1 When Are Norm Violators Afforded Power? Exploring the Moderating Role of the
Perceiver’s Entitlement
Martsen Oostenbrug
10179909
Begeleiders
1e beoordelaar: Eftychia Stamkou
2e beoordelaar: Gerben van Kleef
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Sociale Psychologie
30.04.2015
2 People think of norm violators as more powerful people than norm followers (Van Kleef, Homan, Finkenauer, Gündemir & Stamkou 2011), but power will only be afforded to norm violators when their behaviour benefits others rather than harms them (Van Kleef, Homan, Finkenauer, Blaker & Heerdink, 2012). Since norm violators can take power, they may threaten individuals who stand high in the social hierarchy, that is, have a high verticality position. For people high in verticality it is important to maintain their position (Chen, Brockner & Greenberg, 2003), because this comes with a lot of benefits (Anderson et al., 2006). Verticality is an overlapping term for hierarchical role, personality dominance, social economic status and expertise (Guinote & Vescio, 2010; Hall et al., 2005). All these subparts of verticality have in common that they are accompanied by a sense of entitlement (De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2005; LeBreton et al., 2013; Piff, 2013; Stouten, DeCremer & Van Dijk, 2005). Therefore this study investigates whether the sense of entitlement influences the affordance of power to norm violators. When in a high verticality position, this feeling of deserving more and being entitled to more than others (Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline & Bushman, 2004) may render high verticality people less likely than low verticality people to afford power to those who jeopardize their advantageous position by challenging norms and signaling power. Building on this logic, I hypothesize that people with a high sense of entitlement will afford less power to norm violators than people with a low sense of
entitlement. This hypothesis was tested with an online questionnaire. The interaction that was predicted in the hypothesis was found. Also an effect of threat on the interaction showed up, meaning that people high on entitlement feel fear of losing their social position, when confronted with norm violators. People low on entitlement show feelings of opportunity regarding their social position, when confronted with norm violators.
3 When Are Norm Violators Afforded Power? Exploring the Moderating Role of the
Perceiver’s Entitlement
“ Power is like being a lady… if you have to tell people you are, you aren’t,” Margaret Thatcher (no date) once said. She pointed out clearly that power is a social construct, since there is no possibility to have power when power is not afforded to you. Power is defined as “an individual’s relative capacity to modify others’ states by providing or withholding resources or administering punishments” (Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson, 2003, p. 5). How people obtain power depends on the situation. Getting into a high hierarchical position often comes with obtaining a certain amount of power. Having a unique skill or talent that other people need, will also put a person in a more powerful position. Another way to obtain power is by violating the norms. This might seem like a less obvious way to obtain power, but studies showed that norm violators are perceived as more powerful people than norm followers (Van Kleef et al., 2011). A norm violation is a behaviour that is in conflict with generally accepted rules for social behaviour (Cialdini & Trost, 1998). But perceiving
somebody as a powerful person and affording power to that person are two distinct processes that do not necessarily overlap. Studies showed that norm violators will only be afforded power when their behaviour benefits and does not harm other people (Van Kleef et al., 2012). Still, it seems unlikely that all norm violators whose behaviour does not harm others are afforded power. Harmless behaviour can still be dysfunctional behaviour. Imagine being the boss of a company where one of your employees is late for every scheduled meeting. This behaviour does not necessarily harm you, but nonetheless it can be labeled as dysfunctional, since every meeting takes up more time than needed. If power is afforded to all persons who violate the norms with harmless behaviour, this employee should in theory be afforded power. Affording power to people who show dysfunctional behaviour, could be labeled as dysfunctional behaviour on its own. Therefore I argue that there are more factors that
4 influence whether power is afforded to norm violators, apart from whether the behaviour is harmful or harmless.
A possible factor that could have an influence on people’s willingness to afford power to norm violators is their position in the social hierarchy. Here, instead of using the term ‘hierarchy’, the term ‘verticality’ will be used as an overlapping term for hierarchical role, personality dominance, social economic status and expertise (Guinote & Vescio, 2010; Hall et al., 2005). Imaginably people with a high verticality position could be more hesitant to afford power to norm violators, because the latter could pose a threat to the position of the people in the high verticality position. Maintaining their position is important for people who find themselves in a high vertical position (Chen, Brockner & Greenberg, 2003; Brown-Iannuzzi, Lundberg, Kay & Payne, 2015), since this position comes with the luxury of material, psychological and social benefits and therefore can be seen as a preferable social situation (Anderson, Willer, Kilduff & Brown, 2006).
Not only do high-verticality people enjoy their existing position, they often come to feel like they are entitled to be in this position. Entitlement is “a stable and pervasive sense that one deserves more and is entitled to more than others” (Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline & Bushman, 2004, p. 31). Entitlement is related to verticality in such a way that a greater sense of dominance (LeBreton, Baysinger, Abbey & Jacques-Tiura, 2013), a greater sense of status (Piff, 2013) and a greater sense of power (De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2005; Stouten, De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2005) come with a greater sense of entitlement. The other way around, people with a high sense of entitlement are more supportive of hierarchy (Zitek & Jordan, in prep.). Because entitlement is related to every individual part of verticality, it might be an overlapping construct between all the subparts.
Instead of investigating the relations between all the subparts of verticality and the affordance of power to norm violators, this research will investigate whether the feeling of
5 entitlement influences the affordance of power to norm violators, since entitlement might be the overlapping construct between all the subparts of verticality.
Norm violation might be seen as a threat to people in a high vertical position because the affordance of power to norm violators might jeopardize their high verticality position. Since a high verticality position comes with the feeling of deservingness to be in this position – that is, the feeling of entitlement (LeBreton et al, 2013; Piff, 2013; De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2005; Stouten, De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2005) – it would make sense if people in such a position would want to maintain their position. To do so, people high in entitlement may not be willing to afford power to people who threaten their position, such as norm violators. People low in entitlement do not have the feeling of deservingness to be in a high verticality position, which is why they do not need to feel threatened by norm violators. It is therefore plausible that people low in entitlement are more willing to afford power to norm violators who bring benefits for them. Initial suggestive evidence for this possibility was recently obtained by Stamkou and colleagues (in prep.), who found that a dispositional measure of non-exploitive entitlement moderated power affordance in response to norm violations.
This is why, for the hypothesis an interaction effect between perceived entitlement and the targets behaviour is expected. Specifically, compared to people low in entitlement, people high in entitlement are expected to be less likely to afford power to norm violators rather than norm followers. And, compared to people high in entitlement, people low in entitlement are expected to be more likely to afford power to norm violators rather than norm followers. People high in entitlement who are confronted with norm violators might experience more threat than people low in entitlement, since they might lose the social position of which they think they have the right to be in. On the other hand, people low in entitlement might experience feelings of opportunity when they are confronted with norm violators, since norm
6 violators can possibly bring benefits for them. Earlier studies showed that people attend more to material that is congruent with their mood (Bower, 1981). If people high in entitlement feel more threatened by norm violators than people low in entitlement, threat related words should be easier to process and therefore should be found easier than neutral words.
Method
Participants
This study used 64 participants, 28 male, 35 female and 1 transgender. The participants were recruited from the network of the researcher, by approaching them by e-mail or
Facebook. The age of the participants varied between 19 and 76 years old, with a mean age of 43.78 and a standard deviation of 17.97. Participants were told that completion of the
questionnaire would give them the right to participate in a lottery, in which two a prizes of 25 Euros would be raffled off.
Procedure
A 2 (target’s behaviour: norm violation vs. norm following) * 2 (perceiver’s entitlement: high vs. low) between-participants experimental design was employed in the present study. Participants took place in an online questionnaire. The questionnaire was completed in Qualtrics. After reading the information brochure and signing the informed consent, the questionnaire appeared. First the participants were asked to fill in some questions about their demographics.
Next entitlement was manipulated. Participants were requested to think of nine reasons why they should or should not feel entitled in life. Specifically, participants in the entitled condition were asked to write three reasons each for why they should demand the best in life, why they deserve to get into the career they want, and why they should be treated
7 with respect by everyone. Participants in the control condition were asked to write three reasons each why they should not demand the best in life, why they do not deserve to get into the career they want, and why they should not be treated with respect by everyone. This manipulation is based on an experiment by Zitek and Vincent (2015).
A speech of a (non-existing) political candidate was used next as a manipulation of norm violation (Stamkou et al., in prep.). The political candidate either states that he strongly believes that rules are there to be broken or that rules should be followed at all times. This manipulation has been successfully employed in previous experiments (Stamkou et al., in prep.).
Participants were then asked to imagine that the political candidate they just read about is trying to become president. They were also asked to fill in a questionnaire that measures how much power they are willing to afford to the political candidate. These questions use a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. An example item is “Ik zou een sterke supporter van De Vries (the political candidate) zijn”. To make sure participants really tried to imagine the situation in which De Vries is elected as premier, a small writing task follows. The participants were asked to write down what they think the implications will be for social equality, job opportunities, and social security when De Vries is elected for premier.
Because I argue that people high in entitlement might feel more threatened by norm violators and people low in entitlement might experience feelings of opportunity, threat and opportunity were tested with a five item scale. This check uses a 7-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. An example item is “Als De Vries premier van Nederland zou worden zou ik het gevoel hebben dat mijn kansen om carrière te maken bedreigd zouden worden”. Three items of the scale measure the feelings of opportunity. An example item is “ Als De Vries premier van Nederland zou worden zou ik
8 mogelijkheden zien om mijn sociale positie te verbeteren”.
The next questionnaire checked the norm violation manipulation, by asking whether the political candidate is behaving in a suitable manner (e.g. “Ik denk dat deze politieke kandidaat zich gepast gedraagd”). These questions use a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
Five items from the Psychological Entitlement Scale (PES; Lessard et al., 2011) that measure non-exploitive entitlement were used as a manipulation check for entitlement. The PES uses a 7-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. An example item is “Ik verdien het om met respect behandeld te worden door iedereen”.
The second manipulation check for entitlement consisted of three short fairness stories that participants were asked to rate as being just or unjust, based on questions that Ham and Van den Bos (2007) used to manipulate social justice inferences. The three items use a 7-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from completely unjust to completely just. A sample item is “Jij en je collega doen hetzelfde werk. Bij dit bedrijf verdien je 1400 euro per maand. Omdat jouw collega ouder is, verdient hij 2400 euro per maand.” This could count as an extra manipulation check for entitlement, because people feel more entitled after recalling an unfair event (Zitek et al., 2010). Justice might be more important for people who feel highly entitled than for people who feel less entitled.
Next participants were requested to make a crossword puzzle to see if threat was more salient for people high in entitlement than for people low in entitlement after being
confronted with norm violators. They had 3 minutes to find as much words as possible. In the crossword puzzle, 6 threat-related words (e.g. stress, angst, dreiging, bang, kwetsbaar, status) and 6 neutral words (bureau, stoel, schoenen, peer, stoplicht, rugzak) could be found. The words in both conditions were matched by letters. When participants found a word, they had
9 to write it down.
Next self-esteem was measured, by using a 10 item scale. The scale uses a 7-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. A sample item is “Ik heb een positieve houding tegenover mezelf”. Self-esteem was measured because a correlational study of Stamkou, van Kleef, Homan and Galinksy (in prep.) showed that entitlement and self-esteem are highly correlated (r = .39). This study also showed an
interaction effect for verticality and target’s behaviour for self-esteem. Where people high in verticality have a lower self-esteem when they are confronted with norm violators rather than norm followers. People low in verticality have a higher self-esteem when they are confronted with norm violators rather than norm followers. Because verticality is accompanied by a sense of entitlement (De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2005; LeBreton et al., 2013; Piff, 2013;
Stouten, De Cremer, & Van Dijk, 2005) we will see whether self-esteem explains why highly entitled individuals may be less supportive of norm violators.
At last submissiveness was measured, by using a 16-item scale. The scale uses a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Participants were requested to rate how much they experienced each of the 16 states at that moment. An example of the items is “zelfverzekerd”. Submissiveness was measured because a study of Stamkou et al. (in prep.) showed an interaction effect for verticality and target’s behaviour for submissiveness. Where people high in verticality feel more submissive when they are
confronted with norm violators rather than norm followers. People low in verticality feel more submissive when they are confronted with norm followers rather than norm violators. Because verticality is accompanied by a sense of entitlement (De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2005; LeBreton et al., 2013; Piff, 2013; Stouten, De Cremer, & Van Dijk, 2005) submissiveness will be measured.
10 After the participants filled in all the questionnaires, they were debriefed and thanked for their participation.
Results
All 64 participants were used for the analyses. Manipulation checks
First the effectiveness of the norm violation manipulation and the entitlement manipulation was checked by using a General Linear Model. An ANOVA was used to see whether the Psychological Entitlement Scale could be used as a manipulation check for the entitlement manipulation. The Psychological Entitlement Scale appeared to have an excellent internal consistency, α = .86 (George & Mallery, 2003). Levene’s Test for Equality of
Variances showed that the variances in the two conditions of entitlement were equal, F(3, 60) = 1.44, p = .24 The covariance matrices between the groups were assumed to be equal for the purposes of the MANOVA, Box’s M (1.40) = 13.46, p = .18. A significant main effect of entitlement condition on the Psychological Entitlement Scale was found, F(1, 66) = 6.12, p = .016, η2 = .092. Specifically, people in the high entitlement condition showed lower scores on the Psychological Entitlement Scale (M = 4.97, SD = 1.54) than people in the low entitlement condition (M = 5.79, SD = 1.02). This means that people in the high entitlement condition felt less entitled than people in the low entitlement condition. The Psychological Entitlement Scale might therefore not be appropriate as a check to see if the entitlement manipulation worked.
Another ANOVA was used to see whether the scale for the Norm Violation Manipulation Check could be used as a manipulation check for the norm violation manipulation. The Norm Violation Manipulation Check appeared to have an excellent internal consistency, α = .89. Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances showed that the variances in the two conditions of norm violation are equal, F(3, 60) = 1.10, p = .36. The
11 covariance matrices between the groups were assumed to be equal for the purposes of the MANOVA, Box’s M (1.40) = 13.46, p = .18. A significant main effect of the norm violation conditions on the Norm Violation Manipulation Check was found, F (1, 66) = 75.26, p < .001, η2 = .56. Specifically, people in the norm violation condition showed higher scores on the Norm Violation Manipulation Check (M = 4.98, SD = 1.15) than people in the norm following condition (M = 2.53, SD = 1.08). This means that people in the norm violation condition thought that the political candidate violated the norms more than people in the norm following condition. Concluded, the Norm Violation Manipulation Check worked as a manipulation check for the norm violation manipulation.
The scale for fairness was found not to be a significant manipulation check for the entitlement manipulation. Which means that the means for the scale for fairness did not differ for the entitlement conditions
Hypothesis Testing
To see whether the different conditions of entitlement and norm violations scored different on the Power Affordance scale, a General Linear Model was used. No significant main effect was found for the entitlement condition on the power affordance scales. This means that between the entitlement conditions there was no difference in how much power they afforded to the political candidate.
Also, no significant main effect was found for the norm violation condition on the power affordance scales. This means that between the norm violation conditions there was no difference in how much power they afforded to the political candidate.
The Power Affordance scale appeared to have an excellent internal consistency, α = .91. An ANOVA was used to see whether the scores on the Power Affordance scales differed between the entitlement conditions, the norm violation conditions and/ or the interaction between the entitlement conditions and the norm violation conditions. The PA4c variable
12 consisted of item 1, 2, 4, and 8, respectively ‘Ik denk dat De Vries zijn partij goed zou
kunnen aansturen’, ‘Ik denk dat De Vries de interesses van de inwoners van Nederland goed zou vertegenwoordigen’, ‘ Als ik zou moeten stemmen, zou ik voor De Vries stemmen’, and ‘Als ik zou moeten stemmen, zou ik tegen De Vries stemmen’. The PA4c scale appeared to have a good internal consistency, α = .78.
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances showed that the variances in the conditions of the interaction between the entitlement condition and the norm violation condition were equal for the PA4c scale, F(3, 60) = .79, p = .51. A significant effect of the interaction between the entitlement condition and the norm violation condition on the PA4c scale was found, F(1, 60) = 4,99, p = .029, η2 = .077. Specifically, in the norm violation condition, people in the high entitlement condition scored lower on the Power Affordance scale than people in the low entitlement condition. In the norm following condition, people in the high entitlement condition scored higher on the Power Affordance scale than people in the low entitlement condition, see Table 1. The PA4c scale will be used as the Power Affordance scale in the rest of the analyses.
For the other Power Affordance Scales no main effects were found.
Table 1.
Mean scores (Mean), Standard Deviations (SD) of the interaction between the entitlement condition and the norm violation condition, with norm violation (NV) and norm following (NF), on power affordance (PA4c scale)
Entitlement condition Norm Violation condition Mean SD High NV 2.78 1.39 NF 3.97 1.25 Low NV 3.28 1.51 NF 3.00 1.07
13 A regression analysis showed that the interaction between the norm violation
condition and the entitlement condition significantly predicted power affordance, β = -.37, t(3) = -2.23, p = .029. Also it showed that within the high entitlement condition, the norm violation condition significantly predicted the level of power affordance, β = 1.19, t(1) = 2.71, p = .01. Within the low entitlement condition, the norm violation condition did not predict the level of power affordance. This means that within the high entitlement condition, the norm violation condition had different outcomes for power affordance, while the
outcomes for power affordance within the low entitlement condition did not differ between the norm violation conditions.
Threat
To check whether threat was effected by the interaction between the norm violation condition and the entitlement condition a General Linear Model was used. An ANOVA showed an interaction trend on the third threat item (e.g. “Als De Vries premier van
Nederland zou worden zou ik het gevoel hebben dat mijn sociale positie onzeker en onstabiel zou zijn”), F(1,63) = 3.56, p = .064, η2 = .057. Specifically, within the high entitlement condition, people in the norm violation condition scored higher on the third threat item than people in the norm following condition. Within the low entitlement condition, people in the norm violation condition scored lower on the third threat item than people in the norm following condition, see Table 2.
A regression analysis was used to see where the scores on the third threat item differed precisely. The analysis showed that within the high entitlement condition, the norm violation condition showed a trend toward significance in predicting the score on the third threat item, β = -.99, t(1) = 1.93, p = .062. Within the low entitlement condition, the norm violation condition did not predict the score on the third threat item. This means that within the high entitlement condition, the norm violation condition had different outcomes on the
14 third threat item, while the outcomes for the third threat item within the low entitlement condition did not differ between the norm violation conditions.
Table 2.
Mean scores (Mean), Standard Deviations (SD) of the interaction between the entitlement condition and the norm violation condition, with norm violation (NV) and norm following (NF), on the third threat item.
Entitlement condition Norm Violation condition Mean SD High NV condition 4.25 1.53 NF condition 3.26 1.49 Low NV condition 3.79 1.42 NF condition 4.29 1.77
An ANOVA showed a clear tendency toward a significant effect of the norm violation manipulation on the fourth threat item (e.g. “Als De Vries premier van Nederland zou worden zou ik mogelijkheden zien om mijn sociale positie te verbeteren”), F(1,63) = 3.97, p = .051, η2
= .063. Specifically, people in the norm violation condition scored higher on the item (M = 3.73, SD = 1.55), than people in the norm following condition (M = 3.12, SD = 1.19). Also a trend of an effect of the interaction between the norm violation condition and the entitlement condition was found, F(1,62) = 3.01, p = .09, η2 = .049. When we look at the means, within the high entitlement condition, people in the norm violation condition seemed to score slightly higher on the fourth threat item (M = 3.56, SD = 1.55) than people in the norm following condition (M = 3.47, SD = 1.22). Within the low entitlement condition, people in the norm violation condition seemed to score slightly higher on the item (M = 3.93, SD = 1.59) than people in the norm following condition (M = 2.64, SD = 1.01).
15 showed that within the high entitlement condition, the norm violation condition did not predict the score on the perceived opportunity item. Within the low entitlement condition, the norm violation condition significantly predicted the score on the opportunity item,
β = −1.29, t(1) = -2.55, p = .017. This means that within the low entitlement condition, the norm violation condition had different outcomes on the opportunity item, while the scores within the high entitlement condition did not differ between the norm violation conditions. An ANOVA showed no significant effect of the amount of threat words that were found in the crossword. Still, the regression analysis did show that within the high entitlement condition, the norm violation condition marginally significantly predicted the amount of threat words found in the cross word, β = −.35, t(1)=-1.98, p = .057. Within the low
entitlement condition, the norm violation condition did not predict the amount of threat words found in the crossword, see Table 3. This means that within the high entitlement condition, the norm violation condition had different outcomes on the amount of threat words found in the crossword, while the amount of threat words found in the crossword within the low entitlement condition did not differ between the norm violation conditions.
16 Table 3.
Mean scores (Mean), Standard Deviations (SD) of the interaction between the entitlement condition and the norm violation condition, with norm violation (NV) and norm following (NF), on the amount of threat words found in the crossword.
Entitlement condition Norm Violation condition Mean SD High NV .56 .63 NF .21 .42 Low NV .21 .43 NF .29 .61
No significant effects were found for the other threat item (e.g. “Als De Vries premier van Nederland zou worden zou ik het gevoel hebben dat mijn kansen om carrière te maken bedreigd zouden worden) and the other two opportunity items (e.g. “Als De Vries premier van Nederland zou worden zou ik mogelijkheden zien om mijn sociale positie te versterken” and “Als De Vries premier van Nederland zou worden zou ik verwachten dat De Vries’ beleid mogelijkheden voor mij zouden creëren”).
Other analyses
No significant main effects of norm violation or entitlement and no interaction effects on neutral words were found in the cross word, feelings of fairness, social economic status, self-esteem, submissiveness, and dominance.
17 Conclusion and Discussion
This study examined whether entitlement affects the link between norm violation and power affordance. First an interaction effect was found between entitlement and norm violation on the affordance of power. To be more specific, people with high feelings of entitlement afforded more power to norm followers than to norm violators. The other way around, people with low feelings of entitlement afforded about the same amount of power to norm violators as to norm followers.
Since no main effect of entitlement on power affordance was found, it can be stated that high feelings of entitlement alone do not cause a preference to afford less power to people. Only when people high on entitlement are confronted with people who might threaten their position, such as norm violators, the amount of afforded power changes. People high on entitlement showed that they felt that their social position was uncertain and unstable if the norm violator would get more power.
Next an interaction effect of perceived entitlement and norm violation on perceived threat and opportunity was found. People with high feelings of entitlement, had more feelings of threat when they were confronted with norm violators rather than when they were
confronted with norm followers. This can be stated because they processed threat words easier than people who had low feelings of entitlement, since they found more threat words in a crossword. These patterns are consistent with what was expected at the beginning of the study.
People with low feelings of entitlement did not differ in their feelings of threat when they were confronted with norm violators or norm followers. As predicted, people low on entitlement did not have to fear their social position being jeopardized and therefore focused on what a norm violator could bring them. When confronted with norm violators, people low on entitlement had the feeling that they had more opportunities to improve their social
18 position, than when they were confronted with norm followers.
No effects of norm violation or entitlement and no interaction effects were found on feelings of fairness, social economic status, self-esteem, submissiveness or dominance. Unexpected was the fact that no effect of norm violation on power affordance was found, since earlier studies did find this effect (Van Kleef, Homan, Finkenauer, Blaker & Heerdink, 2012). It might be the case that people did not feel like the political candidate in the norm violation story was going to provide them with benefits, which earlier studies showed to be important when it comes to the affordance of power (Van Kleef, Homan, Finkenauer, Blaker & Heerdink, 2012). Possibly, people do not feel like politicians will ever really bring them benefits and therefore the expected effect might not show. This could be tested with an extra questionnaire that would measure the attitude towards politicians. Or a manipulation of norm violation could be used without politicians. But since the interaction effect did show, it can still be stated that the norm violation manipulation worked in this study.
In this study the given explanation for the interaction effect is that people high in entitlement feel that norm violators might threaten their social position and for that reason will not afford power to the norm violators. The effect that was found on the perceived threat measure is consistent with this argument. If this explanation is right, other people who threaten the social position of people high in entitlement should be afforded less power than people who do not cause any threat to this position. This hypothesis could be tested in enterprises, for example, with people who try to sell the same products as the first enterprise on the market. Or with wealthy people who can afford power to people who just won the lottery, and therefore might threaten the high social economic status of the people who were wealthy in the beginning.
19 items did not show any effect. The threat item for which no effect was found (e.g. “Als De Vries premier van Nederland zou worden zou ik het gevoel hebben dat mijn kansen om carrière te maken bedreigd zouden worden”), focuses merely on a future career. People high in entitlement might have feelings of threat regarding their social position and not specifically regarding their career. Since participants were not asked to think about their career before filling out the threat items, the consequences of the election of political leader on their career opportunities might not be on the top of their minds. This might be an explanation for the fact that no effect was found for this item.
The first opportunity item for which no effect was found (e.g. “Als De Vries premier van Nederland zou worden zou ik verwachten dat De Vries’ beleid mogelijkheden voor mij zou creëren”), focuses on the opportunities that the policy of De Vries might offer. Possibly both people high and low in entitlement feel the same way about the extent that politicians can cause opportunities, regardless of the way that they handle norms.
The second opportunity item for which no effect was found (e.g. “Als De Vries premier van Nederland zou worden zou ik mogelijkheden zien om mijn sociale positie te versterken”), looks a lot like the opportunity item for which a main effect was found. This item focuses on the advancement of the social position, while the item that did show a main effect focuses on the improvement of the social position. A possible explanation for the fact that one item did show an effect while the other item did not, is that people low in entitlement who are confronted with norm violators think that their social position might change for the better (improve), that is, they might get into a higher social position. With advancement, people might think that they will stay in the same social position, but that their social position is more assured, meaning they will not degrade in their social position. It is possible that people low in entitlement see norm violators as people that might help them to get into a better social position than the one they are in at that moment. Future studies can try to focus on this, by
20 adding a questionnaire that asks people how a norm violator can help them in life.
The manipulation check that was used for entitlement, showed the opposite effect of what was to be expected. People in the high entitlement condition showed lower scores on the manipulation check than people in the low entitlement condition. Future studies might use another manipulation check than the one that was used here. If this does not change the outcome, than the manipulation of entitlement might have to be changed.
Next, the measured levels of verticality, e.g. social economic status and personality dominance, showed no effect on entitlement. This was expected, since earlier studies did show that a greater sense of dominance (LeBreton, Baysinger, Abbey & Jacques-Tiura, 2013) and a greater sense of status (Piff, 2013) came with a greater sense of entitlement. Besides that, not all levels of verticality, e.g. hierarchical role and expertise, were measured in this study. Since the effect of hierarchical role was not the main interest of this study, the decision was made not to include hierarchical role. Also expertise did not fit in the design of this study. Concluded, no level of verticality showed effects on entitlement. The idea that entitlement is an overlapping construct for all the types of verticality was therefore not supported in this study.
The last obstacle in this study, was the fact that the study conditions were different for everyone who participated. Everybody took the questionnaire at their own time, own
computer, in their own environment and there were no restrictions when it came to the duration to take the test. Because these conditions were different for every participant, it is possible that there are some factors that influence the test results-, although it is difficult to see how such variations could have produced systematic rather than random effects.
Nevertheless, future studies might be taken in a lab, where the conditions are the same for all participants.
21 on the affordance of power. Clearly, it is always possible that more factors exist that have an influence on this link. Examples of possible influential factors are likability of the norm violator and the importance of the subject to the person that affords the power. Future research can look into these options, so the unknown parts of this link can be revealed.
22 Appendix
Martsen Oostenbrug
23 A. Demographics
We willen allereerst graag wat achtergrond informatie van je hebben. Je gegevens zullen natuurlijk anoniem behandeld worden en dienen uitsluitend om een beeld te krijgen van de deelnemers aan dit onderzoek.
Wat is je leeftijd? Wat is je geslacht? - man - vrouw - transgender
De volgende vragen gaan over jouw eerdere en huidige financiële situatie. Geef alsjeblieft aan in hoeverre je het eens bent met de volgende stellingen:
In mijn jeugd had mijn familie meestal genoeg geld om alles te betalen Ik ben in een relatief welvarende buurt opgegroeid
Ik had het financieel goed in vergelijking met andere kinderen op mijn school Ik heb genoeg geld om te kopen wat ik wil hebben
Ik hoef me geen zorgen te maken over het betalen van mijn rekeningen Ik denk dat ik me in de toekomst weinig zorgen hoef te maken over geld Wat is je opleidingsniveau? Kruis de hoogste opleiding aan die je hebt afgerond. Basisonderwijs Voortgezet onderwijs Middelbaar beroepsonderwijs Hoger beroepsonderwijs Universitair onderwijs Postdoctoraal onderwijs Anders, namelijk: …
24 B. Entitlement manipulation (Zitek and Vincent, 2015; Lessard et al., 2011)
We stellen je nu een aantal vragen over jouw positie in de samenleving. Denk s.v.p. goed na over de antwoorden. De minimum tijd per vraag is vastgesteld op 30 seconden.
- Geef drie redenen waarom jij (niet) het beste in het leven zou mogen eisen
- Geef drie redenen waarom jij het (niet) verdient om de carrière te krijgen die jij wilt - Geef drie redenen waarom jij (niet) door iedereen met respect behandeld moet
25 C. Norm violation story (Stamkou et al., in prep)
Stel je voor dat je een politiek debat aanschouwt tussen een aantal belangrijke politieke kandidaten. Aan het eind van het debat vraagt een journalist aan de kandidaten hoe zij denken het land toekomstbestendig te kunnen maken. Politieke kandidaat De Vries antwoordt hierop: “(…) De politieke besluitvorming in ons land wordt van oudsher in sterke mate bepaald door sociale conventies en regels. [Maar die regels zijn er om gebroken te worden / En die regels zijn er voor een reden] – daar geloof ik heilig in. Om ons land toekomstbestendig te maken zal ik alles doen wat binnen mijn vermogen ligt om onze korte- en lange termijn doelen te bereiken. [Daarbij ben ik bereid de regels te overtreden / Daarbij zal ik mij te allen tijde aan de regels houden] om de belangen van alle Nederlanders zo goed mogelijk te behartigen (…)”.
26 D. Power affordance items
Beeld je s.v.p. in dat De Vries zich verkiesbaar stelt voor het lijsttrekkerschap van zijn partij. Wat denk je over De Vries als leider? Je kunt dit aangeven op een 7-punts schaal, waarbij 1 staat voor “totaal mee oneens” en 7 voor “totaal mee eens”.
Ik denk dat De Vries zijn partij goed zou kunnen aansturen.
Ik denk dat De Vries de interesses van de inwoners van Nederland goed zou vertegenwoordigen.
Ik zou een sterke supporter van De Vries zijn.
Als ik zou moeten stemmen, zou ik voor De Vries stemmen. Ik denk dat De Vries een effectieve lijsttrekker zou zijn.
Ik zou vertrouwen hebben in De Vries’ keuzes als De Vries de leider van Nederland was. Ik zou een groot voorstander zijn van De Vries’ ideeën.
27 E. Implementation items
Beeld je s.v.p. in dat De Vries gekozen is tot premier van Nederland. Schrijf hieronder wat jij denkt dat de implicaties van De Vries’ premierschap zullen zijn voor de volgende vier
onderwerpen.
Sociale gelijkheid Arbeidsmogelijkheden Sociale zekerheid Opwaartse mobiliteit
28 F. Threat items
We leggen je nu een aantal stelling voor. Geef s.v.p. steeds aan in hoeverre de stellingen overeenkomen met jouw mening. Je kunt dit doen op een 7-punts schaal, waarbij 1 staat voor “totaal mee oneens” en 7 voor “totaal mee eens”.
Als De Vries premier van Nederland zou worden…
… Zou ik het gevoel hebben dat mijn kansen om carrière te maken bedreigd zouden worden … Zou ik mogelijkheden zien om mijn sociale positie te versterken
… Zou ik het gevoel hebben dat mijn sociale positie onzeker en onstabiel zou zijn … Zou ik mogelijkheden zien om mijn sociale positie te verbeteren
29 G. Norm violation manipulation check items
We leggen je nu een aantal stellingen voor met betrekking tot De Vries’ persoonlijkheid. Geef s.v.p. steeds aan in hoeverre de stellingen volgens jou De Vries’ persoonlijkheid beschrijven. Je kunt dit doen op een 7-punts schaal, waarbij 1 staat voor “totaal mee oneens” en 7 voor “totaal mee eens”.
Houdt zich aan de regels Gedraagt zich gepast Breekt de regels
30 H. Psychological Entitlement Scale (Lessard et al., 2011)
Geef s.v.p. van onderstaande stellingen aan in welke mate je het ermee eens bent. Je kunt dit doen op een 7-punts schaal, waarbij 1 staat voor “totaal mee oneens” en 7 staat voor “totaal mee eens”.
Ik verdien het om met respect behandeld te worden door iedereen
Ik verwacht behandeld te worden met respect, zelfs door hen die rijk en beroemd zijn Ik verdien de beste dingen in het leven
Ik heb er recht op om een carrière te kiezen die ik wil Ik heb er recht op om de beste dingen in het leven te hebben
31 I. Fairness/ Unfairness stories (Ham & Van den Bos, 2007)
We leggen je nu een aantal scenario’s voor. Geef s.v.p. steeds aan in hoeverre de scenario’s volgens jou rechtvaardig of onrechtvaardig zijn. Je kunt dit doen op een 7-punts schaal, waarbij 1 staat voor “totaal onrechtvaardig” en 7 staat voor “totaal rechtvaardig”.
• Je maakt een tentamen van 40 vragen. Er zijn echter zo veel tentamens gemaakt dat de docent deze niet allemaal kan nakijken voor de deadline. De docent besluit om 20 vragen van ieder tentamen na te kijken en het cijfer op basis hiervan te bepalen.
• Aan een gezamenlijk verslag hebben jij en jouw studiegenoot evenveel bijgedragen. Omdat je ziek was kon je echter niet aanwezig zijn bij 2 van de 8 lessen. Hierdoor krijg jij een 6 en je studiegenoot een 8.
• Jij en je collega doen hetzelfde werk. Bij dit bedrijf verdien je 1400 euro per maand. Omdat je collega ouder is verdient hij 2400 euro per maand.
32 J. Threat cross-word puzzle
Zoek s.v.p. alle 12 woorden in de woordzoeker. Je krijgt hier 3 minuten de tijd voor. Na 3 minuten zal je de pagina automatisch verlaten.
-Woorden kunnen horizontaal (van links naar rechts) en verticaal (van boven naar beneden) en diagonaal (schuin) staan.
-Schrijf de gevonden woorden onder de puzzel op.
- De verstopte woorden zijn geen voorzetsels (in, op, bij, etc.)
- De verstopte woorden zijn allemaal zelfstandige naamwoorden (bijvoorbeeld: schilderij) - De verstopte woorden zijn alleen Nederlandse woorden
- De verstopte woorden zijn alleen bestaande woorden - De verstopte woorden zijn allemaal langer dan 4 letters
33 K. Self-Esteem
De volgende vragen gaan over jou. Beantwoord ze alsjeblieft zo eerlijk mogelijk. Geef s.v.p. bij de items hieronder aan in welke mate het jouw eigen overtuigingen reflecteert. Je kunt dit doen op een 7-punts schaal, waarbij 1 staat voor “totaal mee oneens” en 7 voor “totaal mee eens”.
Ik vind dat ik een aantal goede kwaliteiten heb
Ik heb over het algemeen een positieve houding ten opzichte van mijzelf Al met al ben ik geneigd mezelf een mislukking te vinden
Ik vind dat ik tenminste evenveel waard ben als anderen Ik zou willen dat ik meer respect voor mezelf kon hebben Soms voel ik me beslist nutteloos
Over het geheel genomen ben ik tevreden met mezelf Soms vind ik dat ik nergens voor deug
Ik ben in staat om dingen net zo goed te doen als de meeste anderen Ik vind dat ik niet veel heb om trots op te zijn
34 L. Trait Dominance/ Submissiveness (Wiggins, 1973)
Tot slot willen we je vragen om van de onderstaande woorden aan te geven in welke mate deze jouw eigen gevoel op dit moment beschrijven. Je kunt dit doen op een 7-punts schaal, waarbij 1 staat voor “totaal mee oneens” en 7 voor “totaal mee eens”.
Zelfverzekerd Vol zelfvertrouwen Assertief Hardnekkig Standvastig Dominant Krachtig Bazig Timide Bedeesd Verlegen Zachtmoedig Machteloos Niet autoritatief Behoedzaam Onagressief
35 References
Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (2001). Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 116 – 132. DOI: 10.1037///0022-3514.81.1.116
Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American psychologist, 36 (2), 129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.2.129
Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L., Lundberg, K. B., Kay, A. C., & Payne, B. K. (2015). Subjective status shapes political preferences. Psychological Science, 26 (1), 15 – 26. DOI:
10.1177/0956797614553947
Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004).
Psychological Entitlement: Interpersonal Consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality assessment, 83 (1), 29 – 45. DOI:
10.1207/s15327752jpa8301_04
Chen, Y. R., Brockner, J., Greenberg, J. (2003). When is it “a pleasure to do business with you?” The effects of relative status, outcome favourability, and procedural fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92(1), 1 – 21. DOI: 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00062-1
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance.
36 De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2005). When and why leaders put themselves first: leader
behaviour in resource allocations as a function of feeling entitled. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(4), 553 – 563. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.260
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Guinote, A., & Vescio, T. K. (Eds.) (2010). The social psychology of power. New York: Guilford.
Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & Smith LeBeau, L. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 898 – 924. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.989
Ham, J., & Van den Bos, K. (2007). Not fair for me! The influence of personal relevance on social justice inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 699 – 705. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.04.009
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological review, 110(2), 265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
LeBreton, J. M., Baysinger, M. A., Abbey, A., & Jacques-Tiura, A.J. (2013). The relative importance of psychopathy-related traits in predicting impersonal sex and hostile masculinity. Personality and Individual Differeces, 55 (7), 817 – 822. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.009
Lessard, J., Greenberger, E., Chen, C., & Farruggia, S. (2011). Are youths’ feelings of entitlement always “bad”?: Evidence for a distinction between exploitive and non-exploitive dimensions of entitlement. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 521 – 529. DOI: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.05.014
37 Margaret Thatcher. (n.d.). BrainyQuote.com. Retrieves February 25, 2015, from
BrainyQuote.com Web site:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/margaretth109592.html
Piff, P. K. (2013). Wealth and the inflated self class, entitlement, and narcissism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40 (1), 34 – 43. DOI: 10.1177/0146167213501699
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Stamkou, Van Kleef, Homan, & Galinsky (in preparation). How perceiver's verticality shapes reactions to norm violators.
Stouten, J., De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2005). I’m doing the best I can (for myself): Leadership and variance of harvesting in resource dilemmas. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(3), 205 – 211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.9.3.205
Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Finkenauer, C., Blaker, N. M., Heerdink, M. W. (2012). Prosocial norm violations fuel power affordance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 937 – 942. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.022
Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Finkenauer, C., Gündemir, & Stamkou, E. (2011). Breaking the rules to rise to power: How norm violators gain power in the eyes of others. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(5), 500 – 507. DOI:
10.1177/1948550611398416
Wiggins, J. W. Personality and prediction: Principles of personality assessment. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1973.
38 Zitek, E. M., & Jordan, A. H. (in preperation). Entitled people support hierarchy more.
Zitek, E. M., Jordan, A. H., Monin, B., & Leach, F. R. (2010). Victim entitlement to behave selfishly. Journal of Personaltiy and Social Psychology, 98, 245 – 255.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017168
Zitek, E. M., & Vincent, L. C. (2015). Deserve and Diverge: Feeling entitled makes people more creative. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 242 – 248. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.10.006
