiate with dealers and parentsnegotiate with children. As Fisher, Ury, and Patton (2011)argue: BLike it or not, you are a negotiator .̂
The focus of our paper is on negotiations, both formal andinformal. Throughout, we will think about negotiation as a
1 This definition of entitlement is distinct from deservingness, which is basedon legitimate and proportionate claims to rewards (e.g., Feather, 1999; seeTomlinson, 2013, for a review of this distinction).
J Bus Psychol
process that involves both creating value (growing thebargaining surplus through integrative negotiation) andclaiming value (dividing the bargaining surplus through dis-tributive negotiation). For readers unacquainted with thesetopics, we recommend the excellent reviews of Bazermanand colleagues (Bazerman, Curhan, Moore, & Valley, 2000)and of Thompson and colleagues (Thompson et al., 2010). Inthis paper, we tend to focus on negotiation between principals(those negotiating for themselves); while our findings maygeneralize to negotiations conducted on behalf of others, wedo not directly consider the questions of agency and represen-tation here.
Entitlement and Negotiation Efficacy
The willingness to demand special treatment and unearnedbenefits may advantage the psychologically entitled in nego-tiation. Not only does psychological entitlement contribute tothe formation of high aspirations, but entitlement also in-volves establishing excessive and self-serving goals (Fisk,2010), often as a means to advance or preserve one’s self-image (Moeller et al., 2009). Entitled negotiators, convincedof their own inherent deservingness, will likely set aspirationpoints for themselves far higher than might be expected fromany objective set of standards. Aspirations are important tonegotiation, because they are robustly associated with individ-ual gains in negotiation (Siegel & Fouraker, 1960; Zetik &Stuhlmacher, 2002; Halpert et al., 2010; Galinsky et al., 2002;Brett et al., 1996).
We might also expect that high-entitlement negotiatorswould be more likely to want to make first offers, since aspi-rations are strongly associated with the willingness to makefirst offers (see Barry & Friedman, 1998, Table 1). The will-ingness to make a first offer is similarly important in negotia-tion, because first offers signal resolve and create psycholog-ical anchors, leading those making them to benefit (Gunia,Swaab, Sivanathan, & Galinsky, 2013). We expect entitlednegotiators to set ambitious goals and to express their ambi-tion in the form of first offers.
Hypothesis 1: Psychological entitlement will be positive-ly associated with aspiration levels in negotiation.Hypothesis 2: Psychological entitlement will be positive-ly associated with the tendency to make the first offer innegotiation.
Psychological entitlement is rooted in inflated andBpositive, if unrealistic, self-perceptions^ (Harvey & Harris,2010: 1641). The entitled demand disproportionate rewardsbecause they are convinced they are inherently worthy of them(Harvey & Harris, 2010). We expect them, therefore, to feelhighly confident about their ability to extract concessions
while making few concessions of their own. We expect enti-tlement, therefore, to be positively associated with distributivenegotiation self-efficacy (i.e. confidence in the ability to effec-tively claim value in negotiation).
It remains unclear whether entitled negotiators’ confidencein their own skill will extend to negotiations that involvemixed motives and cooperation (i.e. integrative bargaining).As we discuss later, entitled negotiators may well have atti-tudes that impede their ability to gain through cooperation innegotiation. But will they shy away from integrativebargaining? Given the high global positive self-regard feltby the entitled (Campbell et al., 2004), entitled individualswill still feel highly proficient in integrative negotiation. Ofcourse (as we later argue), the entitled have an aggressive andself-serving interpersonal style that likely undermines theiractual efficiency in such situations (e.g. Hochwarter et al.,2010) but may be unwilling or unable to acknowledge suchshortcomings. We therefore expect that the entitled will feelmore self-efficacious as negotiators—particularly in terms ofdistributive bargaining, but even in terms of integrativenegotiations:
Hypothesis 3. Psychological entitlement will be positive-ly associated with both (a) felt distributive negotiationself-efficacy and (b) felt integrative negotiation self-efficacy.
Thus far, our predictions have focused on the advantages ofentitlement: The entitled negotiator will be self-efficacious, sethigh aspirations and make first offers. These are, at least fromthe perspective of maximizing individual gains, desirable at-titudes. But entitled negotiators are likely to be far more thansimply aspirational, efficacious bargainers. Research on enti-tlement in other contexts suggests that entitlement is associat-ed with selfishness (Campbell et al., 2004), hostility (Moelleret al., 2009), bias toward rivals (Anastasio & Rose, 2014) anda range of other hostile attitudes and behaviours. There isreason to believe that entitlement will engender a number ofdestructive, counterproductive and unethical attitudes innegotiation.
In particular, we expect that entitled negotiators will adoptan approach in bargaining that is aggressive and competitive.While no previous work has studied psychological entitlementand negotiation, research on equity sensitivity and narcissismsuggests that feelings of excessive deservingness are associat-ed with a distributive orientation, contentious or deceitful ne-gotiating tactics, self-serving behaviours and expressed lowerrelational concerns (Greenhalgh & Gilkey, 1997; Miller et al.,2011; King & Hinson, 1994; Mintu-Wimsatt & Graham,2004). Taken together, we expect that entitled negotiators aremore likely to engage in a dominating style of negotiation,characterized by high self-interest and low concern for others(Rahim & Magner, 1995). As a corollary, we expect that the
J Bus Psychol
entitled will see negotiation less as a cooperative process ofjoint gains and more as a zero-sum contest (Bfixed pieperceptions^; Pinkley, Griffith, & Northcraft, 1995).
Hypothesis 4(a). Psychological entitlement will be posi-tively associated with the endorsement of a dominatingconflict style in negotiation.Hypothesis 4(b). Psychological entitlement will be posi-tively associated with fixed pie perceptions.
The entitled are prone to responding aggressively to egothreat (Campbell et al., 2004), and the theory of threatenedegotism suggests unethicality can be an aggressive responseto ego threat (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996). In thebargaining context, if negotiators are convinced they will beoffered inadequate deals unreflective of their inherentdeservingness, they may be willing to endorse unethical orinappropriate tactics to claim what they feel is their due—forinstance, making false promises, misrepresenting their posi-tion or interests and telling partial truths (e.g. Lewicki, 1983;Robinson, Lewicki, & Donahue, 2000).
Because negotiation involves hidden preferences and pri-vate information, it naturally provides chances for gainsthrough opportunism (Murnighan, Babcock, Thompson, &Pillutla, 1999). If entitlement is associated with contentious-ness, it provides further reason to expect unethical negotiatingstrategies to be endorsed more often by those high in entitle-ment, since such styles are associated with the endorsement ofunethical tactics (Lewicki & Robinson, 1998). Overall, theprediction that entitled negotiators will endorse unethical tac-tics is consistent with previous research, which demonstratesentitlement’s relationship with unethical behaviours, rangingfrom research misconduct (Tamborski et al., 2012) to minoracts of theft (Campbell et al., 2004).
Hypothesis 5. Psychological entitlement will be positive-ly associated with the endorsement of unethical tactics innegotiation.
Study 1
Method
Participants
Three hundred and twenty-five American and Canadian adults(56% female) were recruited through Clearvoice, a commer-cial panel service. The sample size was determined in ad-vance, based on an expected yield of 300 complete surveys.We assume that this sample size is adequate to the task basedon previous research suggesting that correlations tend to
stabilize at n = 250 (Schönbrodt & Perugini, 2013). The par-ticipants’ average age was 44 years (SD = 13.5). Sixty-threepercent were employed full- or part-time, while 21% wereunemployed, 12% were retired and 4% were full-timestudents.
Procedure
Participants were recruited by the panel service to complete anonline study in exchange for points redeemable for cash or giftcards. After providing informed consent, participants complet-ed an online questionnaire containing the measures describedbelow.2 The measures were presented in counterbalanced or-der in order to protect against order effects and mitigate thethreat of response sets (Conway & Lance, 2010).
Measures
Psychological Entitlement Entitlement was measured usingthe 9-item (α = 0.892) Psychological Entitlement Scale(PES; Campbell et al., 2004), scored on a 7-point Likert scale,from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A sample itemfor this scale reads, BI honestly feel I’m just more deservingthan others^. While the items appear extreme, previous workshows that the scale is weakly correlated (Campbell et al.,2004: study 2) or uncorrelated (Zeigler-Hill & Wallace,2011: study 3) with measures of socially desirable respondingand that responses to the scale do not change when partici-pants think they are connected to a polygraph or when theythink others will see their responses (Brunell & Fisher, 2014).
Aspiration Level With reference to their most recent negotia-tion, participants completed a three-item scale (α = 0.913) de-veloped for this study, scored on a 7-point rating scale (1 =extremely low; 7 = extremely high). The items read: (1) BHowhigh were your aspirations (goals) for this negotiation, interms of the benefits you hoped to gain?^; (2) BHow highwereyour objectives for this negotiation, in terms of how youhoped to do compared to your counterpart?^ and (3) BHowhigh were your aims for this negotiation, in terms of howchallenging a goal you set for yourself?^
2 Consistent with standards for transparency in the reporting of psychologicalresearch (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011), the following variableswere gathered but not reported in this manuscript: equity sensitivity, relationalself-esteem, trait positive and negative affect, the NPI entitlement subscale anda cognitive negotiation anxiety scale. We also had brief measures of Big Fiveneuroticism and agreeableness (using TIPI and BFI-10 items), but the agree-ableness measure lacked adequate reliability (α = 0.561), so we examine therelationship between these constructs and entitlement in study 3 instead. Thefull dataset and scripts are posted to the Open Science Framework repository athttps://osf.io/k35qg/. The correlations between these variables and the studyvariables are presented in Table 1.
J Bus Psychol
Negotiation Self-efficacy Participants completed an 8-item, 2-subscale measure of negotiation self-efficacy (Sullivan,O’Connor, & Burris, 2006). Participants rated their ability touse 4 distributive (α = 0.927) and 4 integrative negotiationtechniques (α = 0.922). Confidence using each technique, ingeneral, was rated from 0 (no confidence) to 100 (completeconfidence). An example of integrative negotiation self-efficacy had participants rate their ability to Bgive in on someissues in order to get an advantage on other issues^, while anexample of distributive negotiation self-efficacy was the abil-ity to Bgain the upper hand against the other negotiator .̂
Preference for Making First Offers We used a single-item, di-chotomous measure of participants’ preference for making theinitial offer in negotiation. Participants were asked whetherthey prefer to make the first offer or let their counterpart makethe first offer.
Negotiation Style To assess negotiation style, participantscompleted the 5-item dominating (α = 0.841) subscale ofRahim and Magner’s (1995) Organizational ConflictInventory (ROCI-II), adapted to fit the negotiation context.For each of the five items, with reference to negotiation ingeneral, participants indicated their (dis)agreement on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).An example item reads, BI am firm in pursuing my side of thenegotiation^. To further measure the degree to which the enti-tled prioritize self-interest over concern for others, participantswere asked to rank the importance of self-interest against fourother considerations (a smooth process, feeling good after-wards, building a relationship and helping the other party).
Fixed Pie Perceptions Participants’ view of negotiation as azero-sum Bfixed pie^ was assessed using two items (α =0.698) drawn from Marks and Harold (2011). Participantsindicated their (dis)agreement with these statements (e.g.BNegotiation is almost always a process of one’s gain overthe other^ and BNegotiation is a confrontation between sideswith opposite goals^), with reference to negotiation in general,on a 7-point Likert scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7(strongly agree).
Unethical Negotiation Behaviours To measure participants’willingness to employ unethical negotiation tactics, we usedHershfield, Cohen and Thompson’s (2012) 13-item adaptationof the Self‐reported Inappropriate Negotiation Strategies ScaleII (SINS-II; α = 0.977). The original SINS taps items thatdescribe competitive bargaining broadly; Hershfield and col-leagues’ revised scale focuses on the items with the lowestendorsement rates—that is, the items that most clearlyoperationalize the endorsement of negotiation unethicality. Asample item reads, Bgain information about an opponent’snegotiation position by cultivating his/her friendship throughTa
ble1
Correlatio
nsbetweenstudyvariablesandsupplementary
variables,study1
Positive
affect
(I-PANAS-SF)ɑ=0.899
Negativeaffect
(I-PANAS-SF
)ɑ=0.822
NPI-Eɑ=0.625
Neuroticism
ɑ=0.786
Agreeableness
ɑ=0.561
1.Entitlem
ent(PE
S).160**
(0.052
to0.265)
.173**
(0.065
to0.277)
.504***(0.418
to0.582)
−.111*(−
0.217to
0.002)
−0.088(−
0.195to
0.021)
2.Aspirationlevel
.352***(0.251
to0.445)
−.154**
(−0.260to
−0.044)
.196***(0.087
to0.300)
−.211***(−
0.314to
−0.103)
.193***(0.084
to0.297)
3.Firstofferpropensity
.069
(−0.041to
0.178)
.079
(−0.031to
0.188)
.182**
(0.073
to0.287)
−.092
(−0.200to
0.019)
−.090
(−0.198to
0.020)
4.Distributiveself-efficacy
.432***(0.338
to0.518)
−.218***(−
0.110to
−0.321)
.242***(0.135
to0.343)
−.354***(−
0.446to
−0.253)
.126*(0.016
to0.233)
5.Integrativeself-efficacy
.446***(0.353
to0.530)
−.266***(−
0.161to
−0.365)
.136*(0.027
to0.243)
−.421***(−
0.507to
−0.327)
.250***(0.144
to0.350)
6.Dom
inatingstyle(ROCI-II)
.234***(0.128
to0.335)
.104
†(−
0.006to
0.212)
.383***(0.285
to0.473)
−.121*(−
0.227to
−0.011)
−0.090(−
0.198to
0.020)
7.Self-interestp
riority
−0.098†
(−0.206to
0.011)
.052
(−0.058to
0.160)
.129*(0.020
to0.235)
.028
(−0.081to
0.137)
−0.196***
(−0.299to
−0.089)
8.Fixed-pieperceptio
ns−.046
(−0.154to
0.064)
.278***(0.174
to0.376)
.272***(0.167
to0.370)
.091
(−0.018to
0.198)
−.211***(−
0.312to
0.104)
9.Endorsemento
funethical
tactics(SIN
S-II)
−.044
(−0.153to
0.066)
.451***(0.359
to0.534)
.336***(0.235
to0.430)
.109
†(−
0.001to
0.216)
−.302***(−
0.399to
0.199)
Figuresin
parenthesesrepresentlow
erandupperlevel9
5%confidence
intervals
†p<.10;
*p<.05;
**p<.01;
***p
<.001
J Bus Psychol
expensive gifts, entertaining, or personal favors^. Participantsrated each tactic on a 7-point scale from 1 (not at all appropri-ate) to 7 (very much appropriate), with reference to negotia-tions in general.
Results
We found, as expected, significant associations between psycho-logical entitlement and a range of effective negotiation attitudes.
In hypothesis 1, we predicted that entitlement would cor-relate positively with aspiration levels. We asked participantsto rate their aspiration level in their most recent negotiation.The types of recalled negotiations included car purchases,salary negotiations, cell phone contracts and other personaland professional negotiations. We found that entitlement wassignificantly associated with aspirations, r(315) = .233, p< .001, such that entitled negotiators were more likely to haveset high aims for themselves in these recent negotiations.
As predicted in hypothesis 2, entitlement was also associ-ated with greater willingness to make the first offer,r(317) = .202, p < .001. Entitlement was positively associatedwith both distributive self-efficacy, r(318) = .288, p < .001,and integrative self-efficacy, r(320) = .126, p = .024, consis-tent with hypothesis 3a and 3b.
However, as expected, psychological entitlement was alsoassociated with contentious and unethical attitudes toward ne-gotiation. Consistent with hypothesis 4a, those higher in enti-tlement tended to prefer a dominating style, r(320) = .519, p< .001, and ranked individual gains as a more important con-sideration in negotiation, r(323) = .229, p < .001. As we pre-dicted in hypothesis 4b, entitlement was significantly associ-ated with fixed pie perceptions (Bzero-sum^ bias),r(323) = .399, p < .001. Lastly, as we predicted in hypothesis5, entitlement was significantly associated with the endorse-ment of unethical negotiation tactics, r(320) = .562, p < .001.The results, including 95% confidence intervals around thecorrelations, are presented in Table 2.
To test the robustness of these associations, we also ran apartial correlation, controlling for trait positive and negativeaffects (Thompson, 2007) and for the entitlement subscale ofthe Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) (Raskin & Terry,1988).3 The correlations between entitlement and each of thestudy variables were reduced somewhat in magnitude, buteach remains statistically significant in the originally reporteddirection. While this may underestimate the magnitude of theassociations (by partialling out variance shared between thePES and NPI-E), it suggests that the results are not confound-ed by trait affect and reaffirms previous findings that the ef-fects of entitlement are inadequately captured by the NPI en-titlement subscale (Campbell et al., 2004: 30). We present thepartial correlation results in Table 3.
Discussion
Psychological entitlement is associated with an ambitious,self-efficacious, but confrontational approach to negotia-tion. Consistent with our expectations, the entitled negoti-ator’s sense of self-efficacy extends to both distributiveand integrative contexts. The entitled set high negotiationtargets for themselves and prefer to move first. In negotia-tion, this is a potent combination: Those who make strongfirst offers claim a larger share of the bargaining surplus(Gunia et al., 2013), as do those with high goals and self-efficacy (Brett et al., 1996).
Nevertheless, psychological entitlement may also drivecontentious and unethical approaches to negotiation, makingentitled individuals undesirable bargaining adversaries. Wefound a strong association between entitlement and a domi-nating negotiating style, a zero-sum approach to negotiation,and the endorsement of a series of negotiation tactics widelyconsidered unethical. Negotiators high in entitlement are will-ing to sacrifice relational ties to achieve self-interested gains.Interestingly, despite their confrontational and unethical ap-proach, the entitled do not necessarily shy away from integra-tive and potentially positive-sum bargaining situations. Thetendency of the entitled to see themselves as skilful—evenin integrative tactics—suggests that they may bring these de-structive tactics to the table in negotiation contexts in whichthey are poorly suited.
Study 2
Study 1 explored the relationship between psychological en-titlement and negotiation attitudes. Entitled negotiators weremore likely to be self-efficacious and ambitious, but they werealso more likely to endorse unethical tactics and a contentiousapproach to resolving conflict. Previous studies on personalityand negotiation suggest similar effects for narcissism, a per-sonality trait describing a Bpositive, inflated view of the self^,which drives assertive, attention-seeking behaviour in the pur-suit of self-enhancement (Twenge, Konrath, Foster, KeithCampbell, & Bushman, 2008).
Narcissists have been noted to trust others less in nego-tiation (Kong, 2015), are trusted and liked less by theircounterparts (Park, Ferrero, Colvin, & Carney, 2013) andare more likely to think of negotiations as Bzero-sum^ win/lose contests (ten Brinke et al., 2015). Most importantly,narcissism has previously been shown to predict the en-dorsement of unethical tactics in negotiation (Cohen,Panter, Turan, Morse, & Kim, 2014), which raises the pos-sibility that our observed association between entitlementand unethicality is due to narcissism as an unobservedconfound.3 We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
J Bus Psychol
Table2
Correlatio
nsbetweenentitlementand
negotiatio
nattitudes,study
1
MSD
12
3
1.Entitlem
ent(PE
S)3.922
1.204
.892
2.Aspirationlevel
4.848
1.229
.233***(0.126
to0.335)
.913
3.Firsto
ffer
propensity
1.672
.0470
.202***(0.094
to0.305)
.016
(−0.096to
0.126)
–4.Distributiveself-efficacy
61.680
21.380
.288***(0.184
to0.385)
.347***(0.245
to0.441)
.095
†(−
0.017to
0.203)
5.Integrativeself-efficacy
70.190
20.160
.126*(0.017
to0.233)
.387***(0.288
to0.477)
.039
(−0.072to
0.149)
6.Dom
inatingstyle(ROCI-II)
3.331
0.769
.519***(0.435
to0.595)
.386***(0.288
to0.476)
.148**
(0.038
to0.254)
7.Self-interestp
riority
3.083
1.443
.229***(0.123
to0.330)
−.037
(−0.074to
0.147)
.040
(−0.149to
0.071)
8.Fixed-pieperceptio
ns4.186
1.387
.399***(0.304
to0.487)
.157**
(0.047
to0.263)
.147**
(0.037
to0.253)
9.Endorsemento
funethical
tactics(SIN
S-II)
2.744
1.739
.562***(0.482
to0.633)
.081
(−0.030to
0.190)
.268***(0.163
to0.368)
45
67
89
1.Entitlem
ent(PES)
2.Aspirationlevel
3.Firsto
ffer
propensity
4.Distributiveself-efficacy
.927
5.Integrativeself-efficacy
.806***(0.764
to0.842)
.922
6.Dom
inatingstyle(ROCI-II)
.504***(0.417
to0.582)
.345***(0.244
to0.438)
.841
7.Self-interestp
riority
.031
(−0.141to
0.079)
−.100
†(−
0.010to
0.207)
.110*(0.001
to0.217)
–
8.Fixed-pieperceptio
ns.062
(−0.048to
0.171)
−.104
†(−
0.006to
0.211)
.379***(0.281
to0.469)
.120*(0.011
to0.226)
.698
9.Endorsemento
funethical
tactics(SIN
S-II)
.091
(−0.019to
0.200)
−.089
(−0.021to
0.197)
.492***(0.405
to0.571)
.132*(0.023
to0.239)
.449***(0.356
to0.532)
.977
Reliabilitiesarepresentedin
italicson
thediagonal.F
igures
inparenthesesrepresentlow
erandupperlevel9
5%confidence
intervals
†p<.10;
*p<.05;
**p<.01;
***p
<.001
J Bus Psychol
Table3
Partialcorrelatio
nsbetweenentitlementand
negotiatio
nattitudes,controllin
gfortraitp
ositive
affect,traitnegativ
eaffect,and
NPIentitlement,study1
MSD
12
3
1.Entitlem
ent(PE
S)3.922
1.204
.892
2.Aspirationlevel
4.848
1.229
.178**
(0.045
to0.305)
.913
3.Firsto
ffer
propensity
1.672
.0470
.178*(0.045
to0.305)
.033
(−0.080to
0.142)
–4.Distributiveself-efficacy
61.680
21.380
.234***(0.109
to0.344)
.213***(0.067
to0.348)
.045
(−0.068to
0.159)
5.Integrativeself-efficacy
70.190
20.160
.128*(−
0.039to
0.252)
.274***(0.136
to0.397)
.010
(−0.097to
0.130)
6.Dom
inatingstyle(ROCI-II)
3.331
0.769
.440***(0.315
to0.545)
.327***(0.185
to0.454)
−.070
(−0.043to
0.180)
7.Self-interestp
riority
3.083
1.443
.189**
(0.076
to0.307)
−.020
(−0.137to
0.093)
−.029
(−0.137to
0.080)
8.Fixed-pieperceptio
ns4.186
1.387
.363***(0.220
to0.480)
.206***(0.073
to0.331)
.081
(−0.026to
0.195)
9.Endorsemento
funethical
tactics(SIN
S-II)
2.744
1.739
.539***(0.434
to0.633)
.140*(0.014
to0.259)
.225***(0.105
to0.331)
45
67
89
1.Entitlem
ent(PES)
2.Aspirationlevel
3.Firsto
ffer
propensity
4.Distributiveself-efficacy
.927
5.Integrativeself-efficacy
.756***(0.681
to0.820)
.922
6.Dom
inatingstyle(ROCI-II)
.477***(0.366
to0.565)
.347***(0.219
to0.452)
.841
7.Self-interestp
riority
.067
(−0.045to
0.174)
.050
(−0.067to
0.170)
.112*(0.000
to0.222)
–
8.Fixed-pieperceptio
ns.126*(−
0.006to
0.254)
.008
(−0.150to
0.143)
.345***(0.219
to0.457)
.066
(−0.043to
0.168)
.698
9.Endorsemento
funethical
tactics(SIN
S-II)
.191**
(0.065
to0.316)
.045
(−0.101to
0.184)
.450***(0.337
to0.542)
.103
†(−
0.015to
0.214)
.346***(0.224
to0.453)
.977
Reliabilitiesarepresentedin
italicson
thediagonal.F
igures
inparenthesesrepresentlow
erandupperlevel9
5%confidence
intervals
†p<.10;
*p<.05;
**p<.01;
***p
<.001
J Bus Psychol
Scholars have identified two distinct forms of narcissism inthe production of high entitlement. The first, grandiosenarcissism, describes an immodest, imperial fantasy aboutthe self. By contrast, hypersensitive (or vulnerable) narcis-sism’s grandiosity is defensive, rooted in fragile self-esteemand doubts about one’s own adequacy (Dickinson & Pincus,2003; Kernis, 2001; Miller, Hoffman, et al., 2011). Narcissismand entitlement are also empirically associated; Miller, Price,and Campbell (2011) estimate the association between narcis-sism and entitlement to be between 0.35 and 0.54.Furthermore, entitlement and exploitative attitudes are some-times treated as central characteristics of narcissism (Emmons,1984; Raskin & Novacek, 1989).
Nevertheless, narcissism and entitlement can be conceptu-ally and empirically distinguished (e.g. Pryor, Miller, &Gaughan, 2008; Miller, Hoffman, et al., 2011). Psychologicalentitlement differs from Bnarcissistic entitlement^ as a facet ofnarcissism; the latter is seen as more pathological in nature,characterized by higher disagreeableness and closer associa-tions with personality disorders (Pryor et al., 2008). And notall entitlement derives from narcissism: Entitlement can alsobe elicited by Bindulgent^workplace practices (Fisk, 2010), bythe context of the workplace (O’Leary-Kelly, Rosen, &Hochwarter, 2017) or by overinvolved parenting in childhood(Givertz & Segrin, 2014).
However, given the close association between narcissismand entitlement (Campbell et al., 2004; Pryor et al., 2008), andbetween narcissism and unethical behaviour (Blickle,Schlegel, Fassbender, & Klein, 2006; Penney & Spector,2002), it is important to rule out the possibility that the ob-served relationship between entitlement and unethical negoti-ation simply reflects the effect of narcissism as a third, unmea-sured variable.
Hypothesis 6. Psychological entitlement will be associat-ed with the endorsement of unethical negotiation tactics,controlling for narcissism.
Method
Participants
One hundred and thirty-seven Canadian undergraduate stu-dents who were participants in a university research subjectpool took part in the study. A sample size of 150 was deter-mined in advance. Data collection ended at the end of theacademic term; the researchers did not apply a stopping rule.One hundred and thirty participants completed the full survey.Fifty-five percent of participants were female, and they rangedin age from 18 to 49 years, with an average age of 22 years(SD = 3.8).
Procedure
After providing informed consent, participants completed anonline questionnaire containing the measures described be-low.4 Participants were provided with a bonus mark in an un-dergraduate management class in return for their participation.
Measures
Psychological Entitlement Entitlement was measured usingthe same 9-item (α = 0.825) scale used in study 1 (i.e. PES,Campbell et al., 2004).
Narcissism Narcissism was measured using measures of bothgrandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Grandiose narcissismwas measured with the 16-item short form NarcissisticPersonality Inventory (NPI; Ames, Rose, & Anderson,2006), which contains 16 forced-choice items (KD20 = .693),e.g. BI like to be the centre of attention^ versus BI prefer toblend in to the crowd^). The secondmeasure of narcissismwasthe 10-item (α = 0.732) Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale(HSNS; Hendin & Cheek, 1997). Participants indicated their(dis)agreement with each of the HSNS’ statements using a 5-point scale (from 1, Bstrongly disagree^ to 5, Bstronglyagree^). The NPI as a measure of grandiosity and the HSNSas a measure of vulnerability has been previously establishedin the study of narcissism by Krizan and Johar (2012).
Unethical Negotiation Behaviours To measure participants’willingness to employ unethical negotiation tactics, we usedthe same 13-item scale (α = 0.945) used in study 1 (i.e.Hershfield et al., 2012). We asked participants to imagine anegotiation (we did not specify the topic or context), andasked them, Bhow appropriate would it be to use the tacticsbelow to gain additional advantage in the negotiation?^
4 We also included an experimental manipulation of bargaining power in theprocedure: Half of participants answered the SINS-II questions in the contextof a negotiation in which they had strong alternatives to a negotiated settle-ment, while the other half answered in the context of a weak alternative.We seta sample of n = 150 to allow for 75 participants per cell in the originallyplanned design. In the strong alternative condition, participants were askedto Bimagine a negotiation where you have a very good alternative availableto you. If you don’t succeed in getting a deal with your counterpart, you have agood backup plan. You know that there is another party who wants to make adeal, and is willing to offer you very favourable terms. So, even if this nego-tiation fails, you’ve got a good fall-back option^. In the weak alternativecondition, participants were asked to Bimagine a negotiation where you haveno other good alternative available to you. If you don’t succeed in getting adeal with your counterpart, you have no good backup plan. You don’t know ofany other party who wants to make a deal, and nobody else is willing to offeryou very favourable terms. So, if this negotiation fails, you’ve don’t have agood fall-back option^. This manipulation did not moderate any of the report-ed results or correlate significantly with any of the study variables. However,we report it here in order to be consistent with reporting standards for trans-parency in psychological research (Simmons et al., 2011). The full dataset andscripts are available for inspection and reanalysis on the Open ScienceFramework repository at https://osf.io/k35qg/.
J Bus Psychol
Results
As expected from previous research, narcissism was associatedwith the endorsement of unethical negotiation tactics.Grandiose narcissism was significantly correlated with theSINS-II scale, r(130) = .178, p = .042, as was vulnerable narcis-sism, r(130) = .200, p = .022. Despite the two types of narcis-sism being uncorrelated with each other, each was significantlyand positively associated with entitlement (rNPI(130) = .348, p< .001; rHSNS(130) = .219, p = .012). These correlations rein-force the need to control for the effects of narcissism whentesting the effect of entitlement on unethicality.
Though the magnitude of the effect of the effect is smallerthan in study 1, psychological entitlement was significantlycorrelated with endorsed unethicality, r(130) = .368, p < .001,as predicted by hypothesis 5. Zero-order correlations (with 95%confidence intervals) are presented below in Table 4. While thedirection of the effect is the same, the magnitude of the effect isnot: We return to this observation in the general discussion.
We tested hypothesis 6 by carrying out a hierarchical mul-tiple linear regression, entering vulnerable and grandiose nar-cissism in the first step of the analysis and psychological en-titlement in the second. We found that the two narcissismmeasures jointly explained just over 7.4% of the variance inthe endorsement of unethical negotiation tactics, F(2,127) =5.108, p = .007, R2 = 0.074. Entitlement explained an addi-tional 8% of variance in unethical negotiation, F(3,126) =7.711, p < .001, R2 = 0.155, ΔR2 = 0.081, which representeda significant improvement in variance explained,ΔF(1126) =12.030, p = .001. The regression statistics (with 95% confi-dence intervals) are presented in Table 5 below. These find-ings are consistent with our prediction in hypothesis 6 thatentitlement would predict the endorsement of unethical nego-tiation tactics above and beyond narcissism.
Discussion
Consistent with previous work on the subject, we consideredtwo forms of narcissism: the bombastic, imperial ego of gran-diose narcissism and the fragile, hypersensitive ego of vulner-able narcissism. Like previous research, we find that these two
forms of narcissism are distinct (Miller, Hoffman, et al., 2011)and that both constructs, while uncorrelated with each other,are both independently associated with entitlement (Krizan &Johar, 2012). We also find, consistent with previous research(Kong, 2015; Park et al., 2013; ten Brinke et al., 2015), thatboth forms of narcissism are associated with unethicalbehaviour.
Above and beyond these previously established effects,though, we find that those high in entitlement are more likelyto endorse unethical negotiation tactics. As we found in our firststudy, those high in entitlement are more likely to view a rangeof widely condemned tactics—like misrepresenting informationand promising concessions one does not plan to honour—asappropriate to use in negotiation. While this replicates our ear-lier finding about entitlement and ethicality while controlling forthe possibility of narcissism as a confound, our design has cer-tain limitations, nonetheless. One of those limitations is that weasked participants to imagine a negotiation, without providingany guidance or direction about the specific nature of this hy-pothetical situation. We address this concern in study 3.
Study 3
In our first two studies, we have shown that psychologicalentitlement predicts both beneficial attitudes toward negotiation(self-efficacy, aspirations and first offer intentions) as well asunethical attitudes toward negotiation (zero-sum perceptions, acontentious negotiating style, and the endorsement of unethicaltactics). We also showed that entitlement explains variance inthe endorsement of unethicality above and beyond narcissism.
In study 3, we extend these findings to consider the bene-ficial and deleterious effects of entitlement in a practicallyimportant negotiation context—employment negotiations.We provide a second test of our prediction about entitlementand aspirations (hypothesis 1), examining whether these aspi-rations extend to the employment context. In salary negotia-tions, the willingness to ask for more leads to large career-longdifferences in earnings, as the benefits to negotiating repeat,accumulate and compound (Gerhart & Rynes, 1991; O’Shea& Bush, 2002; Marks & Harold, 2011).
Table 4 Correlations between entitlement, narcissism, and unethicality, study 2
M SD 1 2 3 4
1. Entitlement (PES) 3.70 0.945 .825
2. Grandiose narcissism (NPI-16) 1.37 0.197 .348*** (0.187 to 0.491) .693
3. Vulnerable narcissism (HSNS) 2.95 0.575 .219* (0.049 to 0.377) − .034 (− 0.205 to 0.139) .732
4. Endorsement of unethicaltactics (SINS-II)
2.90 1.28 .368*** (0.209 to 0.508) .178* (0.006 to 0.340) .200* (0.029 to 0.360) .945
Reliabilities are presented in italics on the diagonal. Figures in parentheses represent lower and upper level 95% confidence intervals
p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
J Bus Psychol
We also seek to replicate our finding from our two previousstudies (hypothesis 5) that entitlement predicts the endorse-ment of unethical tactics in negotiation. In employment nego-tiations, it is the subjective experience of the negotiation ex-perience (rather than the objective economic outcomes) that ismost consequential for long-term job attitudes (Curhan,Elfenbein, & Kilduff, 2009). These subjective perceptionscan be deteriorated by the use of competitive and unethicaltactics in negotiation (Volkema, Fleck, & Hofmeister, 2010).
Finally, it is possible that psychological entitlement does notpredict unique variance in unethical negotiation but instead, re-flects an unmeasured higher-order personality construct. In thisfinal study, we address a plausible rival explanation for our re-sults—namely, that the effects we describe as related to entitle-ment stem instead from low agreeableness or high neuroticism,two higher-order personality factors associated with both entitle-ment (Campbell et al., 2004) and the propensity to endorse un-ethical tactics (Elfenbein et al., 2008, supplementary Table 1).Weaddress this concern in study 3. We suggest that it is entitlement,rather than agreeableness or neuroticism, which is most directlyresponsible for producing both high aspirations and the willing-ness to sidestep ethical norms to achieve negotiators’ aspirations.
Hypothesis 8a. Psychological entitlement will be associ-ated with aspiration levels in negotiation, controlling foragreeableness and neuroticism.Hypothesis 8b. Psychological entitlement will be associ-ated with the endorsement of unethical tactics in negoti-ation, controlling for agreeableness and neuroticism.
Method
Participants
One hundred and fifty-three adult American members ofAmazon Mechanical Turk, a crowdsourcing service frequently
used in psychological research (Paolacci & Chandler, 2014),were recruited online.5 Participants needed to be currentlyemployed or seeking employment in order to be consideredeligible for participation. Thirty-three percent of our partici-pants were female, and our participants ranged in age from 19to 64 years, with an average age of 32 years (SD = 7.97). Sixty-nine percent were employed full-time, 19% were employedpart-time and 12% were unemployed but seeking employment.
Procedure
After providing informed consent, participants completed anonline questionnaire containing the measures described be-low.6 Participants were paid a nominal incentive ($1.50USD) for their participation.
Measures
Entitlement We used the same nine-item measure of entitle-ment (Campbell et al., 2004; α = 0.909) as in the previousstudies.
5 We recruited 150 participants onMTurk but ended with a final sample of 153as three participants initially entered the wrong completion code, wererejected, and later emailed with a correct completion code. We set our samplesize at n = 150 in order to achieve cell sizes of n = 75 in our experimentaldesign, described in the procedure below.6 We also included an experimental manipulation of reputation salience in theprocedure. The manipulation occurred after answering the personality ques-tions but before answering the salary, SINS-II, and dominating-style questions.Randomly, half of participants were asked to Brecall and give a detailed ac-count of what you did yesterday, starting with what you did in the morning andleading up to going to bed at night, including activities, work, and leisure^(control), while the other half were asked, Bimagine that all your current andprevious managers were gossiping to each other about you. What do you thinkthey would say? What would they tell each other about what it’s like to dealwith you? How does this fit with how you would like to be seen?^ Thismanipulation did not moderate any of the reported results or correlate signif-icantly with any of the study variables. However, we report it here in order tobe consistent with reporting standards for transparency in psychological re-search (Simmons et al., 2011). Our data are available for inspection or reanal-ysis on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/k35qg/.
Table 5 Hierarchical linearregression of narcissism andentitlement on unethicality
Variables Model 1 B (95% CIs inparentheses)
Model 2 B (95% CIs inparentheses)
Intercept − 0.121 (− 2.041 to 1.800) − 0.222 (− 2.066 to 1.621)
Grandiose narcissism (NPI) 1.210* (0.106 to 2.313) 0.483 (− 0.653 to 1.620)
Vulnerable narcissism (HSNS) 0.462* (0.084 to 0.839) 0.300 (− 0.074 to 0.674)
Psychological entitlement (PES) 0.425*** (0.183 to 0.667)
R2 0.074 0.155
Adj. R2 0.060 0.135
F change 5.108** 7.711***
df 2127 3126
R2 0.081
F 12.030***
Dependent variable: Endorsement of unethical negotiation tactics
J Bus Psychol
Dominating Conflict Style We used the same five-item mea-sure of dominating conflict style (Rahim & Magner, 1995;α = 0.833) as in study 1.
Salary aspirations To measure salary expectations, we askedparticipants, Bwhen negotiating the terms of your next job, oryour next promotion in your current job, what annual salary(in dollars) will you ask for?^
Endorsement of Unethical Tactics To measure willingness tonegotiate unethically in the employment context, we adapted11 items from Hershfield et al.’s (2012) SINS-II scale (α =0.858) to the employment context. Because use of these tacticsmight be risky in the employment context, we asked partici-pants to rate their willingness to engage in each tactic Bif youwere 100% sure it would be successful in getting a muchbetter salary .̂ The purpose of this preamble was to capturethe willingness to endorse unethical tactics (rather than judg-ments about their riskiness or efficacy). An example itemreads, BPromise things you know you can’t or won’t deliver(e.g., telling them you’ll stay in the job longer than you intendto) if the employer gives you the salary you want^.
Personality We measured agreeableness and neuroticismusing the relevant 8-item subscales from the Big FiveInventory (BFI-44; John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). Both theagreeableness measure (α = 0.860) and the neuroticism mea-sure (α = 0.925) exhibited acceptable reliability.
Results
Prior to analysis, we removed (pairwise) responses from thosewho reported their salary expectations in a non-USD currency(n = 1), entered a number that did not appear to be an annualsalary expectation (e.g. B10^, n = 2) or was lower than thesalarized equivalent of the US minimum wage (e.g. B9800^,n = 10).
We began by testing our hypotheses that psychologicalentitlement would be associated with both high aspirations, adominating style and an increased willingness to endorse un-ethical tactics in negotiation (hypotheses 1, 4 and 5).Consistent (in direction if not magnitude) with our previousresults, we found that psychological entitlement was positive-ly associated with intended initial salary demands (r = .185,p = .029), with dominating conflict style (r = .249, p = .002)and with the endorsement of unethical negotiation tactics inemployment negotiations (r = .325, p < .001). Zero-order cor-relations with 95% confidence intervals for study 3 are pre-sented in Table 6.
We then tested the effect of entitlement above and beyondneuroticism and low agreeableness. For both intended salarydemands and unethical tactics, we entered neuroticism and
agreeableness in the first step of a hierarchical linear regres-sion, and psychological entitlement in the second step.
Consistent with hypothesis 8a, we found that entitlement isassociated with salary aspirations, above and beyond the ef-fect of neuroticism and agreeableness. The two Big Five per-sonality variables explained 7% of the variance in salary de-mands, R2 = 0.072, F(2,137) = 5.320, p = .006. Psychologicalentitlement added an incremental 3% to the explanation ofsalary demands, ΔR2 = 0.026, F(1,136) = 3.969, p = .048.Controlling for neuroticism and agreeableness, a 1-point in-crease on the 7-point PES scale is associated with a $3609increase in salary demands. However, it is important to notethat we measured only salary demands, uncontrolled for cur-rent salary, an issue we consider in the discussion.
As predicted in hypothesis 8b, we also found that entitle-ment is associated with the endorsement of unethical salary-negotiation tactics, above and beyond the effects of agreeable-ness and neuroticism. Agreeableness and neuroticism werejointly predictive of unethicality, explaining 9% of variancein the endorsement of unethical tactics, R2 = 0.090,F(2,150) = 7.449, p = .001. Psychological entitlement ex-plained an incremental 10% of variance in unethicality,ΔR2 = 0.10, F(1,149) = 18.447, p < .001. The results (with95% confidence intervals) are presented below in Table 7.
Discussion
The findings of study 3 replicate the direction of our earlierresults, extend them to the employment context and show thatthese effects are due to entitlement in particular, rather thanhigher-order personality factors in general.While the directionof our effects is consistent with our previous studies, the mag-nitude is different: The estimate of entitlement’s effect ondominating style, while significant and in the predicted direc-tion, was half the magnitude found in the first study.
Our sample of Mechanical Turk members is likely morediverse than most studies of employment negotiations, with asubstantial number of part-time employees and job seekers.As Roulin (2015) argues, MTurk’s inclusion of job seekersand those in less permanent employment can be helpful whenstudying questions related to vocational change and job searchbehaviour. That said, high salary expectations among a sampleof people doing ill-paid electronic Bpiecework^ online mayraise questions about validity and generalizability. Future re-search may want to consider a sample of people specificallyanticipating a job negotiation in the near term.
The sample-related observations made here are notewor-thy, since we asked only about salary demands, rather thansalary increase over current salary. As we consider in the gen-eral discussion, it may well be that our result reflects that highcurrent salaries cause entitlement, rather than entitlementcausing high salary demands. A reciprocal relationship mayeven be possible. However, given our finding about
J Bus Psychol
Table6
Correlatio
nsbetweenentitlement,personality,and
job-relatednegotiatio
nattitudes,study
3
MSD
12
34
56
1.Entitlem
ent(PES)
3.35
1.20
.909
2.Neuroticism
(BFI)
3.36
1.44
−.063
(−0.219to
0.095)
.925
3.Agreeableness
(BFI)
4.81
1.18
−.042
(−0.198to
0.117)
−.498***(−
0.608to
−0.369)
.860
4.Salary
demand
53,171
25,011
.185*(0.019
to0.340)
−.238**
(−0.388to
−0.075)
.018
(−0.149to
0.183)
–
5.Endorsemento
funethical
tactics(SIN
S-II)
2.96
0.775
.325***(0.176
to0.460)
.156
†(−
0.002to
0.307)
−.300***(−
0.438to
−0.149)
.121
(0.046
to0.282)
.858
6.Dom
inatingconflictstyle
(ROCI-II)
3.59
0.847
.249**
(0.094
to0.393)
−.202*(−
0.349to
−0.044)
.019
(−0.140to
0.177)
.201*(0.036
to0.356)
.476***(0.344
to0.590)
.833
Reliabilitiesarepresentedin
italicson
thediagonal
p<.10;
*p<.05;
**p<.01;
***p<.001
Table7
Hierarchicallinearregression
ofpersonality
andentitlemento
naspiratio
nsandunethicality
Dependent
variable:salaryaspiratio
nsDependent
variable:endorsemento
funethicaltactics
Variables
Model1B(95%
CIsin
parentheses)
Model2B(95%
CIsin
parentheses)
Model1B(95%
CIsin
parentheses)
Model2B(95%
CIsin
parentheses)
Intercept
85,798.482
(58,854.8to
112,742)
70,884.952
(40,392.6to
101,377)
3.879***
(3.098
to4.661)
3.039***
(2.205
to3.873)
Neuroticism
(BFI)
−5330.351***(−
8568.7to
−2092)
−5028.245**
(−8246.3to
−181)
0.004(−
0.091to
0.099)
0.022(−
0.068to
0.113)
Agreeableness
(BFI)
−3085.929
(−7122.8
to941)
−2624.238
(−6634.7to
1386)
−0.195***
(−0.3114
to0.0780)
−0.176**(−
0.287to
−0.065)
Psychologicalentitlem
ent(PE
S)3609.292*(26.7to
7192)
0.205***
(0.111
to0.300)
R2
0.072
0.098
0.090
0.191
Adj.R
20.059
0.078
0.078
0.174
F5.320**
4.947**
7.449***
11.693***
df2137
3136
2150
3149
ΔR2
0.026
0.100
ΔF
3.969*
18.447***
J Bus Psychol
entitlement and negotiation aspirations in study 1, we thinkthat the entitlement-to-salary aspirations link is a plausibledirection for the relationship.
Of course, salary aspirations may not directly translate tosalary demands. Not all employees have the latitude to nego-tiate their compensation. But nonetheless, aspirations havebeen shown in previous research to be a predictor of negotia-tion demands (Zetik & Stuhlmacher, 2002), and aspirationlevels can serve as a reference point against which employeesconsider the appropriateness and fairness of their compensa-tion (Thompson, 1995).
Similarly, the simple willingness to endorse an unethicaltactic as appropriate does not mean every entitled negotiatorwill use such a tactic. Dishonest and unethical tactics in nego-tiation are shaped by situational factors and by the nature ofthe relationship between the parties (e.g. Aquino, 1998). Butall things being equal, the negotiator who sees such tactics asacceptable to use is more likely to actually make use of them(e.g. Kurland, 1995; Detert, Treviño, & Sweitzer, 2008,Appendix B).
In short, our results merit appropriate caution, since we aremeasuring attitudes and behavioural intentions, rather thanobserved behaviour. But given that attitudes and intentionsinfluence behaviour in negotiation, we interpret our findingsas suggestive of entitlement as driving both effective and de-structive approaches to negotiation, and this study demon-strates that it is entitlement in particular that is associated withthese approaches.
General Discussion
Conclusions and Implications
Through the series of studies presented here, we sought toextend the study of psychological entitlement to consider thecontext of negotiations. Our results suggest that entitlementmay be a Bdouble edged sword^ at the bargaining table.Entitled negotiators tend to approach negotiation in ways thatprevious research would suggest are effective, but also holdattitudes that could have substantial social costs. Overall, en-titlement appears to be associated with a forcing negotiationstyle (Walton, Cutcher-Gershenfeld, & McKersie, 1994),where negotiators are focused on advancing their own agendaand undermining the power of their opponents—even throughunethical means. While this may be effective (or at least indi-vidually beneficial) in zero-sum negotiations, it may under-mine integrative bargaining and impose costs on negotiationcounterparts.
We see a parallel between our findings and Campbell andBuffardi’s (2008) idea of Bsocial traps^. They describe socialtraps as having (1) an appealing, self-benefitting Blure^—anindividual good, and (2) a cost or deleterious effect that may
befall offers as a result—a collective bad. The lure in negoti-ation is that those who are prepared to move first, to expect agreat deal and to ask for more than is offered, tend to benefit intypical negotiations. Laboratory studies show that when peo-ple are made to set higher expectations for themselves, theyperform better and claim more value in negotiation (cf. Zetik& Stuhlmacher, 2002). The entitled need no such encourage-ment: They are convinced that they are owed excessive anddisproportionate rewards, and their attitudes toward negotia-tion reflect this conviction. Entitled negotiators set high aspi-rations, are prepared to make first offers and are self-efficacious; each of these strategies is likely to pay dividends,at least in the short run and in primarily distributive negotia-tions. Nevertheless, along with these relatively benign andeffective negotiation attitudes come a series of attitudes thatare costly to those they negotiate with. Entitled individualsdescribe themselves as adopting a confrontational style.They are more likely to see it as acceptable to use unethicaltactics to secure the gains they feel due. In the long run, thebehaviours these negotiators endorse may be costly, assustained belligerence and unethicality at the negotiating tablemay come with reputational and relational costs.
Across all three studies, we found a significant associationbetween entitlement and endorsed unethicality. However, wenote that the magnitude of this association varied between thefirst study and the subsequent two studies (a similar differencein magnitudes is present between studies 1 and 3 on the asso-ciation between entitlement and dominating conflict style). Ina meta-analysis of the three studies reported in this paper,using a restricted ML estimation, the Fisher r-to-z estimate is.462 (se = 0.097, Z = 4.78, p < .001, 95% CIs 0.272 to 0.651).However, there is significant heterogeneity in the results (Q =11.620; p = .003). The size of the effect in study 1 was sub-stantially larger. We cannot say whether our first study over-estimates the effect, or whether the subsequent two underesti-mate it. The first study was conducted using Clearvoice, apanel provider that provides a sample that is more representa-tive of the general population thanMTurk (Boas, Christenson,& Glick, forthcoming) and certainly more representative thanour undergraduate student sample. Nevertheless, future re-search should seek to replicate the results reported here, aswell as establish a more precise estimate of the entitlement-endorsed unethicality effect.
We find that entitlement drives the endorsement of uneth-ical negotiation tactics in general and in the context of em-ployment negotiations in particular. To the extent that the at-titudes and intentions observed here translate into negotiationbehaviours, there are potentially profound macro-level conse-quences. Previous research has identified gender differencesin perceived entitlement; the entitlement effects described inthis paper may play a part in the persistent gender wage gap(Hogue, Yoder, & Singleton, 2007; Pelham & Hetts, 2001;Kaman & Hartel, 1994). More broadly, if pay and
J Bus Psychol
opportunities go not to those who are most deserving, butthose who think of themselves as most deserving, then em-ployment negotiations may create a tournament structure inwhich entitlement is rewarded and reinforced.
Future research may also want to consider how salary de-mands and entitlement may be mutually reinforcing. We findthat those high in entitlement set higher aspirations and salaryexpectations. But a range of research suggests that the oppo-site relationship may also hold: Piff (2014) shows that socio-economic status and social class are associated with height-ened entitlement. Ding and colleagues find similar effects:When they experimentally endowed participants with wealth,they found that participants later reported stronger feelings ofentitlement (Ding, Wu, Ji, Chen, & Van Lange, 2017). Thismay suggest a potential confound in our study: That it is notthe entitled who ask for more income, but those who ask andreceive more income that feel more entitled. This questioncould be addressed in future research using experimentallymanipulated entitlement (e.g. Zitek & Vincent, 2015).Alternately, longitudinal survey research could measure thereciprocal effects of income and entitlement over time.
Together, these issues suggest a potential challenge for or-ganizations. Though the studies in this paper measure dispo-sitional entitlement, entitlement can also vary over time andbetween situations. Like other personality facets (e.g.Bleidorn, 2009; Giacomin & Jordan, 2016), there can be sub-stantial intraindividual variation in the expression of this trait.Recent research suggests that organizational structures canserve to promote or activate states of entitlement. Rare roleidentities (Vincent & Kouchaki, 2016), self-focused slogansand communications (O’Brien et al., 2011) and coerced be-haviours (Yam, Klotz, He, & Reynolds, 2017) are among theorganizational predictors of employees’ sense of entitlementto excessive or unearned rewards. If the entitled exhibit atti-tudes toward negotiation that are organizationally costly, itsuggests an imperative for organizations to design interven-tions and structures that reduce entitlement or limit itsexpression.
Limitations and Future Directions
Our studies and their findings have limitations. Though wecontrolled for various personality-related explanations, thework reported here is cross-sectional in nature and relied onparticipants to recall recent, hypothetical and even future yet-to-occur negotiations. There are some advantages to this ap-proach: Aspiration levels, for instance, are not usually exter-nally observable. And ethical judgments and attitudes may bemasked in actual negotiation, as negotiators seek to avoid theircounterparts detecting (and potentially punishing) their uneth-ical tactics.
While cross-sectional data have inherent limitations, wetook some steps to help mitigate some of their threats to the
validity of our conclusions (Conway & Lance, 2010). In study1, we counterbalanced the order in which we presented thepersonality and entitlement measures. In study 2, we deliber-ately selected measures of grandiose and vulnerable narcis-sism that did not include the NPI-ENT (narcissistic entitle-ment) scale to avoid concerns about conceptual overlap ofitems. Across all three studies, we chose validated, reliablemeasures of entitlement; in the first two studies, we used theSINS-II scale as previously used by Hershfield et al. (2012),and our third study used an adapted version of the scale withthe same approach to endorsed tactics. The SINS approach iswidely used in negotiation research (e.g. Tasa & Bell, 2017;Fulmer, Barry, & Long, 2009). Where we used unvalidatedmeasures (for instance, aspirations in the first study), wesought to triangulate our results in the accompanying studies(for instance, using specific salary aspirations in study 3).
That said, these results should be taken as tentative, prelim-inary indications of how entitlement is associated with nego-tiation attitudes. As Podsakoff and colleagues demonstrate,commonmethod bias can influence, often in substantial ways,the inferences drawn from survey research (Podsakoff,MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). While thecounterbalancing of item order helps reduce some common-method threats (e.g. item priming), a number of other threatsremain. Social desirability bias, for instance, drives reportingin both student and online samples (Behrend, Sharek, Meade,& Wiebe, 2011). And while our correlation tables do includesmall and non-significant correlations among adequately reli-able index variables (Lindell & Brandt, 2000), there remains aconcern that common rater effects could be upwardly inflatingthe magnitude of associations between our constructs(Podsakoff et al., 2003). While there are statistical remediesthat have been proposed (e.g. Podsakoff et al., 2003; Lindell &Whitney, 2001), we are mindful of the fact that many of theseapproaches perform poorly in simulations (e.g. Richardson,2009, cit. in Conway & Lance, 2010). We therefore suggestthat the best way forward is to extend and replicate our find-ings using multi-source and behavioural methods.
Future research should include field and laboratory studies,in which unethical behaviour can be observed, enacted nego-tiation styles can be reported by counterparts and the conse-quences for economic outcomes more carefully measured.Researchers may consider drawing from the paradigms usedin the literature on self-serving bias, for instance, which con-sider attitudinal mechanisms (e.g. fairness assessments;Loewenstein, Issacharoff, Camerer, & Babcock, 1993) andbehavioural outcomes (e.g. bargaining impasse; Babcock &Loewenstein, 1997). Such approaches would also allow re-searchers to more carefully consider the relationship betweenentitlement and egocentrism discussed earlier in theintroduction.
We also draw researchers’ attention to the question of nar-cissism. While in study 2, we demonstrate a role for
J Bus Psychol
entitlement above and beyond grandiose and vulnerable nar-cissism, this finding depends on the use of the NPI-16 as anoperationalization of grandiose narcissism. While we followprevious research in using this measures alongside the HSNSand PES (Krizan & Johar, 2012), there may be a question ofwhether it is the best available measure of grandiosity. Thereare other measures of grandiosity that have been demonstratedto be empirically distinct from entitlement, including theNarcissistic Grandiosity Scale (NGS; Rosenthal, Hooley, &Steshenko, 2011; Brunell & Buelow, 2018). Gentile and col-leagues’NPI-13 offers a similarly adequate overall measure ofgrandiose narcissism, but their scale allows for subscale anal-ysis, separating out the elements of authority, exhibitionismand exploitativeness (Gentile et al., 2013). We would not ex-pect a change in measurement to dramatically alter our results,given the clear distinctions between narcissism and entitle-ment’s effects (Rose & Anastasio, 2014), but our studies donot provide the final word. Future research may want to rep-licate our findings using different operationalizations of gran-diosity (e.g. the NGS) or consider the unique contributions ofpsychological entitlement versus narcissism at the facet level(e.g. with the NPI-13).
Similarly, we found that entitlement mattered to negotia-tion attitudes above and beyond the personality facets of neu-roticism and agreeableness. However, we note for researchersinterested in the topic of entitlement and personality that ourfindings did not replicate those of Campbell et al. (2004).Unlike that previous work, which found significant relation-ships between entitlement and neuroticism and agreeableness,we found weak or no associations between entitlement andneuroticism (studies 17 and 3) and no correlations with agree-ableness. In the future, entitlement researchers may want toreopen the question of where entitlement fits in personalitymodels, considering the full five-factor model, theHEXACO model or circumplex models (e.g. Miller, Price,Gentile, Lynam, & Campbell, 2012).
It is also of interest to note that while some contemporaryresearch supports conceptualizing entitlement as both stateand trait, our research measured only the latter. Future re-search could examine these effects using state variations inentitlement, or seek to manipulate entitlement (e.g. Zitek &Vincent, 2015). An experimental approach to testing wouldoffer greater clarity to the causal direction of the effects re-ported here.
The current research also solely focuses on the perspectiveof the entitled negotiator. However, negotiation is inherentlydyadic or multi-party in nature, and the use of unethical orcontentious tactics may be shaped by the dyadic or groupconfiguration of entitlement. Future research should considerthe result, for instance, of two highly entitled negotiators
interacting and how dyadic structures (e.g. relative power)shape how the attitudes of the entitled translate into actualbehaviour.
Finally, while we advance understanding of entitlement’seffects on negotiation attitudes, our studies provide no insightinto avoiding these deleterious effects. Research suggests thatpolitical skill (the interpersonal astuteness needed to under-stand and influence others) may play a buffering role. Thepolitically skilful are less likely to express their entitlementin ways that are seen as abusive (Whitman, Halbesleben, &Shanine, 2013), and they are better able to cope with others’expressed entitlement (Hochwarter et al., 2010). In the nego-tiation context, training may also play a part. If entitled nego-tiators can learn Bethical egoism^, that is, how ethical behav-iour can advance self-interest (Schroth, 2008), it may mitigatetheir tendency to seek gains through unethical bargaining. Ifentitled negotiators can be trained to see how serving others’interests can benefit them (e.g. bolstering their own reputa-tion), it may help them temper their default inclination toaccept unethical tactics as a path to gains. Additional workshould consider these, among other structures and processes,as ways to constrain the expression of entitlement.
Conclusion
Entitled negotiators may benefit at the bargaining table butexhibit little concern for establishing andmaintaining relation-ships with the other party, weighing the gains from Bwinning^above relational concerns. Negotiations frequently createshort-term incentives to engage in contentious, opportunisticor unethical behaviours (Cramton & Dees, 1993; Strudler,1995). Entitlement as a personality trait may make negotiatorsmore susceptible to unethical behaviour at the bargaining ta-ble, with concomitant relational costs.
Funding This research was funded by Social Sciences and HumanitiesResearch Council of Canada Insight Development Grant 430-2013-1069.
Data Availability Data are publicly available at https://osf.io/k35qg/.
References
Ames, D. R., Rose, P., & Anderson, C. P. (2006). The NPI-16 as a shortmeasure of narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(4),440–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.03.002.
Anastasio, P. A., & Rose, K. C. (2014). Beyond deserving: More psycho-logical entitlement also predicts negative attitudes toward personallyrelevant out-groups. Social Psychological and Personality Science,5(5), 593–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613519683.
Aquino, K. (1998). The effects of ethical climate and the availability ofalternatives on the use of deception during negotiation. InternationalJournal of Conflict Management, 9(3), 195–217. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022809.
7 See Table 1: correlations between study variables and supplementaryvariables.
J Bus Psychol
Babcock, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse:The role of self-serving biases. Journal of Economic Perspectives,11(1), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.11.1.109.
Barry, B., & Friedman, R. A. (1998). Bargainer characteristics in distrib-utive and integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 74(2), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.345.
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threat-ened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.5.
Bazerman, M. H., Curhan, J. R., Moore, D. A., & Valley, K. L. (2000).Negotiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 279–314. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.279.
Behrend, T. S., Sharek, D. J., Meade, A. W., & Wiebe, E. N. (2011). Theviability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behavior ResearchMethods, 43(3), 800–813. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0081-0.
Bleidorn, W. (2009). Linking personality states, current social roles andmajor life goals. European Journal of Personality, 23(6), 509–530.https://doi.org/10.1002/per.731.
Blickle, G., Schlegel, A., Fassbender, P., & Klein, U. (2006). Some per-sonality correlates of business white-collar crime. AppliedPsychology, 55(2), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00226.x.
Boas, T. C., Christenson, D. P., & Glick, D. M. (forthcoming). Recruitinglarge online samples in the United States and India: Facebook,Mechanical Turk and Qualtrics. Political Science Research andMethods.
Brett, J. F., Pinkley, R. L., & Jackofsky, E. F. (1996). Alternatives tohaving a BATNA in dyadic negotiation: The influence of goals,self-efficacy, and alternatives on negotiated outcomes.International Journal of Conflict Management, 7(2), 121–138.https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022778.
Brown, R. P., Budzek, K., & Tamborski, M. (2009). On the meaning andmeasure of narcissism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,35(7), 951–964. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209335461.
Brunell, A. B., & Buelow, M. T. (2018). Homogenous scales of narcis-sism: Using the psychological entitlement scale, interpersonalexploitativeness scale, and narcissistic grandiosity scale to studynarcissism. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 182–190.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.029.
Brunell, A. B., & Fisher, T. D. (2014). Using the bogus pipeline to inves-tigate grandiose narcissism. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 55, 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.05.015.
Byrne, Z. S., Miller, B. K., & Pitts, V. E. (2010). Trait entitlement andperceived favorability of human resource management practices inthe prediction of job satisfaction. Journal of Business andPsychology, 25(3), 451–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9143-z.
Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman,B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequencesand validation of a self-report measure. Journal of PersonalityAssessmen t , 83 (1 ) , 29–45 . h t tps : / /do i .o rg /10 .1207 /s15327752jpa8301_04.
Campbell, W. K., & Buffardi, L. E. (2008). The lure of the noisy ego:Narcissism as a social trap. In H. A. Wayment & J. J. Bauer (Eds.),Transcending self-interest: Psychological explorations of the quietego (pp. 23–32). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation. https://doi.org/10.1037/11771-002.
Campbell, W. K., & Sedikides, C. (1999). Self-threat magnifies the self-serving bias: A meta-analytic integration. Review of GeneralPsychology, 3(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.3.1.23.
Cohen, T. R., Panter, A. T., Turan, N., Morse, L., & Kim, Y. (2014).Moral character in the workplace. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 107(5), 943–963. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037245.
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expectfrom authors regarding common method bias in organizational re-search. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1990). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality Disorders, 4(4),362–371. https://doi.org/10.1037/10140-000.
Cramton, P. C., & Dees, J. G. (1993). Promoting honesty in negotiation:An exercise in practical ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 30(4),359–394. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857284.
Curhan, J. R., Elfenbein, H. A., &Kilduff, G. J. (2009). Getting off on theright foot: Subjective value versus economic value in predictinglongitudinal job outcomes from job offer negotiations. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 94(2), 524–534. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013746.
Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengage-ment in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and out-comes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 374–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.374.
Dickinson, K. A., & Pincus, A. L. (2003). Interpersonal analysis of gran-diose and vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders,17(3), 188–207. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.17.3.188.22146.
Ding, Y., Wu, J., Ji, T., Chen, X., & Van Lange, P. A. (2017). The rich areeasily offended by unfairness: Wealth triggers spiteful rejection ofunfair offers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 71, 138–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.03.008.
Elfenbein, H. A. (2015). Individual differences in negotiation a nearlyabandoned pursuit revived. Current Directions in PsychologicalSc i ence , 24 ( 2 ) , 131–136 . h t t p s : / / do i . o rg / 10 . 1177 /0963721414558114.
Elfenbein, H. A., Curhan, J. R., Eisenkraft, N., Shirako, A., & Baccaro, L.(2008). Are some negotiators better than others? Individual differ-ences in bargaining outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality,42(6), 1463–1475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.010.
Emmons, R. A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of thenarcissistic personality inventory. Journal of PersonalityAsses smen t , 48 , 291–300 . h t t p s : / / do i . o rg /10 .1207 /s15327752jpa4803_11.
Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., Campbell, W. K., &Finkel, E. J. (2004). Too proud to let go: Narcissistic entitlementas a barrier to forgiveness. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 87(6), 894–912. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.894.
Feather, N. T. (1999). Judgments of deservingness: Studies in the psy-chology of justice and achievement. Personality and SocialPsychology Review, 3(2), 86–107. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0302_1.
Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiatingagreement without giving in. New York: Penguin.
Fisk, G. M. (2010). BI want it all and I want it now!^ An examination ofthe etiology, expression, and escalation of excessive employee enti-tlement. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 102–114.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.11.001.
Fisk, G. M., & Neville, L. B. (2011). Effects of customer entitlement onservice workers’ physical and psychological well-being: A study ofwaitstaff employees. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,16(4), 391–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023802.
Fulmer, I. S., Barry, B., & Long, D. A. (2009). Lying and smiling:Informational and emotional deception in negotiation. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 88, 691–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9975-x.
Galinsky, A. D., Mussweiler, T., & Medvec, V. H. (2002). Disconnectingoutcomes and evaluations: The role of negotiator focus. Journal of
J Bus Psychol
Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1131–1140. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1131.
Gentile, B., Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., &Campbell, W. K. (2013). A test of two brief measures of grandiosenarcissism: The Narcissistic Personality Inventory-13 and theNarcissistic Personality Inventory-16. Psychological Assessment,25(4), 1120–1136. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033192.
George-Levi, S., Vilchinsky, N., Tolmacz, R., & Liberman, G. (2014).Testing the concept of relational entitlement in the dyadic context:Further validation and associations with relationship satisfaction.Journal of Family Psychology, 28(2), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036150.
Gerhart, B., & Rynes, S. (1991). Determinants and consequences of sal-ary negotiations by male and female MBA graduates. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 76(2), 256–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.2.256.
Giacomin, M., & Jordan, C. H. (2016). Self-focused and feeling fine:Assessing state narcissism and its relation to well-being. Journalof Research in Personality, 63, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.04.009.
Givertz, M., & Segrin, C. (2014). The association between overinvolvedparenting and young adults’ self-efficacy, psychological entitlement,and family communication. Communication Research, 41(8), 1111–1136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212456392.
Greenhalgh, L., & Gilkey, R. (1997). Clinical assessment methods innegotiation research: The study of narcissism and negotiator effec-tiveness. Group Decision and Negotiation, 6(4), 289–316. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008649527205.
Grubbs, J. B., & Exline, J. J. (2016). Trait entitlement: A cognitive-personality source of vulnerability to psychological distress.Psychological Bulletin, 142(11), 1204–1226. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000063.
Grubbs, J. B., Exline, J. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2013). I deserve betterand god knows it! Psychological entitlement as a robust predictor ofanger at god. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5(3), 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032119.
Gunia, B. C., Swaab, R. I., Sivanathan, N., &Galinsky, A. D. (2013). Theremarkable robustness of the first-offer effect across culture, power,and issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(12),1547–1558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213499236.
Halpert, J. A., Stuhlmacher, A. F., Crenshaw, J. L., Litcher, C. D., &Bortel, R. (2010). Paths to negotiation success. Negotiation andConflict Management Research, 3(2), 91–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4716.2010.00051.x.
Harvey, P., & Harris, K. J. (2010). Frustration-based outcomes of entitle-ment and the influence of supervisor communication. HumanRelations, 63(11), 1639–1660. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710362923.
Harvey, P., Harris, K. J., Gillis, W. E., &Martinko, M. J. (2014). Abusivesupervision and the entitled employee. The Leadership Quarterly,25(2), 204–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.08.001.
Harvey, P., & Martinko, M. J. (2009). An empirical examination of therole of attributions in psychological entitlement and its outcomes.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 459–476. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.549.
Hendin, H. M., & Cheek, J. M. (1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcis-sism: A reexamination of Murray’s Narcissism Scale. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 31(4), 588–599. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2204.
Hershfield, H. E., Cohen, T. R., & Thompson, L. (2012). Short horizonsand tempting situations: Lack of continuity to our future selves leadsto unethical decisionmaking and behavior.Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 117(2), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.002.
Hochwarter, W. A., Summers, J. K., Thompson, K. W., Perrewé, P. L., &Ferris, G. R. (2010). Strain reactions to perceived entitlement
behavior by others as a contextual stressor: Moderating role of po-litical skill in three samples. Journal of Occupational HealthPsychology, 15(4), 388–398. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020523.
Hogue,M., Yoder, J. D., & Singleton, S. B. (2007). The gender wage gap:An explanation of men’s elevated wage entitlement. Sex Roles,56(9–10), 573–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9199-z.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to theintegrative big five trait taxonomy. In O. P. John, R.W. Robins, & L.A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research(pp. 114–158). New York: Guilford Press.
Jordan, P. J., Ramsey, S., & Westerlaken, K. M. (2017). A review ofentitlement: Implications for workplace research. OrganizationalPsychology Review, 7(2), 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386616647121.
Kaman, V. S., & Hartel, C. E. J. (1994). Gender differences in anticipatedpay negotiation strategies and outcomes. Journal of Business andPsychology, 9(2), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02230636.
Kernis, M. H. (2001). Following the trail from narcissism to fragile self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 223–225.
King, W. C., & Hinson, T. D. (1994). The influence of sex and equitysensitivity on relationship preferences, assessment of opponent, andoutcomes in a negotiation experiment. Journal of Management,20(3), 605–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639402000305.
Kong, D. T. (2015). Narcissists’ negative perception of their counterpart’scompetence and benevolence and their own reduced trust in a nego-tiation context. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 196–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.015.
Krizan, Z., & Johar, O. (2012). Envy divides the two faces of narcissism.Journal of Personality, 80(5), 1415–1451. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00767.x.
Kurland, N. B. (1995). Ethical intentions and the theories of reasonedaction and planned behavior. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 25(4), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02393.x.
Lewicki, R. J. (1983). Lying and deception: A behavioral model. In M. H.Bazerman & R. J. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations (pp.68–90). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Lewicki, R. J., & Robinson, R. J. (1998). Ethical and unethical bargainingtactics: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(6), 665–682. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005719122519.
Lindell, M. K., & Brandt, C. J. (2000). Climate quality and climate con-sensus as mediators of the relationship between organizational ante-cedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.85.3.331.
Lindell, M. K., &Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for commonmethodvariance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 86(1), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114.
Loewenstein, G., Issacharoff, S., Camerer, C., & Babcock, L. (1993).Self-serving assessments of fairness and pretrial bargaining. TheJournal of Legal Studies, 22(1), 135–159.
Marks, M., & Harold, C. (2011). Who asks and who receives in salarynegotiation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 371–394.https://doi.org/10.1002/job.671.
Miller, B. K. (2013). Measurement of academic entitlement.Psychological Reports, 113(2), 654–674. https://doi.org/10.2466/17.08.PR0.113x25z1.
Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution ofcausality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 213–225.https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076486.
Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Gaughan, E. T., Gentile, B., Maples, J., &Keith Campbell, W. (2011). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: Anomological network analysis. Journal of Personality, 79(5), 1013–1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00711.x.
Miller, J. D., Price, J., & Campbell, W. K. (2011). Is the NarcissisticPersonality Inventory still relevant? A test of independent grandiosity
J Bus Psychol
and entitlement scales in the assessment of narcissism. Assessment,19(1), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111429390.
Miller, J. D., Price, J., Gentile, B., Lynam, D. R., & Campbell, W. K.(2012). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism from the perspective ofthe interpersonal circumplex. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 53(4), 507–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.026.
Mintu-Wimsatt, A., & Graham, J. L. (2004). Testing a negotiation modelon Canadian anglophone and Mexican exporters. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070304266123.
Moeller, S. J., Crocker, J., & Bushman, B. J. (2009). Creating hostilityand conflict: Effects of entitlement and self-image goals. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 45(2), 448–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.11.005.
Muris, P. (2006). Maladaptive schemas in non-clinical adolescents:Relations to perceived parental rearing behaviours, big five person-ality factors and psychopathological symptoms. ClinicalPsychology & Psychotherapy, 13(6), 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.506.
Murnighan, J. K., Babcock, L., Thompson, L., & Pillutla, M. (1999). Theinformation dilemma in negotiation: Effects of experience, incen-tives, and integrative potential. International Journal of ConflictManagement, 10(4), 313–339. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022828.
Naumann, S. E., Minsky, B. D., & Sturman, M. C. (2002). The use of theconcept Bentitlement^ in management literature: A historical review,synthesis, and discussion of compensation policy implications.Human Resource Management Review, 12(1), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(01)00055-9.
O’Brien, E. H., Anastasio, P. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2011). Time crawlswhen you’re not having fun feeling entitled makes dull tasks dragon. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(10), 1287–1296.https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211408922.
O’Leary-Kelly, A., Rosen, C., & Hochwarter, W. (2017). Who is deserv-ing and who decides: Entitlement as a work-situated phenomenon.Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0128.
O’Shea, P. G., & Bush, D. F. (2002). Negotiation for starting salary:Antecedents and outcomes among recent college graduates.Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(3), 365–382. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012868806617.
Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: UnderstandingMechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 23(3), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598.
Park, S.W., Ferrero, J., Colvin, C. R., & Carney, D. R. (2013). Narcissismand negotiation: Economic gain and interpersonal loss. Basic andApplied Social Psychology, 35(6), 569–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2013.840633.
Pelham, B. W., & Hetts, J. J. (2001). Underworked and overpaid:Elevated entitlement in men’s self-pay. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 37(2), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2000.1429.
Penney, L.M., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narcissism and counterproductivework behavior: Do bigger egos mean bigger problems?International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1–2), 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00199.
Piff, P. K. (2014). Wealth and the inflated self: Class, entitlement, andnarcissism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213501699.
Pinkley, R. L., Griffith, T. L., & Northcraft, G. B. (1995). BFixed pie^ a lamode: Information availability, information processing, and the ne-gotiation of suboptimal agreements. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 62(1), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1035.
Podsakoff, P. M.,MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review ofthe literature and recommended remedies. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Pryor, L. R., Miller, J. D., & Gaughan, E. T. (2008). A comparison of thepsychological entitlement scale and the narcissistic personalityinventory’s entitlement scale: Relations with general personalitytraits and personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment,90(5), 517–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802248893.
Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis ofthe styles of handling interpersonal conflict: First-order factor modeland its invariance across groups. Journal of Applied Psychology,80(1), 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.122.
Raskin, R., & Novacek, J. (1989). AnMMPI description of the narcissis-tic personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53(1), 66–80.https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5301_8.
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of theNarcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its con-struct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5),890–902. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.54.5.890.
Robinson, R. J., Lewicki, R. J., & Donahue, E. M. (2000). Extending andtesting a five factormodel of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics:Introducing the SINS scale. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21,649–664. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1379(200009)21:6<649::AID-JOB45>3.0.CO;2-#.
Rose, K. C., & Anastasio, P. A. (2014). Entitlement is about ‘others’,narcissism is not: Relations to sociotropic and autonomous interper-sonal styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 50–53.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.004.
Rosenthal, S. A., Hooley, J. M., & Steshenko, Y. (2011). Distinguishinggrandiosity from self-esteem: Development of the NarcissisticGrandiosity Scale. Working paper.
Roulin, N. (2015). Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater:Comparing data quality of crowdsourcing, online panels, and stu-dent samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 190–196. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.24.
Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do corre-lations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 609–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009.
Schroth, H. A. (2008). Helping you is helping me: Improving students’ethical behaviors in a negotiation by appealing to ethical egoism andthe reputation effect. Negotiation and Conflict ManagementResearch, 1(4), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4716.2008.00023.x.
Siegel, S., & Fouraker, L. E. (1960). Bargaining and group decisionmaking: Experiments in bilateral monopoly. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Simmons, J., Nelson, L., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psy-chology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis al-lows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science,22(11), 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632.
Strudler, A. (1995). On the ethics of deception in negotiation. BusinessEthics Quarterly, 5(04), 805–822. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857416.
Sullivan, B. A., O’Connor, K. M., & Burris, E. R. (2006). Negotiatorconfidence: The impact of self-efficacy on tactics and outcomes.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(5), 567–581.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.09.006.
Swift, S. A., & Moore, D. A. (2012). Bluffing, agonism, and the role ofoverconfidence in negotiation. In R. Croson & G. E. Bolton (Eds.),The Oxford handbook of economic conflict resolution (pp. 266–278). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199730858.013.0019.
Tamborski, M., Brown, R. P., & Chowning, K. (2012). Self-serving biasor simply serving the self? Evidence for a dimensional approach to
J Bus Psychol
narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(8), 942–946.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.030.
Tasa, K., & Bell, C. (2017). Effects of implicit negotiation beliefs andmoral disengagement on negotiator attitudes and deceptive behav-ior. Journal of Business Ethics, 142, 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2800-4.
Taylor, J. M., Bailey, S. F., & Barber, L. K. (2015). Academic entitlementand counterproductive research behavior. Personality andIndividual Differences, 85, 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.024.
ten Brinke, L., Black, P. J., Porter, S., & Carney, D. R. (2015).Psychopathic personality traits predict competitive wins and coop-erative losses in negotiation. Personality and Individual Differences,79, 116–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.001.
Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and validation of an internation-ally reliable short-form of the positive and negative affect schedule(PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 227–242.https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297301.
Thompson, L. (1995). The impact of minimum goals and aspirations onjudgments of success in negotiations. Group Decision andNegotiation, 4(6), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01409713.
Thompson, L. L., Wang, J., & Gunia, B. C. (2010). Negotiation. AnnualReview of Psychology, 61, 491–515. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100458.
Tomlinson, E. C. (2013). An integrative model of entitlement beliefs.Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 25(2), 67–87.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-012-9208-4.
Tritt, S. M., Ryder, A. G., Ring, A. J., & Pincus, A. L. (2010).Pathological narcissism and the depressive temperament. Journalof Affective Disorders, 122(3), 280–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2009.09.006.
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Keith Campbell, W., &Bushman, B. J. (2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporalmeta-analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of
Personality, 76(4), 875–902. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00507.x.
Vincent, L. C., & Kouchaki, M. (2016). Creative, rare, entitled, and dis-honest: How commonality of creativity in one’s group decreases anindividual’s entitlement and dishonesty. Academy of ManagementJournal, 59, 1451–1473. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.1109.
Volkema, R., Fleck, D., & Hofmeister, A. (2010). Predicting competitive-unethical negotiating behavior and its consequences. NegotiationJournal, 26(3), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2010.00273.x.
Walton, R. E., Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J., & McKersie, R. B. (1994).Strategic negotiations: A theory of change in labor-managementrelations. Harvard Business School Press.
Whitman, M. V., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Shanine, K. K. (2013).Psychological entitlement and abusive supervision: Political skillas a self-regulatory mechanism. Health Care Management Review,38(3), 248–257. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0b013e3182678fe7.
Yam, K. C., Klotz, A. C., He, W., & Reynolds, S. J. (2017). From goodsoldiers to psychologically entitled: Examining when and why citi-zenship behavior leads to deviance. Academy of ManagementJournal, 60, 373–396. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0234.
Zeigler-Hill, V., & Wallace, M. T. (2011). Racial differences in narcissis-tic tendencies. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(5), 456–467.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.06.001.
Zetik, D. C., & Stuhlmacher, A. F. (2002). Goal setting and negotiationperformance: A meta-analysis. Group Processes & IntergroupRelations, 5(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430202005001537.
Zitek, E.M., & Jordan, A. H. (2017, online first). Psychological entitlementpredicts failure to follow instructions. Social Psychological andPersonality Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617729885.
Zitek, E. M., & Vincent, L. C. (2015). Deserve and diverge: Feelingentitled makes people more creative. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 56, 242–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.10.006.
J Bus Psychol
