Fall 2005 social sem presentation Academic Entitlement - early vignette data

8/9/2019 Fall 2005 social sem presentation Academic Entitlement - early vignette data

1/20

1

Sense of Entitlement:

Implications in the Classroom

of a Consumer Attitude

toward Education


2/20

2

Entitlement: where we are

Defined: expectancy of success

without responsibility

Chronology:

Scale development, 2002-2004

Vignettes, spring 2005

Validation, fall 2005


3/20

3

SENT scale development

2002

Generation of items

Factor analysis

2004

Rewording items

Open-ended vignettes

2005 Vignette response selection

Vignette data collection


4/20

4

PCA

Component 1: entitlement

11 items

Alpha = .760 (FA05), .818 (SP05)

Component 2: approach

4 items

Alpha = .770 (FA05), .808 (SP05)


5/20

5

Vignette measure

In a humanities course, the professor regularly discusses

material not in the assigned readings. As you are taking

the midterm, you realize that several of the questions are

not from the textbook (which you studied). While it was

likely covered in class, you studied only the assigned

readings and thus will not perform as well as you had

expected on this exam.

In this situation, how likelyis it that you would make the

following statements/thoughts?


6/20

6

Vignette measure

That is stupid. The teacher should be upfront onwhether they will teach from the book or not andthey should tell you what will be on the tests.

It is difficult to try to decide what is trivial FYImaterial in most lectures. The testable materialshould come from a reliable textbook source

only.

I would complain to the professor who misled me!


7/20

7

Available data Spring 2005

Vignettes and responses

Likelihood and appropriateness ratings

Consensus of appropriateness from

expert raters


8/20

8

Subject-matter experts

21 instructors & professors, 1 to 37 yearsteaching experience

0 (Highly Inappropriate) to 5 (Highly appropriate)

Selection of appropriate and inappropriatevignette responses

Inappropriate 4.00 (22items)

Alpha Reliability of .808 (Appropriate) and .856(Inappropriate)

PCA eigenvalues of 5.347 (Appropriate) and 4.627(Inappropriate)


9/20

9

Variables of interest

SENT Entitlement

SENT Approach

Psychological Entitlement Scale

Conscientiousness

Likelihood rating of appropriate items

Appropriateness rating of appropriate items

Likelihood rating of inappropriate items

Appropriateness rating of inappropriate items


10/20

10

Predicting Appropriate Responses

Likelihood of appropriate items

= 1.047 + .118 (Con) + .662 (Appropriateness) + e

R = .477, F = 146.241, p < .001

Likelihood of appropriate items

= 3.554 + .154 (Con) - .252 (Sent) + e

R = .100, F = 18.457, p < .001

Appropriateness of appropriate items = 4.305 - .342 (Sent) + e

R = .117, F = 43.276, p < .001


11/20

11

Predicting Inappropriate Responses

Likelihood of inappropriate items = .827 + .285 (Sent) + .570 (Appropriateness) + e

R = .626, F = 272.494, p


12/20

12

SENT

Appropriateness

rating

Likelihood of

inappropriate

items

Mediation: Inappropriate Items

.558 .506

.667


13/20

13

SENT

Appropriateness

rating

Likelihood of

appropriate

items

Mediation: Appropriate items

-.203 .590

-.140


14/20

14

Correlates: Academic

Academic Self-Efficacy (Paulhus, 1983)

Contingencies of Self-Worth(Crocker,

2003)

Academic, Competitive, Others

Approval

Strategic Flexibility (Cantwell & Moore, 1996)


15/20

15

Correlates: Self-Focus

Fear of Negative Evaluation (Leary, 1983)

Self-Consciousness (Scheier & Carver, 1985)

Public S-C, Social Anxiety, and Private S-C

Self-Reflectiveness, Internal State Awareness

Levels of Self-Criticism Scale Self-Esteem (Rosenberg, 1989)


16/20

16

Correlates: Personality

Balanced Inventory of Desirable

Responding

Big Five Inventory

Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,

Neuroticism

Narcissistic Personality Inventory

Psychological Entitlement Scale


17/20

17

Correlates: Academic Threat

Self-Handicapping (Jones & Berglas, 1978)

Imposter Phenomenon (Clance, 1985)

Defensive Pessimism (Norem & Cantor, 1986;Norem, 2001)

Subjective Overachievement (Oleson et al.,2000)


18/20

18

Fall 2005 Analyses

Potential correlates from prescreening

and data collection

Test-retest sense of entitlement scale Looking ahead: behavioral validations?


19/20

19

Consumer Attitudes?

How to name the scale?

Focuses on academic domain as opposed

to more general entitlement Not just domain-specific PES-entitlement

Perhaps something special about consumer-

based attitudes

Why are these attitudes more related to

negative reactions to academic situations

than PES entitlement?


20/20

20

Entitlement Testimonials

I have a question regarding the Application

Assignment #2. Whoever graded mine gave me a

ninety, and said that marijuana should have been in

the hallucinogen category. Now seeing as how thisTA has probably never smoked a joint before, I find

it hard for him/her to have the ability to tell me (one

who used to smoke marijuana daily) that pot is a

hallucinogen! Not once did I ever hallucinate fromsmoking marijuana. So please inform KB, whoever

that is, that he/she needs to smoke a joint before

counting off on my paper.

Fall 2005 social sem presentation Academic Entitlement - early vignette data

Documents

Transcript of Fall 2005 social sem presentation Academic Entitlement - early vignette data