Journal of Business and Psychology https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9557-6

ORIGINAL PAPER

Getting to Excess: Psychological Entitlement and Negotiation Attitudes

Lukas Neville 1 & Glenda M. Fisk2

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract In this paper, we extend the literature on psychological entitlement to the domain of negotiation. Psychological entitlement describes a tendency to demand excessive and unearned rewards. For negotiators, entitlement is associated not only with individually beneficial attitudes, like aspirations, first offer intentions and self-efficacy, but also with contentious and unethical approaches to bargaining. As such, we argue that entitlement in negotiation may function as a social trap: The functional negotiation attitudes it engenders are likely to result in personally favourable outcomes for the entitled negotiator, reinforcing and 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 methodological limitations of our study and by proposing a research agenda for management, personality and negotiation researchers interested in mitigating the effects of entitlement in negotiating.

Keywords Negotiation . Psychological entitlement . Personality . Individual differences

A half century of research in the bargaining and negotiation drives individual profit and performance in negotiation (Zetik literature might encourage negotiators to ask for as much as &Stuhlmacher,2002; Halpert, Stuhlmacher, Crenshaw, possible. Classic bargaining research shows that negotiators Litcher, & Bortel, 2010). As Swift and Moore (2012:266) with high aspirations earn better individual outcomes by mak- summarize, Bthe more you think you deserve…the more you ing larger demands, offering smaller concessions and being less demand, and the more you actually get^. willing to settle on unfavourable terms (Siegel & Fouraker, Some people reliably feel they are owed special treatment 1960). When negotiators focus on their aspirations, they achieve and unearned rewards. This stable, enduring sense of personal higher gains (Galinsky, Mussweiler, & Medvec, 2002), even deservingness has been labelled psychological entitlement,a when they have poor alternatives (Brett, Pinkley, & Jackofsky, trait with pernicious effects on conflict, deviance and aggres- 1996). Two meta-analyses affirm that ambitious goal-setting sion in classrooms (Miller, 2013; Taylor, Bailey, & Barber, 2015), families (George-Levi, Vilchinsky, Tolmacz, & Liberman, 2014) and workplaces (Tomlinson, 2013; * Lukas Neville Naumann, Minsky, & Sturman, 2002), among other contexts. [email protected] But little research has directly considered the impact of psy- chological entitlement in the negotiation context, despite a Glenda M. Fisk revival of interest in individual differences among negotiation [email protected] researchers (Elfenbein, 2015;Kong,2015; ten Brinke, Black, Porter, & Carney, 2015; Elfenbein, Curhan, Eisenkraft, 1 Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba, 412 Drake Centre, 181 Freedman Crescent, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 5V4, Shirako, & Baccaro, 2008). Canada In this paper, we develop and test the prediction that psy- 2 Employment Relations, Queen’s University, 227 Robert Sutherland chological entitlement will serve as a double-edged sword in Hall, 138 Union Street, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada the negotiation context, promoting negotiation attitudes that J Bus Psychol are individually advantageous, but at an ethical and relational and diminished empathy and perspective-taking (Campbell et cost. In so doing, we describe entitlement as a Bsocial trap^ al., 2004). As a result, dealing with the entitled can be a source (Campbell & Buffardi, 2008), in which destructive and uneth- of stress for others (Hochwarter, Summers, Thompson, ical behaviours may be rewarded and reinforced, further ex- Perrewé, & Ferris, 2010; Fisk & Neville, 2011). The dominant acerbating their expression. perspective in the literature is that psychological entitlement’s In particular, we demonstrate that (1) psychological entitle- effects are negative, maladaptive and antisocial. ment is associated with attitudes related to effective claiming Psychological entitlement is related to, but distinct from, a in negotiation but that (2) entitlement is also associated with constellation of other constructs. Among them is self-serving attitudes that promote contentious conflict styles and unethical bias or the cognitive and perceptual distortions individuals negotiating. We show that (3) entitlement explains variance in engage in to maintain or boost their self-esteem (e.g. these dark and light negotiation attitudes above and beyond Babcock & Loewenstein, 1997; Miller & Ross, 1975). Self- previously explored personality traits. Finally, we conclude by serving bias involves an attributional style that ascribes suggesting a research agenda for those interested in how we favourable outcomes or events to personal factors and nega- might manage or mitigate the unethical and contentious be- tive outcomes or events to external factors (e.g. Campbell & haviour associated with psychological entitlement. Reflecting Sedikides, 1999). But despite their conceptual relatedness, on our results, we suggest that negotiation is an important studies have found mixed results when examining the associ- context for entitlement, since it provides the entitled a venue ation between entitlement and self-serving perceptual distor- in which to make, and be rewarded for, excessive claims—and tions. Some find weak or null associations between entitle- to exert their pernicious effects on others. ment and self-enhancing biases like unrealistic optimism about the likelihood of obtaining positive outcomes or avoiding negative ones (Tamborski, Brown, & Chowning, 2012: study 1; Zitek & Jordan, 2017: study 4). Others suggest Psychological Entitlement that entitlement’s effects may be mediated through various forms of perceptual distortion, including self-serving attribu- Individuals high in psychological entitlement ask for more than tions (Harvey & Martinko, 2009; Harvey, Harris, Gillis, & is (objectively) their due and respond aggressively when these Martinko, 2014). Jordan and colleagues, in their recent review excessive demands are not met (Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, of the entitlement literature, conclude that entitlement and 1 Exline, & Bushman, 2004). While there has been interest in self-serving bias are related but non-redundant (Jordan, the idea that certain situations may elicit variability in Ramsey, & Westerlaken, 2017). Overall, self-serving biases entitlement-driven behaviour, supporting the notion that per- can mediate entitlement’s effects, or interact with entitlement sonality can encompass both trait and state-like tendencies (e.g. to exacerbate its effects, but entitlement is conceptually and Zitek & Vincent, 2015;Piff,2014), psychological entitlement empirically distinct, with a wide range of mechanisms at play is frequently and most commonly conceptualized and mea- and effects on behaviours and attitudes that extend beyond sured as a personality trait (e.g. Campbell et al., 2004; self-serving bias. Grubbs & Exline, 2016). Trait definitions suggest relative con- sistency in terms of how entitlement impacts individuals’ thoughts, feelings and behaviour across time and context (see Negotiation Costa & McCrae, 1990). Generally speaking, and consistent with this notion of it being a trait, entitlement is a proximal Negotiation occurs B… anytime people cannot achieve their driver of individual cognition (e.g. anxiety, depression; Muris, goals without the cooperation of others^ (Thompson, Wang, 2006; Tritt, Ryder, Ring, & Pincus, 2010), emotion (e.g. anger &Gunia,2010: 492). While we often think of negotiation in at God; Grubbs, Exline, & Campbell, 2013) and behaviour terms of infrequent, high-stakes, formal negotiations (buying (e.g. claiming, cheating; Brown, Budzek, & Tamborski, a home or negotiating one’s salary, for instance), the domain 2009;Campbelletal.,2004). Other negative consequences of negotiations is far broader. We negotiate with work col- include hostility (Moeller, Crocker, & Bushman, 2009), con- leagues about how to divide tasks; we negotiate with family flict (Harvey & Martinko, 2009), frustration and politicking at members about the division of household labour. Managers ’ work (Harvey & Harris, 2010), impatience (O Brien, negotiate with employees, clients, suppliers, partners, Anastasio, & Bushman, 2011), dissatisfaction (Byrne, Miller, shareholders and board members. Academics negotiate & Pitts, 2010), the unwillingness to apologize (Exline, about authorship, artists negotiate with dealers and parents Baumeister, Bushman, Campbell, & Finkel, 2004), selfishness negotiate with children. As Fisher, Ury, and Patton (2011) argue: BLike it or not, you are a negotiator^. 1 This definition of entitlement is distinct from deservingness, which is based on legitimate and proportionate claims to rewards (e.g., Feather, 1999;see The focus of our paper is on negotiations, both formal and Tomlinson, 2013, for a review of this distinction). informal. Throughout, we will think about negotiation as a JBusPsychol process that involves both creating value (growing the while making few concessions of their own. We expect enti- bargaining surplus through integrative negotiation) and tlement, therefore, to be positively associated with distributive claiming value (dividing the bargaining surplus through dis- negotiation self-efficacy (i.e. confidence in the ability to effec- tributive negotiation). For readers unacquainted with these tively claim value in negotiation). topics, we recommend the excellent reviews of Bazerman It remains unclear whether entitled negotiators’ confidence and colleagues (Bazerman, Curhan, Moore, & Valley, 2000) in their own skill will extend to negotiations that involve and of Thompson and colleagues (Thompson et al., 2010). In mixed motives and cooperation (i.e. integrative bargaining). this paper, we tend to focus on negotiation between principals As we discuss later, entitled negotiators may well have atti- (those negotiating for themselves); while our findings may tudes that impede their ability to gain through cooperation in generalize to negotiations conducted on behalf of others, we negotiation. But will they shy away from integrative do not directly consider the questions of agency and represen- bargaining? Given the high global positive self-regard felt tation here. by the entitled (Campbell et al., 2004), entitled individuals will still feel highly proficient in integrative negotiation. Of course (as we later argue), the entitled have an aggressive and Entitlement and Negotiation Efficacy self-serving interpersonal style that likely undermines their actual efficiency in such situations (e.g. Hochwarter et al., The willingness to demand special treatment and unearned 2010) but may be unwilling or unable to acknowledge such benefits may advantage the psychologically entitled in nego- shortcomings. We therefore expect that the entitled will feel tiation. Not only does psychological entitlement contribute to more self-efficacious as negotiators—particularly in terms of the formation of high aspirations, but entitlement also in- distributive bargaining, but even in terms of integrative volves establishing excessive and self-serving goals (Fisk, negotiations: 2010), often as a means to advance or preserve one’s self- image (Moeller et al., 2009). Entitled negotiators, convinced Hypothesis 3. Psychological entitlement will be positive- of their own inherent deservingness, will likely set aspiration ly associated with both (a) felt distributive negotiation points for themselves far higher than might be expected from self-efficacy and (b) felt integrative negotiation self- any objective set of standards. Aspirations are important to efficacy. negotiation, because they are robustly associated with individ- ual gains in negotiation (Siegel & Fouraker, 1960;Zetik& Thus far, our predictions have focused on the advantages of Stuhlmacher, 2002; Halpert et al., 2010;Galinskyetal.,2002; entitlement: The entitled negotiator will be self-efficacious, set Brett et al., 1996). high aspirations and make first offers. These are, at least from We might also expect that high-entitlement negotiators the perspective of maximizing individual gains, desirable at- would be more likely to want to make first offers, since aspi- titudes. But entitled negotiators are likely to be far more than rations are strongly associated with the willingness to make simply aspirational, efficacious bargainers. Research on enti- first offers (see Barry & Friedman, 1998, Table 1). The will- tlement in other contexts suggests that entitlement is associat- ingness to make a first offer is similarly important in negotia- ed with selfishness (Campbell et al., 2004), hostility (Moeller tion, because first offers signal resolve and create psycholog- et al., 2009), bias toward rivals (Anastasio & Rose, 2014)and ical anchors, leading those making them to benefit (Gunia, a range of other hostile attitudes and behaviours. There is Swaab, Sivanathan, & Galinsky, 2013). We expect entitled reason to believe that entitlement will engender a number of negotiators to set ambitious goals and to express their ambi- destructive, counterproductive and unethical attitudes in tion in the form of first offers. negotiation. In particular, we expect that entitled negotiators will adopt Hypothesis 1: Psychological entitlement will be positive- an approach in bargaining that is aggressive and competitive. ly associated with aspiration levels in negotiation. While no previous work has studied psychological entitlement Hypothesis 2: Psychological entitlement will be positive- and negotiation, research on equity sensitivity and narcissism ly associated with the tendency to make the first offer in suggests that feelings of excessive deservingness are associat- negotiation. ed with a distributive orientation, contentious or deceitful ne- gotiating tactics, self-serving behaviours and expressed lower Psychological entitlement is rooted in inflated and relational concerns (Greenhalgh & Gilkey, 1997;Milleretal., Bpositive, if unrealistic, self-perceptions^ (Harvey & Harris, 2011; King & Hinson, 1994; Mintu-Wimsatt & Graham, 2010: 1641). The entitled demand disproportionate rewards 2004). Taken together, we expect that entitled negotiators are because they are convinced they are inherently worthy of them more likely to engage in a dominating style of negotiation, (Harvey & Harris, 2010). We expect them, therefore, to feel characterized by high self-interest and low concern for others highly confident about their ability to extract concessions (Rahim & Magner, 1995). As a corollary, we expect that the J Bus Psychol entitled will see negotiation less as a cooperative process of stabilize at n = 250 (Schönbrodt & Perugini, 2013). The par- joint gains and more as a zero-sum contest (Bfixed pie ticipants’ average age was 44 years (SD = 13.5). Sixty-three perceptions^; Pinkley, Griffith, & Northcraft, 1995). percent were employed full- or part-time, while 21% were unemployed, 12% were retired and 4% were full-time Hypothesis 4(a). Psychological entitlement will be posi- students. tively associated with the endorsement of a dominating conflict style in negotiation. Hypothesis 4(b). Psychological entitlement will be posi- Procedure tively associated with fixed pie perceptions. Participants were recruited by the panel service to complete an The entitled are prone to responding aggressively to ego online study in exchange for points redeemable for cash or gift threat (Campbell et al., 2004), and the theory of threatened cards. After providing informed consent, participants complet- egotism suggests unethicality can be an aggressive response ed an online questionnaire containing the measures described to ego threat (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996). In the below.2 The measures were presented in counterbalanced or- bargaining context, if negotiators are convinced they will be der in order to protect against order effects and mitigate the offered inadequate deals unreflective of their inherent threat of response sets (Conway & Lance, 2010). deservingness, they may be willing to endorse unethical or inappropriate tactics to claim what they feel is their due—for instance, making false promises, misrepresenting their posi- Measures tion or interests and telling partial truths (e.g. Lewicki, 1983; Robinson, Lewicki, & Donahue, 2000). Psychological Entitlement Entitlement was measured using Because negotiation involves hidden preferences and pri- the 9-item (α = 0.892) Psychological Entitlement Scale vate information, it naturally provides chances for gains (PES; Campbell et al., 2004), scored on a 7-point Likert scale, through opportunism (Murnighan, Babcock, Thompson, & from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A sample item Pillutla, 1999). If entitlement is associated with contentious- for this scale reads, BIhonestlyfeelI’m just more deserving ness, it provides further reason to expect unethical negotiating than others^. While the items appear extreme, previous work strategies to be endorsed more often by those high in entitle- shows that the scale is weakly correlated (Campbell et al., ment, since such styles are associated with the endorsement of 2004: study 2) or uncorrelated (Zeigler-Hill & Wallace, unethical tactics (Lewicki & Robinson, 1998). Overall, the 2011: study 3) with measures of socially desirable responding prediction that entitled negotiators will endorse unethical tac- and that responses to the scale do not change when partici- tics is consistent with previous research, which demonstrates pants think they are connected to a polygraph or when they entitlement’s relationship with unethical behaviours, ranging think others will see their responses (Brunell & Fisher, 2014). from research misconduct (Tamborski et al., 2012)tominor acts of theft (Campbell et al., 2004). Aspiration Level With reference to their most recent negotia- tion, participants completed a three-item scale (α =0.913)de- Hypothesis 5. Psychological entitlement will be positive- veloped for this study, scored on a 7-point rating scale (1 = ly associated with the endorsement of unethical tactics in extremely low; 7 = extremely high). The items read: (1) BHow negotiation. high were your aspirations (goals) for this negotiation, in terms of the benefits you hoped to gain?^;(2)BHow high were your objectives for this negotiation, in terms of how you hoped to do compared to your counterpart?^ and (3) BHow Study 1 high were your aims for this negotiation, in terms of how challenging a goal you set for yourself?^ Method

2 Consistent with standards for transparency in the reporting of psychological Participants research (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011), the following variables were gathered but not reported in this manuscript: equity sensitivity, relational Three hundred and twenty-five American and Canadian adults self-esteem, trait positive and negative affect, the NPI entitlement subscale and a cognitive negotiation anxiety scale. We also had brief measures of Big Five (56% female) were recruited through Clearvoice, a commer- neuroticism and agreeableness (using TIPI and BFI-10 items), but the agree- cial panel service. The sample size was determined in ad- ableness measure lacked adequate reliability (α = 0.561), so we examine the vance, based on an expected yield of 300 complete surveys. relationship between these constructs and entitlement in study 3 instead. The full dataset and scripts are posted to the Open Science Framework repository at We assume that this sample size is adequate to the task based https://osf.io/k35qg/. The correlations between these variables and the study on previous research suggesting that correlations tend to variables are presented in Table 1. JBusPsychol

Negotiation Self-efficacy Participants completed an 8-item, 2-

0.089) subscale measure of negotiation self-efficacy (Sullivan, − O’Connor, & Burris, 2006). Participants rated their ability to

= 0.561 use 4 distributive (α = 0.927) and 4 integrative negotiation ɑ 0.299 to 0.399 to 0.199) 0.312 to 0.104) α − techniques ( = 0.922). Confidence using each technique, in − − 0.195 to 0.021) 0.198 to 0.020) 0.198 to 0.020) − − general, was rated from 0 (no confidence) to 100 (complete − confidence). An example of integrative negotiation self- .090 ( 0.088 ( .211*** ( 0.090 ( .302*** ( 0.196*** ( efficacy had participants rate their ability to Bgive in on some − − − − − − issues in order to get an advantage on other issues^,whilean example of distributive negotiation self-efficacy was the abil- ity to Bgain the upper hand against the other negotiator^. 0.327) .250*** (0.144 to 0.350) 0.253) .126* (0.016 to 0.233) 0.103) .193*** (0.084 to 0.297) − − − 0.011) − Preference for Making First Offers We used a single-item, di-

= 0.786 Agreeableness chotomous measure of participants’ preference for making the 0.507 to 0.446 to 0.314 to ɑ − − − 0.227 to 0.217 to 0.002) initial offer in negotiation. Participants were asked whether 0.200 to 0.019) − − 0.001 to 0.216) − 0.018 to 0.198) 0.081 to 0.137)

− they prefer to make the first offer or let their counterpart make ( − † the first offer. .421*** ( .354*** ( .211*** ( .092 ( .111* ( .121* ( − − − − − − Negotiation Style To assess negotiation style, participants completed the 5-item dominating (α = 0.841) subscale of Rahim and Magner’s(1995) Organizational Conflict Inventory (ROCI-II), adapted to fit the negotiation context. For each of the five items, with reference to negotiation in = 0.625 Neuroticism

ɑ general, participants indicated their (dis)agreement on a 5- point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

NPI-E An example item reads, BIamfirminpursuingmysideofthe negotiation^. To further measure the degree to which the enti- tled prioritize self-interest over concern for others, participants 0.365) .136* (0.027 to 0.243) 0.321) .242*** (0.135 to 0.343)

0.044) .196*** (0.087 to 0.300) were asked to rank the importance of self-interest against four − − − other considerations (a smooth process, feeling good after- = 0.822

ɑ wards, building a relationship and helping the other party). 0.161 to 0.110 to 0.260 to − − −

0.006 to 0.212) .383*** (0.285 to 0.473) ’ 0.031 to 0.188) .182** (0.073 to 0.287) 0.058 to 0.160) .129* (0.020 to 0.235) .028 ( Fixed Pie Perceptions Participants view of negotiation as a − ( − − B ^ α † zero-sum fixed pie was assessed using two items ( = .266*** ( .218*** ( .154** ( 0.698) drawn from Marks and Harold (2011). Participants − − − Negative affect (I-PANAS-SF) indicated their (dis)agreement with these statements (e.g. BNegotiation is almost always a process of one’sgainover the other^ and BNegotiation is a confrontation between sides ^

= 0.899 with opposite goals ), with reference to negotiation in general, ɑ on a 7-point Likert scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 0.206 to 0.011) .052 ( − 0.153 to 0.066) .451*** (0.359 to 0.534) .336*** (0.235 to 0.430) .109 0.154 to 0.064) .278*** (0.174 to 0.376) .272*** (0.167 to 0.370) .091 ( − (strongly agree). ( 0.041 to 0.178) .079 ( − − † −

and upper level 95% confidence intervals ’ 0.098 .044 ( .046 ( Unethical Negotiation Behaviours To measure participants − − − Positive affect (I-PANAS-SF) < .001

udy variables and supplementary variables, study 1 willingness to employ unethical negotiation tactics, we used Hershfield, Cohen and Thompson’s(2012) 13-item adaptation of the Self ‐reported Inappropriate Negotiation Strategies Scale

< .01; *** p II (SINS-II; α = 0.977). The original SINS taps items that describe competitive bargaining broadly; Hershfield and col- leagues’ revised scale focuses on the items with the lowest < .05; ** p endorsement rates—that is, the items that most clearly Correlations between st operationalize the endorsement of negotiation unethicality. A B ’

< .10; * p sample item reads, gain information about an opponent s tactics (SINS-II) p 6. Dominating style (ROCI-II) .234*** (0.128 to 0.335) .104 5. Integrative self-efficacy .446*** (0.353 to 0.530) 4. Distributive self-efficacy .432*** (0.338 to 0.518) 3. First offer propensity .069 ( 2. Aspiration level .352*** (0.251 to 0.445) 9. Endorsement of unethical 7. Self-interest priority 1. Entitlement (PES) .160** (0.052 to 0.265) .173** (0.065 to 0.277) .504*** (0.418 to 0.582) Figures in parentheses represent lower 8. Fixed-pie perceptions Table 1 † negotiation position by cultivating his/her friendship through J Bus Psychol expensive gifts, entertaining, or personal favors^.Participants Discussion rated each tactic on a 7-point scale from 1 (not at all appropri- ate) to 7 (very much appropriate), with reference to negotia- Psychological entitlement is associated with an ambitious, tions in general. self-efficacious, but confrontational approach to negotia- tion. Consistent with our expectations, the entitled negoti- Results ator’s sense of self-efficacy extends to both distributive and integrative contexts. The entitled set high negotiation We found, as expected, significant associations between psycho- targets for themselves and prefer to move first. In negotia- logical entitlement and a range of effective negotiation attitudes. tion, this is a potent combination: Those who make strong In hypothesis 1, we predicted that entitlement would cor- first offers claim a larger share of the bargaining surplus relate positively with aspiration levels. We asked participants (Gunia et al., 2013), as do those with high goals and self- to rate their aspiration level in their most recent negotiation. efficacy (Brett et al., 1996). The types of recalled negotiations included car purchases, Nevertheless, psychological entitlement may also drive salary negotiations, cell phone contracts and other personal contentious and unethical approaches to negotiation, making and professional negotiations. We found that entitlement was entitled individuals undesirable bargaining adversaries. We significantly associated with aspirations, r(315) = .233, p found a strong association between entitlement and a domi- < .001, such that entitled negotiators were more likely to have nating negotiating style, a zero-sum approach to negotiation, set high aims for themselves in these recent negotiations. and the endorsement of a series of negotiation tactics widely As predicted in hypothesis 2, entitlement was also associ- considered unethical. Negotiators high in entitlement are will- ated with greater willingness to make the first offer, ing to sacrifice relational ties to achieve self-interested gains. r(317) = .202, p < .001. Entitlement was positively associated Interestingly, despite their confrontational and unethical ap- with both distributive self-efficacy, r(318) = .288, p < .001, proach, the entitled do not necessarily shy away from integra- and integrative self-efficacy, r(320) = .126, p = .024, consis- tive and potentially positive-sum bargaining situations. The — tent with hypothesis 3a and 3b. tendency of the entitled to see themselves as skilful even — However, as expected, psychological entitlement was also in integrative tactics suggests that they may bring these de- associated with contentious and unethical attitudes toward ne- structive tactics to the table in negotiation contexts in which gotiation. Consistent with hypothesis 4a, those higher in enti- they are poorly suited. 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- Study 2 ated with fixed pie perceptions (Bzero-sum^ bias), r(323) = .399, p < .001. Lastly, as we predicted in hypothesis Study 1 explored the relationship between psychological en- 5, entitlement was significantly associated with the endorse- titlement and negotiation attitudes. Entitled negotiators were ment of unethical negotiation tactics, r(320) = .562, p <.001. more likely to be self-efficacious and ambitious, but they were The results, including 95% confidence intervals around the also more likely to endorse unethical tactics and a contentious correlations, are presented in Table 2. approach to resolving conflict. Previous studies on personality To test the robustness of these associations, we also ran a and negotiation suggest similar effects for narcissism, a per- B ^ partial correlation, controlling for trait positive and negative sonality trait describing a positive, inflated view of the self , affects (Thompson, 2007) and for the entitlement subscale of which drives assertive, attention-seeking behaviour in the pur- the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) (Raskin & Terry, suit of self-enhancement (Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Keith 1988).3 The correlations between entitlement and each of the Campbell, & Bushman, 2008). study variables were reduced somewhat in magnitude, but Narcissists have been noted to trust others less in nego- each remains statistically significant in the originally reported tiation (Kong, 2015), are trusted and liked less by their direction. While this may underestimate the magnitude of the counterparts (Park, Ferrero, Colvin, & Carney, 2013)and B ^ associations (by partialling out variance shared between the are more likely to think of negotiations as zero-sum win/ PES and NPI-E), it suggests that the results are not confound- lose contests (ten Brinke et al., 2015). Most importantly, ed by trait affect and reaffirms previous findings that the ef- narcissism has previously been shown to predict the en- fects of entitlement are inadequately captured by the NPI en- dorsement of unethical tactics in negotiation (Cohen, titlement subscale (Campbell et al., 2004: 30). We present the Panter, Turan, Morse, & Kim, 2014), which raises the pos- partial correlation results in Table 3. sibility that our observed association between entitlement and unethicality is due to narcissism as an unobserved 3 We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion. confound. JBusPsychol

Table 2 Correlations between entitlement and negotiation attitudes, study 1

M SD123

1. Entitlement (PES) 3.922 1.204 .892 2. Aspiration level 4.848 1.229 .233*** (0.126 to 0.335) .913 3. First offer propensity 1.672 .0470 .202*** (0.094 to 0.305) .016 (− 0.096 to 0.126) – † 4. Distributive self-efficacy 61.680 21.380 .288*** (0.184 to 0.385) .347*** (0.245 to 0.441) .095 (− 0.017 to 0.203) 5. Integrative self-efficacy 70.190 20.160 .126* (0.017 to 0.233) .387*** (0.288 to 0.477) .039 (− 0.072 to 0.149) 6. Dominating style (ROCI-II) 3.331 0.769 .519*** (0.435 to 0.595) .386*** (0.288 to 0.476) .148** (0.038 to 0.254) 7. Self-interest priority 3.083 1.443 .229*** (0.123 to 0.330) − .037 (− 0.074 to 0.147) .040 (− 0.149 to 0.071) 8. Fixed-pie perceptions 4.186 1.387 .399*** (0.304 to 0.487) .157** (0.047 to 0.263) .147** (0.037 to 0.253) 9. Endorsement of unethical 2.744 1.739 .562*** (0.482 to 0.633) .081 (− 0.030 to 0.190) .268*** (0.163 to 0.368) tactics (SINS-II)

456789

1. Entitlement (PES) 2. Aspiration level 3. First offer propensity 4. Distributive self-efficacy .927 5. Integrative self-efficacy .806*** (0.764 to 0.842) .922 6. Dominating style (ROCI-II) .504*** (0.417 to 0.582) .345*** (0.244 to 0.438) .841 † 7. Self-interest priority .031 (− 0.141 to 0.079) − .100 (− 0.010 to 0.207) .110* (0.001 to 0.217) – † 8. Fixed-pie perceptions .062 (− 0.048 to 0.171) − .104 (− 0.006 to 0.211) .379*** (0.281 to 0.469) .120* (0.011 to 0.226) .698 9. Endorsement of unethical .091 (− 0.019 to 0.200) − .089 (− 0.021 to 0.197) .492*** (0.405 to 0.571) .132* (0.023 to 0.239) .449*** (0.356 to 0.532) .977 tactics (SINS-II)

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 Table 3 Partial correlations between entitlement and negotiation attitudes, controlling for trait positive affect, trait negative affect, and NPI entitlement, study 1

M SD123

1. Entitlement (PES) 3.922 1.204 .892 2. Aspiration level 4.848 1.229 .178** (0.045 to 0.305) .913 3. First offer propensity 1.672 .0470 .178* (0.045 to 0.305) .033 (− 0.080 to 0.142) – 4. Distributive self-efficacy 61.680 21.380 .234*** (0.109 to 0.344) .213*** (0.067 to 0.348) .045 (− 0.068 to 0.159) 5. Integrative self-efficacy 70.190 20.160 .128* (− 0.039 to 0.252) .274*** (0.136 to 0.397) .010 (− 0.097 to 0.130) 6. Dominating style (ROCI-II) 3.331 0.769 .440*** (0.315 to 0.545) .327*** (0.185 to 0.454) − .070 (− 0.043 to 0.180) 7. Self-interest priority 3.083 1.443 .189** (0.076 to 0.307) − .020 (− 0.137 to 0.093) − .029 (− 0.137 to 0.080) 8. Fixed-pie perceptions 4.186 1.387 .363*** (0.220 to 0.480) .206*** (0.073 to 0.331) .081 (− 0.026 to 0.195) 9. Endorsement of unethical 2.744 1.739 .539*** (0.434 to 0.633) .140* (0.014 to 0.259) .225*** (0.105 to 0.331) tactics (SINS-II)

456789

1. Entitlement (PES) 2. Aspiration level 3. First offer propensity 4. Distributive self-efficacy .927 5. Integrative self-efficacy .756*** (0.681 to 0.820) .922 6. Dominating style (ROCI-II) .477*** (0.366 to 0.565) .347*** (0.219 to 0.452) .841 7. Self-interest priority .067 (− 0.045 to 0.174) .050 (− 0.067 to 0.170) .112* (0.000 to 0.222) – 8. Fixed-pie perceptions .126* (− 0.006 to 0.254) .008 (− 0.150 to 0.143) .345*** (0.219 to 0.457) .066 (− 0.043 to 0.168) .698 † 9. Endorsement of unethical .191** (0.065 to 0.316) .045 (− 0.101 to 0.184) .450*** (0.337 to 0.542) .103 (− 0.015 to 0.214) .346*** (0.224 to 0.453) .977 tactics (SINS-II)

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 u Psychol Bus J JBusPsychol

Scholars have identified two distinct forms of narcissism in Procedure the production of high entitlement. The first, grandiose narcissism, describes an immodest, imperial fantasy about After providing informed consent, participants completed an the self. By contrast, hypersensitive (or vulnerable) narcis- online questionnaire containing the measures described be- sism’s grandiosity is defensive, rooted in fragile self-esteem low.4 Participants were provided with a bonus mark in an un- and doubts about one’s own adequacy (Dickinson & Pincus, dergraduate management class in return for their participation. 2003;Kernis,2001; Miller, Hoffman, et al., 2011). Narcissism and entitlement are also empirically associated; Miller, Price, Measures and Campbell (2011) estimate the association between narcis- sism and entitlement to be between 0.35 and 0.54. Psychological Entitlement Entitlement was measured using Furthermore, entitlement and exploitative attitudes are some- the same 9-item (α = 0.825) scale used in study 1 (i.e. PES, times treated as central characteristics of narcissism (Emmons, Campbell et al., 2004). 1984; Raskin & Novacek, 1989). Nevertheless, narcissism and entitlement can be conceptu- Narcissism Narcissism was measured using measures of both ally and empirically distinguished (e.g. Pryor, Miller, & grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Grandiose narcissism Gaughan, 2008; Miller, Hoffman, et al., 2011). Psychological was measured with the 16-item short form Narcissistic B ^ entitlement differs from narcissistic entitlement as a facet of Personality Inventory (NPI; Ames, Rose, & Anderson, narcissism; the latter is seen as more pathological in nature, 2006), which contains 16 forced-choice items (KD20 = .693), characterized by higher disagreeableness and closer associa- e.g. BI like to be the centre of attention^ versus BI prefer to tions with personality disorders (Pryor et al., 2008). And not blend in to the crowd^). The second measure of narcissism was all entitlement derives from narcissism: Entitlement can also the 10-item (α = 0.732) Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale B ^ be elicited by indulgent workplace practices (Fisk, 2010), by (HSNS; Hendin & Cheek, 1997). Participants indicated their ’ the context of the workplace (O Leary-Kelly, Rosen, & (dis)agreement with each of the HSNS’ statements using a 5- Hochwarter, 2017) or by overinvolved parenting in childhood point scale (from 1, Bstrongly disagree^ to 5, Bstrongly (Givertz & Segrin, 2014). agree^). The NPI as a measure of grandiosity and the HSNS However, given the close association between narcissism as a measure of vulnerability has been previously established and entitlement (Campbell et al., 2004; Pryor et al., 2008), and in the study of narcissism by Krizan and Johar (2012). between narcissism and unethical behaviour (Blickle, Schlegel, Fassbender, & Klein, 2006; Penney & Spector, Unethical Negotiation Behaviours To measure participants’ 2002), it is important to rule out the possibility that the ob- willingness to employ unethical negotiation tactics, we used served relationship between entitlement and unethical negoti- the same 13-item scale (α = 0.945) used in study 1 (i.e. ation simply reflects the effect of narcissism as a third, unmea- Hershfield et al., 2012). We asked participants to imagine a sured variable. negotiation (we did not specify the topic or context), and asked them, Bhowappropriatewoulditbetousethetactics Hypothesis 6. Psychological entitlement will be associat- below to gain additional advantage in the negotiation?^ ed with the endorsement of unethical negotiation tactics, controlling for narcissism. 4 We also included an experimental manipulation of bargaining power in the procedure: Half of participants answered the SINS-II questions in the context of 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 set asampleofn = 150 to allow for 75 participants per cell in the originally Method planned design. In the strong alternative condition, participants were asked to Bimagine a negotiation where you have a very good alternative available to you. If you don’t succeed in getting a deal with your counterpart, you have a Participants good backup plan. You know that there is another party who wants to make a deal, and is willing to offer you very favourable terms. So, even if this nego- ’ ^ One hundred and thirty-seven Canadian undergraduate stu- tiation fails, you ve got a good fall-back option . In the weak alternative condition, participants were asked to Bimagine a negotiation where you have dents who were participants in a university research subject no other good alternative available to you. If you don’t succeed in getting a pool took part in the study. A sample size of 150 was deter- deal with your counterpart, you have no good backup plan. You don’tknowof mined in advance. Data collection ended at the end of the any other party who wants to make a deal, and nobody else is willing to offer you very favourable terms. So, if this negotiation fails, you’ve don’thavea academic term; the researchers did not apply a stopping rule. good fall-back option^. This manipulation did not moderate any of the report- One hundred and thirty participants completed the full survey. ed results or correlate significantly with any of the study variables. However, Fifty-five percent of participants were female, and they ranged 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 and in age from 18 to 49 years, with an average age of 22 years scripts are available for inspection and reanalysis on the Open Science (SD = 3.8). Framework repository at https://osf.io/k35qg/. J Bus Psychol

Results forms of narcissism are distinct (Miller, Hoffman, et al., 2011) and that both constructs, while uncorrelated with each other, As expected from previous research, narcissism was associated are both independently associated with entitlement (Krizan & with the endorsement of unethical negotiation tactics. Johar, 2012). We also find, consistent with previous research Grandiose narcissism was significantly correlated with the (Kong, 2015;Parketal.,2013; ten Brinke et al., 2015), that SINS-II scale, r(130) = .178, p = .042, as was vulnerable narcis- both forms of narcissism are associated with unethical sism, r(130) = .200, p = .022. Despite the two types of narcis- behaviour. sism being uncorrelated with each other, each was significantly Above and beyond these previously established effects, and positively associated with entitlement (rNPI(130) = .348, p though, we find that those high in entitlement are more likely < .001; rHSNS(130) = .219, p = .012). These correlations rein- to endorse unethical negotiation tactics. As we found in our first force the need to control for the effects of narcissism when study, those high in entitlement are more likely to view a range testing the effect of entitlement on unethicality. of widely condemned tactics—like misrepresenting information Though the magnitude of the effect of the effect is smaller and promising concessions one does not plan to honour—as than in study 1, psychological entitlement was significantly appropriate to use in negotiation. While this replicates our ear- correlated with endorsed unethicality, r(130) = .368, p < .001, lier finding about entitlement and ethicality while controlling for as predicted by hypothesis 5. Zero-order correlations (with 95% the possibility of narcissism as a confound, our design has cer- confidence intervals) are presented below in Table 4. While the tain limitations, nonetheless. One of those limitations is that we direction of the effect is the same, the magnitude of the effect is asked participants to imagine a negotiation, without providing not: We return to this observation in the general discussion. any guidance or direction about the specific nature of this hy- We tested hypothesis 6 by carrying out a hierarchical mul- pothetical situation. We address this concern in study 3. 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 narcissism Study 3 measures jointly explained just over 7.4% of the variance in the endorsement of unethical negotiation tactics, F(2,127) = In our first two studies, we have shown that psychological 5.108, p = .007, R2 = 0.074. Entitlement explained an addi- entitlement predicts both beneficial attitudes toward negotiation tional 8% of variance in unethical negotiation, F(3,126) = (self-efficacy, aspirations and first offer intentions) as well as 7.711, p <.001, R2 =0.155, ΔR2 = 0.081, which represented unethical attitudes toward negotiation (zero-sum perceptions, a a significant improvement in variance explained, ΔF(1126) = contentious negotiating style, and the endorsement of unethical 12.030, p = .001. The regression statistics (with 95% confi- tactics). We also showed that entitlement explains variance in dence intervals) are presented in Table 5 below. These find- the endorsement of unethicality above and beyond narcissism. ings are consistent with our prediction in hypothesis 6 that In study 3, we extend these findings to consider the bene- entitlement would predict the endorsement of unethical nego- ficial and deleterious effects of entitlement in a practically tiation tactics above and beyond narcissism. important negotiation context—employment negotiations. We provide a second test of our prediction about entitlement Discussion and aspirations (hypothesis 1), examining whether these aspi- rations extend to the employment context. In salary negotia- Consistent with previous work on the subject, we considered tions, the willingness to ask for more leads to large career-long two forms of narcissism: the bombastic, imperial ego of gran- differences in earnings, as the benefits to negotiating repeat, diose narcissism and the fragile, hypersensitive ego of vulner- accumulate and compound (Gerhart & Rynes, 1991;O’Shea able narcissism. Like previous research, we find that these two &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 unethical 2.90 1.28 .368*** (0.209 to 0.508) .178* (0.006 to 0.340) .200* (0.029 to 0.360) .945 tactics (SINS-II)

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 JBusPsychol

Table 5 Hierarchical linear regression of narcissism and Variables Model 1 B (95% CIs in Model 2 B (95% CIs in entitlement on unethicality parentheses) parentheses)

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

We also seek to replicate our finding from our two previous used in psychological research (Paolacci & Chandler, 2014), studies (hypothesis 5) that entitlement predicts the endorse- were recruited online.5 Participants needed to be currently ment of unethical tactics in negotiation. In employment nego- employed or seeking employment in order to be considered tiations, it is the subjective experience of the negotiation ex- eligible for participation. Thirty-three percent of our partici- perience (rather than the objective economic outcomes) that is pants were female, and our participants ranged in age from 19 most consequential for long-term job attitudes (Curhan, to 64 years, with an average age of 32 years (SD = 7.97). Sixty- Elfenbein, & Kilduff, 2009). These subjective perceptions nine percent were employed full-time, 19% were employed can be deteriorated by the use of competitive and unethical part-time and 12% were unemployed but seeking employment. tactics in negotiation (Volkema, Fleck, & Hofmeister, 2010). Finally, it is possible that psychological entitlement does not Procedure predict unique variance in unethical negotiation but instead, re- flects an unmeasured higher-order personality construct. In this After providing informed consent, participants completed an final study, we address a plausible rival explanation for our re- online questionnaire containing the measures described be- sults—namely, that the effects we describe as related to entitle- low.6 Participants were paid a nominal incentive ($1.50 ment stem instead from low agreeableness or high neuroticism, USD) for their participation. two higher-order personality factors associated with both entitle- ment (Campbell et al., 2004) and the propensity to endorse un- Measures ethical tactics (Elfenbein et al., 2008, supplementary Table 1). We address this concern in study 3. We suggest that it is entitlement, Entitlement We used the same nine-item measure of entitle- rather than agreeableness or neuroticism, which is most directly ment (Campbell et al., 2004; α = 0.909) as in the previous responsible for producing both high aspirations and the willing- studies. ness to sidestep ethical norms to achieve negotiators’ aspirations. 5 We recruited 150 participants on MTurk but ended with a final sample of 153 as three participants initially entered the wrong completion code, were Hypothesis 8a. Psychological entitlement will be associ- rejected, and later emailed with a correct completion code. We set our sample ated with aspiration levels in negotiation, controlling for size at n = 150 in order to achieve cell sizes of n = 75 in our experimental agreeableness and neuroticism. design, described in the procedure below. 6 Hypothesis 8b. Psychological entitlement will be associ- We also included an experimental manipulation of reputation salience in the procedure. The manipulation occurred after answering the personality ques- ated with the endorsement of unethical tactics in negoti- tions but before answering the salary, SINS-II, and dominating-style questions. ation, controlling for agreeableness and neuroticism. 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 and leading up to going to bed at night, including activities, work, and leisure^ (control), while the other half were asked, Bimagine that all your current and Method previous managers were gossiping to each other about you. What do you think they would say? What would they tell each other about what it’s like to deal with you? How does this fit with how you would like to be seen?^ This Participants manipulation 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 to be consistent with reporting standards for transparency in psychological re- One hundred and fifty-three adult American members of search (Simmons et al., 2011). Our data are available for inspection or reanal- Amazon Mechanical Turk, a crowdsourcing service frequently ysis on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/k35qg/. J Bus Psychol

Dominating Conflict Style We used the same five-item mea- agreeableness in the first step of a hierarchical linear regres- sure of dominating conflict style (Rahim & Magner, 1995; sion, and psychological entitlement in the second step. α =0.833)asinstudy1. Consistent with hypothesis 8a, we found that entitlement is associated with salary aspirations, above and beyond the ef- Salary aspirations To measure salary expectations, we asked fect of neuroticism and agreeableness. The two Big Five per- participants, Bwhen negotiating the terms of your next job, or sonality variables explained 7% of the variance in salary de- your next promotion in your current job, what annual salary mands, R2 =0.072,F(2,137) = 5.320, p = .006. Psychological (in dollars) will you ask for?^ entitlement added an incremental 3% to the explanation of salary demands, ΔR2 = 0.026, F(1,136) = 3.969, p = .048. Endorsement of Unethical Tactics To measure willingness to Controlling for neuroticism and agreeableness, a 1-point in- negotiate unethically in the employment context, we adapted crease on the 7-point PES scale is associated with a $3609 11 items from Hershfield et al.’s(2012) SINS-II scale (α = increase in salary demands. However, it is important to note 0.858) to the employment context. Because use of these tactics that we measured only salary demands, uncontrolled for cur- might be risky in the employment context, we asked partici- rent salary, an issue we consider in the discussion. pants to rate their willingness to engage in each tactic Bif you As predicted in hypothesis 8b, we also found that entitle- were 100% sure it would be successful in getting a much ment is associated with the endorsement of unethical salary- better salary^. The purpose of this preamble was to capture negotiation tactics, above and beyond the effects of agreeable- the willingness to endorse unethical tactics (rather than judg- ness and neuroticism. Agreeableness and neuroticism were ments about their riskiness or efficacy). An example item jointly predictive of unethicality, explaining 9% of variance reads, BPromise things you know you can’torwon’tdeliver in the endorsement of unethical tactics, R2 =0.090, (e.g., telling them you’ll stay in the job longer than you intend F(2,150) = 7.449, p = .001. Psychological entitlement ex- to) if the employer gives you the salary you want^. plained an incremental 10% of variance in unethicality, ΔR2 = 0.10, F(1,149) = 18.447, p < .001. The results (with Personality We measured agreeableness and neuroticism 95% confidence intervals) are presented below in Table 7. using the relevant 8-item subscales from the Big Five Inventory (BFI-44; John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). Both the Discussion agreeableness measure (α = 0.860) and the neuroticism mea- sure (α = 0.925) exhibited acceptable reliability. The findings of study 3 replicate the direction of our earlier results, extend them to the employment context and show that these effects are due to entitlement in particular, rather than Results higher-order personality factors in general. While the direction of our effects is consistent with our previous studies, the mag- Prior to analysis, we removed (pairwise) responses from those nitude is different: The estimate of entitlement’s effect on who reported their salary expectations in a non-USD currency dominating style, while significant and in the predicted direc- (n = 1), entered a number that did not appear to be an annual tion, was half the magnitude found in the first study. salary expectation (e.g. B10^, n = 2) or was lower than the Our sample of Mechanical Turk members is likely more salarized equivalent of the US minimum wage (e.g. B9800^, diverse than most studies of employment negotiations, with a n =10). substantial number of part-time employees and job seekers. We began by testing our hypotheses that psychological As Roulin (2015) argues, MTurk’s inclusion of job seekers entitlement would be associated with both high aspirations, a and those in less permanent employment can be helpful when dominating style and an increased willingness to endorse un- studying questions related to vocational change and job search ethical tactics in negotiation (hypotheses 1, 4 and 5). behaviour. That said, high salary expectations among a sample Consistent (in direction if not magnitude) with our previous of people doing ill-paid electronic Bpiecework^ online may results, we found that psychological entitlement was positive- raise questions about validity and generalizability. Future re- ly associated with intended initial salary demands (r =.185, search may want to consider a sample of people specifically p = .029), with dominating conflict style (r =.249, p =.002) anticipating a job negotiation in the near term. and with the endorsement of unethical negotiation tactics in The sample-related observations made here are notewor- employment negotiations (r =.325,p < .001). Zero-order cor- thy, since we asked only about salary demands, rather than relations with 95% confidence intervals for study 3 are pre- salary increase over current salary. As we consider in the gen- sented in Table 6. eral discussion, it may well be that our result reflects that high We then tested the effect of entitlement above and beyond current salaries cause entitlement, rather than entitlement neuroticism and low agreeableness. For both intended salary causing high salary demands. A reciprocal relationship may demands and unethical tactics, we entered neuroticism and even be possible. However, given our finding about JBusPsychol

Table 6 Correlations between entitlement, personality, and job-related negotiation attitudes, study 3

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Entitlement (PES) 3.35 1.20 .909 2. Neuroticism (BFI) 3.36 1.44 − .063 (− 0.219 to 0.095) .925 3. Agreeableness (BFI) 4.81 1.18 − .042 (− 0.198 to 0.117) − .498*** (− 0.608 to − 0.369) .860 4. Salary demand 53,171 25,011 .185* (0.019 to 0.340) − .238** (− 0.388 to − 0.075) .018 (− 0.149 to 0.183) – † 5. Endorsement of unethical 2.96 0.775 .325*** (0.176 to 0.460) .156 (− 0.002 to 0.307) − .300*** (− 0.438 to − 0.149) .121 (0.046 to 0.282) .858 tactics (SINS-II) 6. Dominating conflict style 3.59 0.847 .249** (0.094 to 0.393) − .202* (− 0.349 to − 0.044) .019 (− 0.140 to 0.177) .201* (0.036 to 0.356) .476*** (0.344 to 0.590) .833 (ROCI-II)

Reliabilities are presented in italics on the diagonal p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; *** p <.001

Table 7 Hierarchical linear regression of personality and entitlement on aspirations and unethicality

Dependent variable: salary aspirations Dependent variable: endorsement of unethical tactics

Variables Model 1 B (95% CIs in parentheses) Model 2 B (95% CIs in parentheses) Model 1 B (95% CIs in parentheses) Model 2 B (95% CIs in parentheses)

Intercept 85,798.482 (58,854.8 to 112,742) 70,884.952 (40,392.6 to 101,377) 3.879*** (3.098 to 4.661) 3.039*** (2.205 to 3.873) Neuroticism (BFI) − 5330.351*** (− 8568.7 to − 2092) − 5028.245** (− 8246.3 to − 181) 0.004 (− 0.091 to 0.099) 0.022 (− 0.068 to 0.113) Agreeableness (BFI) − 3085.929 (− 7122.8 to 941) − 2624.238 (− 6634.7 to 1386) − 0.195*** (− 0.3114 to 0.0780) − 0.176** (− 0.287 to − 0.065) Psychological entitlement (PES) 3609.292* (26.7 to 7192) 0.205*** (0.111 to 0.300) R2 0.072 0.098 0.090 0.191 Adj. R2 0.059 0.078 0.078 0.174 F 5.320** 4.947** 7.449*** 11.693*** df 2137 3136 2150 3149 ΔR2 0.026 0.100 ΔF 3.969* 18.447*** J Bus Psychol entitlement and negotiation aspirations in study 1, we think befall offers as a result—a collective bad. The lure in negoti- that the entitlement-to-salary aspirations link is a plausible ation is that those who are prepared to move first, to expect a direction for the relationship. great deal and to ask for more than is offered, tend to benefit in Of course, salary aspirations may not directly translate to typical negotiations. Laboratory studies show that when peo- salary demands. Not all employees have the latitude to nego- ple are made to set higher expectations for themselves, they tiate their compensation. But nonetheless, aspirations have perform better and claim more value in negotiation (cf. Zetik been shown in previous research to be a predictor of negotia- &Stuhlmacher,2002).Theentitledneednosuchencourage- tion demands (Zetik & Stuhlmacher, 2002), and aspiration ment: They are convinced that they are owed excessive and levels can serve as a reference point against which employees disproportionate rewards, and their attitudes toward negotia- consider the appropriateness and fairness of their compensa- tion reflect this conviction. Entitled negotiators set high aspi- tion (Thompson, 1995). rations, are prepared to make first offers and are self- Similarly, the simple willingness to endorse an unethical efficacious; each of these strategies is likely to pay dividends, tactic as appropriate does not mean every entitled negotiator at least in the short run and in primarily distributive negotia- will use such a tactic. Dishonest and unethical tactics in nego- tions. Nevertheless, along with these relatively benign and tiation are shaped by situational factors and by the nature of effective negotiation attitudes come a series of attitudes that the relationship between the parties (e.g. Aquino, 1998). But are costly to those they negotiate with. Entitled individuals all things being equal, the negotiator who sees such tactics as describe themselves as adopting a confrontational style. acceptable to use is more likely to actually make use of them They are more likely to see it as acceptable to use unethical (e.g. Kurland, 1995; Detert, Treviño, & Sweitzer, 2008, tactics to secure the gains they feel due. In the long run, the Appendix B). behaviours these negotiators endorse may be costly, as In short, our results merit appropriate caution, since we are sustained belligerence and unethicality at the negotiating table measuring attitudes and behavioural intentions, rather than may come with reputational and relational costs. observed behaviour. But given that attitudes and intentions Across all three studies, we found a significant association influence behaviour in negotiation, we interpret our findings between entitlement and endorsed unethicality. However, we as suggestive of entitlement as driving both effective and de- note that the magnitude of this association varied between the structive approaches to negotiation, and this study demon- first study and the subsequent two studies (a similar difference strates that it is entitlement in particular that is associated with in magnitudes is present between studies 1 and 3 on the asso- these approaches. ciation between entitlement and dominating conflict style). In a meta-analysis of the three studies reported in this paper, using a restricted ML estimation, the Fisher r-to-z estimate is General Discussion .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 = Conclusions and Implications 11.620; p = .003). The size of the effect in study 1 was sub- stantially larger. We cannot say whether our first study over- Through the series of studies presented here, we sought to estimates the effect, or whether the subsequent two underesti- extend the study of psychological entitlement to consider the mate it. The first study was conducted using Clearvoice, a context of negotiations. Our results suggest that entitlement panel provider that provides a sample that is more representa- may be a Bdouble edged sword^ at the bargaining table. tive of the general population than MTurk (Boas, Christenson, Entitled negotiators tend to approach negotiation in ways that &Glick,forthcoming) and certainly more representative than previous research would suggest are effective, but also hold our undergraduate student sample. Nevertheless, future re- attitudes that could have substantial social costs. Overall, en- search should seek to replicate the results reported here, as titlement appears to be associated with a forcing negotiation well as establish a more precise estimate of the entitlement- style (Walton, Cutcher-Gershenfeld, & McKersie, 1994), endorsed unethicality effect. where negotiators are focused on advancing their own agenda We find that entitlement drives the endorsement of uneth- and undermining the power of their opponents—even through ical negotiation tactics in general and in the context of em- unethical means. While this may be effective (or at least indi- ployment negotiations in particular. To the extent that the at- vidually beneficial) in zero-sum negotiations, it may under- titudes and intentions observed here translate into negotiation mine integrative bargaining and impose costs on negotiation behaviours, there are potentially profound macro-level conse- counterparts. quences. Previous research has identified gender differences We see a parallel between our findings and Campbell and in perceived entitlement; the entitlement effects described in Buffardi’s(2008)ideaofBsocial traps^.Theydescribesocial this paper may play a part in the persistent gender wage gap traps as having (1) an appealing, self-benefitting Blure^—an (Hogue, Yoder, & Singleton, 2007; Pelham & Hetts, 2001; individual good, and (2) a cost or deleterious effect that may Kaman & Hartel, 1994). More broadly, if pay and JBusPsychol opportunities go not to those who are most deserving, but validity of our conclusions (Conway & Lance, 2010). In study those who think of themselves as most deserving, then em- 1, we counterbalanced the order in which we presented the ployment negotiations may create a tournament structure in personality and entitlement measures. In study 2, we deliber- which entitlement is rewarded and reinforced. ately selected measures of grandiose and vulnerable narcis- Future research may also want to consider how salary de- sism that did not include the NPI-ENT (narcissistic entitle- mands and entitlement may be mutually reinforcing. We find ment) scale to avoid concerns about conceptual overlap of that those high in entitlement set higher aspirations and salary items. Across all three studies, we chose validated, reliable expectations. But a range of research suggests that the oppo- measures of entitlement; in the first two studies, we used the site relationship may also hold: Piff (2014) shows that socio- SINS-II scale as previously used by Hershfield et al. (2012), economic status and social class are associated with height- and our third study used an adapted version of the scale with ened entitlement. Ding and colleagues find similar effects: the same approach to endorsed tactics. The SINS approach is When they experimentally endowed participants with wealth, widely used in negotiation research (e.g. Tasa & Bell, 2017; they found that participants later reported stronger feelings of Fulmer, Barry, & Long, 2009). Where we used unvalidated entitlement (Ding, Wu, Ji, Chen, & Van Lange, 2017). This measures (for instance, aspirations in the first study), we may suggest a potential confound in our study: That it is not sought to triangulate our results in the accompanying studies the entitled who ask for more income, but those who ask and (for instance, using specific salary aspirations in study 3). receive more income that feel more entitled. This question That said, these results should be taken as tentative, prelim- could be addressed in future research using experimentally inary indications of how entitlement is associated with nego- manipulated entitlement (e.g. Zitek & Vincent, 2015). tiation attitudes. As Podsakoff and colleagues demonstrate, Alternately, longitudinal survey research could measure the common method bias can influence, often in substantial ways, reciprocal effects of income and entitlement over time. the inferences drawn from survey research (Podsakoff, Together, these issues suggest a potential challenge for or- MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). While the ganizations. Though the studies in this paper measure dispo- counterbalancing of item order helps reduce some common- sitional entitlement, entitlement can also vary over time and method threats (e.g. item priming), a number of other threats between situations. Like other personality facets (e.g. remain. Social desirability bias, for instance, drives reporting Bleidorn, 2009; Giacomin & Jordan, 2016), there can be sub- in both student and online samples (Behrend, Sharek, Meade, stantial intraindividual variation in the expression of this trait. & Wiebe, 2011). And while our correlation tables do include Recent research suggests that organizational structures can small and non-significant correlations among adequately reli- serve to promote or activate states of entitlement. Rare role able index variables (Lindell & Brandt, 2000), there remains a identities (Vincent & Kouchaki, 2016), self-focused slogans concern that common rater effects could be upwardly inflating and communications (O’Brien et al., 2011) and coerced be- the magnitude of associations between our constructs haviours (Yam, Klotz, He, & Reynolds, 2017) are among the (Podsakoff et al., 2003). While there are statistical remedies organizational predictors of employees’ sense of entitlement that have been proposed (e.g. Podsakoff et al., 2003;Lindell& to excessive or unearned rewards. If the entitled exhibit atti- Whitney, 2001), we are mindful of the fact that many of these tudes toward negotiation that are organizationally costly, it approaches perform poorly in simulations (e.g. Richardson, suggests an imperative for organizations to design interven- 2009, cit. in Conway & Lance, 2010). We therefore suggest tions and structures that reduce entitlement or limit its that the best way forward is to extend and replicate our find- expression. ings using multi-source and behavioural methods. Future research should include field and laboratory studies, Limitations and Future Directions in which unethical behaviour can be observed, enacted nego- tiation styles can be reported by counterparts and the conse- Our studies and their findings have limitations. Though we quences for economic outcomes more carefully measured. controlled for various personality-related explanations, the Researchers may consider drawing from the paradigms used work reported here is cross-sectional in nature and relied on in the literature on self-serving bias, for instance, which con- participants to recall recent, hypothetical and even future yet- sider attitudinal mechanisms (e.g. fairness assessments; to-occur negotiations. There are some advantages to this ap- Loewenstein, Issacharoff, Camerer, & Babcock, 1993) and proach: Aspiration levels, for instance, are not usually exter- behavioural outcomes (e.g. bargaining impasse; Babcock & nally observable. And ethical judgments and attitudes may be Loewenstein, 1997). Such approaches would also allow re- masked in actual negotiation, as negotiators seek to avoid their searchers to more carefully consider the relationship between counterparts detecting (and potentially punishing) their uneth- entitlement and egocentrism discussed earlier in the ical tactics. introduction. While cross-sectional data have inherent limitations, we We also draw researchers’ attention to the question of nar- took some steps to help mitigate some of their threats to the cissism. While in study 2, we demonstrate a role for J Bus Psychol entitlement above and beyond grandiose and vulnerable nar- interacting and how dyadic structures (e.g. relative power) cissism, this finding depends on the use of the NPI-16 as an shape how the attitudes of the entitled translate into actual operationalization of grandiose narcissism. While we follow behaviour. previous research in using this measures alongside the HSNS Finally, while we advance understanding of entitlement’s and PES (Krizan & Johar, 2012), there may be a question of effects on negotiation attitudes, our studies provide no insight whether it is the best available measure of grandiosity. There into avoiding these deleterious effects. Research suggests that are other measures of grandiosity that have been demonstrated political skill (the interpersonal astuteness needed to under- to be empirically distinct from entitlement, including the stand and influence others) may play a buffering role. The Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale (NGS; Rosenthal, Hooley, & politically skilful are less likely to express their entitlement Steshenko, 2011; Brunell & Buelow, 2018). Gentile and col- in ways that are seen as abusive (Whitman, Halbesleben, & leagues’ NPI-13 offers a similarly adequate overall measure of Shanine, 2013), and they are better able to cope with others’ grandiose narcissism, but their scale allows for subscale anal- expressed entitlement (Hochwarter et al., 2010). In the nego- ysis, separating out the elements of authority, exhibitionism tiation context, training may also play a part. If entitled nego- and exploitativeness (Gentile et al., 2013). We would not ex- tiators can learn Bethical egoism^, that is, how ethical behav- pect a change in measurement to dramatically alter our results, iour can advance self-interest (Schroth, 2008), it may mitigate given the clear distinctions between narcissism and entitle- their tendency to seek gains through unethical bargaining. If ment’s effects (Rose & Anastasio, 2014), but our studies do entitled negotiators can be trained to see how serving others’ not provide the final word. Future research may want to rep- interests can benefit them (e.g. bolstering their own reputa- licate our findings using different operationalizations of gran- tion), it may help them temper their default inclination to diosity (e.g. the NGS) or consider the unique contributions of accept unethical tactics as a path to gains. Additional work psychological entitlement versus narcissism at the facet level should consider these, among other structures and processes, (e.g. with the NPI-13). as ways to constrain the expression of entitlement. 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 researchers Conclusion interested in the topic of entitlement and personality that our findings did not replicate those of Campbell et al. (2004). Entitled negotiators may benefit at the bargaining table but Unlike that previous work, which found significant relation- exhibit little concern for establishing and maintaining relation- ships between entitlement and neuroticism and agreeableness, ships with the other party, weighing the gains from Bwinning^ we found weak or no associations between entitlement and above relational concerns. Negotiations frequently create 7 neuroticism (studies 1 and 3) and no correlations with agree- short-term incentives to engage in contentious, opportunistic ableness. In the future, entitlement researchers may want to or unethical behaviours (Cramton & Dees, 1993; Strudler, reopen the question of where entitlement fits in personality 1995). Entitlement as a personality trait may make negotiators models, considering the full five-factor model, the more susceptible to unethical behaviour at the bargaining ta- HEXACO model or circumplex models (e.g. Miller, Price, ble, with concomitant relational costs. Gentile, Lynam, & Campbell, 2012). It is also of interest to note that while some contemporary Funding This research was funded by Social Sciences and Humanities research supports conceptualizing entitlement as both state Research Council of Canada Insight Development Grant 430-2013-1069. and trait, our research measured only the latter. Future re- search could examine these effects using state variations in Data Availability Data are publicly available at https://osf.io/k35qg/. entitlement, or seek to manipulate entitlement (e.g. Zitek & Vincent, 2015). An experimental approach to testing would offer greater clarity to the causal direction of the effects re- References ported here. The current research also solely focuses on the perspective Ames, D. R., Rose, P., & Anderson, C. P. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short of the entitled negotiator. However, negotiation is inherently measure of narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(4), 440–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.03.002. dyadic or multi-party in nature, and the use of unethical or Anastasio, P. A., & Rose, K. C. (2014). Beyond deserving: More psycho- contentious tactics may be shaped by the dyadic or group logical entitlement also predicts negative attitudes toward personally configuration of entitlement. Future research should consider relevant out-groups. Social Psychological and Personality Science, the result, for instance, of two highly entitled negotiators 5(5), 593–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613519683. Aquino, K. (1998). The effects of ethical climate and the availability of alternatives on the use of deception during negotiation. International 7 See Table 1: correlations between study variables and supplementary Journal of Conflict Management, 9(3), 195–217. https://doi.org/10. variables. 1108/eb022809. JBusPsychol

Babcock, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse: Social Psychology, 107(5), 943–963. https://doi.org/10.1037/ The role of self-serving biases. Journal of Economic Perspectives, a0037245. 11(1), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.11.1.109. Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect Barry, B., & Friedman, R. A. (1998). Bargainer characteristics in distrib- from authors regarding common method bias in organizational re- utive and integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social search. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25,325–334. https:// Psychology, 74(2), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74. doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6. 2.345. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1990). Personality disorders and the five- Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threat- factor model of personality. Journal of Personality Disorders, 4(4), ened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self- 362–371. https://doi.org/10.1037/10140-000. esteem. Psychological Review, 103(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10. Cramton, P. C., & Dees, J. G. (1993). Promoting honesty in negotiation: 1037/0033-295X.103.1.5. An exercise in practical ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 30(4), Bazerman, M. H., Curhan, J. R., Moore, D. A., & Valley, K. L. (2000). 359–394. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857284. Negotiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 279–314. https:// Curhan, J. R., Elfenbein, H. A., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). Getting off on the doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.279. right foot: Subjective value versus economic value in predicting Behrend, T. S., Sharek, D. J., Meade, A. W., & Wiebe, E. N. (2011). The longitudinal job outcomes from job offer negotiations. Journal of viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behavior Research Applied Psychology, 94(2), 524–534. https://doi.org/10.1037/ Methods, 43(3), 800–813. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011- a0013746. 0081-0. Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengage- Bleidorn, W. (2009). Linking personality states, current social roles and ment in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and out- major life goals. European Journal of Personality, 23(6), 509–530. comes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 374–391. https://doi. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.731. org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.374. Blickle, G., Schlegel, A., Fassbender, P., & Klein, U. (2006). Some per- Dickinson, K. A., & Pincus, A. L. (2003). Interpersonal analysis of gran- sonality correlates of business white-collar crime. Applied diose and vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders, Psychology, 55(2), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597. 17(3), 188–207. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.17.3.188.22146. 2006.00226.x. Ding, Y., Wu, J., Ji, T., Chen, X., & Van Lange, P. A. (2017). The rich are Boas, T. C., Christenson, D. P., & Glick, D. M. (forthcoming). Recruiting easily offended by unfairness: Wealth triggers spiteful rejection of large online samples in the United States and India: Facebook, unfair offers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 71,138– Mechanical Turk and Qualtrics. Political Science Research and 144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.03.008. Methods. Elfenbein, H. A. (2015). Individual differences in negotiation a nearly Brett, J. F., Pinkley, R. L., & Jackofsky, E. F. (1996). Alternatives to abandoned pursuit revived. Current Directions in Psychological having a BATNA in dyadic negotiation: The influence of goals, Science, 24(2), 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/ self-efficacy, and alternatives on negotiated outcomes. 0963721414558114. International Journal of Conflict Management, 7(2), 121–138. Elfenbein, H. A., Curhan, J. R., Eisenkraft, N., Shirako, A., & Baccaro, L. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022778. (2008). Are some negotiators better than others? Individual differ- Brown, R. P., Budzek, K., & Tamborski, M. (2009). On the meaning and ences in bargaining outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality, measure of narcissism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(6), 1463–1475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.010. 35(7), 951–964. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209335461. Emmons, R. A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the Brunell, A. B., & Buelow, M. T. (2018). Homogenous scales of narcis- narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of Personality sism: Using the psychological entitlement scale, interpersonal Assessment, 48,291–300. https://doi.org/10.1207/ exploitativeness scale, and narcissistic grandiosity scale to study s15327752jpa4803_11. narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences, 123,182–190. Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., Campbell, W. K., & https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.029. Finkel, E. J. (2004). Too proud to let go: Narcissistic entitlement Brunell, A. B., & Fisher, T. D. (2014). Using the bogus pipeline to inves- as a barrier to forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social tigate grandiose narcissism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 87(6), 894–912. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514. Psychology, 55,37–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.05.015. 87.6.894. Byrne, Z. S., Miller, B. K., & Pitts, V. E. (2010). Trait entitlement and Feather, N. T. (1999). Judgments of deservingness: Studies in the psy- perceived favorability of human resource management practices in chology of justice and achievement. Personality and Social the prediction of job satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology Review, 3(2), 86–107. https://doi.org/10.1207/ Psychology, 25(3), 451–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009- s15327957pspr0302_1. 9143-z. Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, agreement without giving in.NewYork:Penguin. B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences Fisk, G. M. (2010). BI want it all and I want it now!^ An examination of and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality the etiology, expression, and escalation of excessive employee enti- Assessment, 83(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1207/ tlement. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 102–114. s15327752jpa8301_04. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.11.001. Campbell, W. K., & Buffardi, L. E. (2008). The lure of the noisy ego: Fisk, G. M., & Neville, L. B. (2011). Effects of customer entitlement on Narcissism as a social trap. In H. A. Wayment & J. J. Bauer (Eds.), service workers’ physical and psychological well-being: A study of Transcending self-interest: Psychological explorations of the quiet waitstaff employees. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, ego (pp. 23–32). Washington, DC: American Psychological 16(4), 391–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023802. Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11771-002. Fulmer, I. S., Barry, B., & Long, D. A. (2009). Lying and smiling: Campbell, W. K., & Sedikides, C. (1999). Self-threat magnifies the self- Informational and emotional deception in negotiation. Journal of serving bias: A meta-analytic integration. Review of General Business Ethics, 88,691– 709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008- Psychology, 3(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.3.1.23. 9975-x. Cohen, T. R., Panter, A. T., Turan, N., Morse, L., & Kim, Y. (2014). Galinsky, A. D., Mussweiler, T., & Medvec, V. H. (2002). Disconnecting Moral character in the workplace. JournalofPersonalityand outcomes and evaluations: The role of negotiator focus. Journal of J Bus Psychol

Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1131–1140. https://doi. behavior by others as a contextual stressor: Moderating role of po- org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1131. litical skill in three samples. Journal of Occupational Health Gentile, B., Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., & Psychology, 15(4), 388–398. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020523. Campbell, W. K. (2013). A test of two brief measures of grandiose Hogue, M., Yoder, J. D., & Singleton, S. B. (2007). The gender wage gap: narcissism: The Narcissistic Personality Inventory-13 and the An explanation of men’s elevated wage entitlement. Sex Roles, Narcissistic Personality Inventory-16. Psychological Assessment, 56(9–10), 573–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9199-z. 25(4), 1120–1136. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033192. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the George-Levi, S., Vilchinsky, N., Tolmacz, R., & Liberman, G. (2014). integrative big five trait taxonomy. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. Testing the concept of relational entitlement in the dyadic context: A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research Further validation and associations with relationship satisfaction. (pp. 114–158). New York: Guilford Press. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(2), 193–203. https://doi.org/10. Jordan, P. J., Ramsey, S., & Westerlaken, K. M. (2017). A review of 1037/a0036150. entitlement: Implications for workplace research. Organizational Gerhart, B., & Rynes, S. (1991). Determinants and consequences of sal- Psychology Review, 7(2), 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/ ary negotiations by male and female MBA graduates. Journal of 2041386616647121. Applied Psychology, 76(2), 256–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021- Kaman, V. S., & Hartel, C. E. J. (1994). Gender differences in anticipated 9010.76.2.256. pay negotiation strategies and outcomes. Journal of Business and Giacomin, M., & Jordan, C. H. (2016). Self-focused and feeling fine: Psychology, 9(2), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02230636. Assessing state narcissism and its relation to well-being. Journal Kernis, M. H. (2001). Following the trail from narcissism to fragile self- of Research in Personality, 63,12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp. esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 223–225. 2016.04.009. King, W. C., & Hinson, T. D. (1994). The influence of sex and equity Givertz, M., & Segrin, C. (2014). The association between overinvolved sensitivity on relationship preferences, assessment of opponent, and parenting and young adults’ self-efficacy, psychological entitlement, outcomes in a negotiation experiment. Journal of Management, and family communication. Communication Research, 41(8), 1111– 20(3), 605–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639402000305. 1136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212456392. Kong, D. T. (2015). Narcissists’ negative perception of their counterpart’s Greenhalgh, L., & Gilkey, R. (1997). Clinical assessment methods in competence and benevolence and their own reduced trust in a nego- negotiation research: The study of narcissism and negotiator effec- tiation context. Personality and Individual Differences, 74,196– tiveness. Group Decision and Negotiation, 6(4), 289–316. https:// 201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.015. doi.org/10.1023/A:1008649527205. Krizan, Z., & Johar, O. (2012). Envy divides the two faces of narcissism. Grubbs, J. B., & Exline, J. J. (2016). Trait entitlement: A cognitive- Journal of Personality, 80(5), 1415–1451. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. personality source of vulnerability to psychological distress. 1467-6494.2012.00767.x. Psychological Bulletin, 142(11), 1204–1226. https://doi.org/10. Kurland, N. B. (1995). Ethical intentions and the theories of reasoned 1037/bul0000063. action and planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Grubbs, J. B., Exline, J. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2013). I deserve better Psychology, 25(4), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816. and god knows it! Psychological entitlement as a robust predictor of 1995.tb02393.x. anger at god. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5(3), 192– Lewicki, R. J. (1983). Lying and deception: A behavioral model. In M. H. 200. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032119. Bazerman & R. J. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations (pp. Gunia, B. C., Swaab, R. I., Sivanathan, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2013). The 68–90). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. remarkable robustness of the first-offer effect across culture, power, Lewicki, R. J., & Robinson, R. J. (1998). Ethical and unethical bargaining and issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(12), tactics: An empirical study. JournalofBusinessEthics,17(6), 665– 1547–1558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213499236. 682. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005719122519. Halpert, J. A., Stuhlmacher, A. F., Crenshaw, J. L., Litcher, C. D., & Lindell, M. K., & Brandt, C. J. (2000). Climate quality and climate con- Bortel, R. (2010). Paths to negotiation success. Negotiation and sensus as mediators of the relationship between organizational ante- Conflict Management Research, 3(2), 91 –116. https://doi.org/10. cedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 331– 1111/j.1750-4716.2010.00051.x. 348. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.85.3.331. Harvey, P., & Harris, K. J. (2010). Frustration-based outcomes of entitle- Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method ment and the influence of supervisor communication. Human variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Relations, 63(11), 1639–1660. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Psychology, 86(1), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010. 0018726710362923. 86.1.114. Harvey, P., Harris, K. J., Gillis, W. E., & Martinko, M. J. (2014). Abusive Loewenstein, G., Issacharoff, S., Camerer, C., & Babcock, L. (1993). supervision and the entitled employee. The Leadership Quarterly, Self-serving assessments of fairness and pretrial bargaining. The 25(2), 204–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.08.001. Journal of Legal Studies, 22(1), 135–159. Harvey, P., & Martinko, M. J. (2009). An empirical examination of the Marks, M., & Harold, C. (2011). Who asks and who receives in salary role of attributions in psychological entitlement and its outcomes. negotiation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 371–394. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30,459–476. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1002/job.671. 10.1002/job.549. Miller, B. K. (2013). Measurement of academic entitlement. Hendin, H. M., & Cheek, J. M. (1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcis- Psychological Reports, 113(2), 654– 674. https://doi.org/10.2466/ sism: A reexamination of Murray’s Narcissism Scale. Journal of 17.08.PR0.113x25z1. Research in Personality, 31(4), 588–599. https://doi.org/10.1006/ Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of jrpe.1997.2204. causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82(2), 213–225. Hershfield, H. E., Cohen, T. R., & Thompson, L. (2012). Short horizons https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076486. and tempting situations: Lack of continuity to our future selves leads Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Gaughan, E. T., Gentile, B., Maples, J., & to unethical decision making and behavior. Organizational Behavior Keith Campbell, W. (2011). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: A and Human Decision Processes, 117(2), 298–310. https://doi.org/ nomological network analysis. Journal of Personality, 79(5), 1013– 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.002. 1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00711.x. Hochwarter, W. A., Summers, J. K., Thompson, K. W., Perrewé, P. L., & Miller, J. D., Price, J., & Campbell, W. K. (2011). Is the Narcissistic Ferris, G. R. (2010). Strain reactions to perceived entitlement Personality Inventory still relevant? A test of independent grandiosity JBusPsychol

and entitlement scales in the assessment of narcissism. Assessment, Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y.,& Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). 19(1), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111429390. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of Miller, J. D., Price, J., Gentile, B., Lynam, D. R., & Campbell, W. K. the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied (2012). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism from the perspective of Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010. the interpersonal circumplex. Personality and Individual 88.5.879. Differences, 53(4), 507–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012. Pryor, L. R., Miller, J. D., & Gaughan, E. T. (2008). A comparison of the 04.026. psychological entitlement scale and the narcissistic personality Mintu-Wimsatt, A., & Graham, J. L. (2004). Testing a negotiation model inventory’s entitlement scale: Relations with general personality on Canadian anglophone and Mexican exporters. Journal of the traits and personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 345–356. https://doi.org/10. 90(5), 517–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802248893. 1177/0092070304266123. Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of Moeller, S. J., Crocker, J., & Bushman, B. J. (2009). Creating hostility the styles of handling interpersonal conflict: First-order factor model and conflict: Effects of entitlement and self-image goals. Journal of and its invariance across groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, Experimental Social Psychology, 45(2), 448–452. https://doi.org/10. 80(1), 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.122. 1016/j.jesp.2008.11.005. Raskin, R., & Novacek, J. (1989). An MMPI description of the narcissis- Muris, P. (2006). Maladaptive schemas in non-clinical adolescents: tic personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53(1), 66–80. Relations to perceived parental rearing behaviours, big five person- https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5301_8. ality factors and psychopathological symptoms. Clinical Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Psychology & Psychotherapy, 13(6), 405–413. https://doi.org/10. Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its con- 1002/cpp.506. struct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), Murnighan, J. K., Babcock, L., Thompson, L., & Pillutla, M. (1999). The 890–902. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.54.5.890. information dilemma in negotiation: Effects of experience, incen- Robinson, R. J., Lewicki, R. J., & Donahue, E. M. (2000). Extending and tives, and integrative potential. International Journal of Conflict testing a five factor model of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: Management, 10(4), 313–339. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022828. Introducing the SINS scale. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, Naumann, S. E., Minsky, B. D., & Sturman, M. C. (2002). The use of the 649–664. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1379(200009)21:6<649:: concept Bentitlement^ in management literature: A historical review, AID-JOB45>3.0.CO;2-#. synthesis, and discussion of compensation policy implications. Rose, K. C., & Anastasio, P. A. (2014). Entitlement is about ‘others’, Human Resource Management Review, 12(1), 145–166. https:// narcissism is not: Relations to sociotropic and autonomous interper- doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(01)00055-9. sonal styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 59,50–53. O’Brien, E. H., Anastasio, P. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2011). Time crawls https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.004. when you’re not having fun feeling entitled makes dull tasks drag Rosenthal, S. A., Hooley, J. M., & Steshenko, Y. (2011). Distinguishing on. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(10), 1287–1296. grandiosity from self-esteem: Development of the Narcissistic https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211408922. Grandiosity Scale. Working paper. O’Leary-Kelly, A., Rosen, C., & Hochwarter, W. (2017). Who is deserv- Roulin, N. (2015). Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater: ing and who decides: Entitlement as a work-situated phenomenon. Comparing data quality of crowdsourcing, online panels, and stu- Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 417–436. https://doi.org/ dent samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 190– 10.5465/amr.2014.0128. 196. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.24. O’Shea, P. G., & Bush, D. F. (2002). Negotiation for starting salary: Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do corre- Antecedents and outcomes among recent college graduates. lations stabilize? JournalofResearchinPersonality,47(5), 609– Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(3), 365– 382. https://doi. 612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009. org/10.1023/A:1012868806617. Schroth, H. A. (2008). Helping you is helping me: Improving students’ Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding ethical behaviors in a negotiation by appealing to ethical egoism and Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in the reputation effect. Negotiation and Conflict Management Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Research, 1(4), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4716. 0963721414531598. 2008.00023.x. Park, S. W., Ferrero, J., Colvin, C. R., & Carney, D. R. (2013). Narcissism Siegel, S., & Fouraker, L. E. (1960). Bargaining and group decision and negotiation: Economic gain and interpersonal loss. Basic and making: Experiments in bilateral monopoly. New York: McGraw- Applied Social Psychology, 35(6), 569–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Hill. 01973533.2013.840633. Simmons, J., Nelson, L., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psy- Pelham, B. W., & Hetts, J. J. (2001). Underworked and overpaid: chology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis al- Elevated entitlement in men’s self-pay. Journal of Experimental lows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, Social Psychology, 37(2), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp. 22(11), 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632. 2000.1429. Strudler, A. (1995). On the ethics of deception in negotiation. Business Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narcissism and counterproductive Ethics Quarterly, 5(04), 805–822. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857416. work behavior: Do bigger egos mean bigger problems? Sullivan, B. A., O’Connor, K. M., & Burris, E. R. (2006). Negotiator International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1–2), 126– confidence: The impact of self-efficacy on tactics and outcomes. 134. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00199. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(5), 567–581. Piff, P. K. (2014). Wealth and the inflated self: Class, entitlement, and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.09.006. narcissism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(1), 34– Swift, S. A., & Moore, D. A. (2012). Bluffing, agonism, and the role of 43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213501699. overconfidence in negotiation. In R. Croson & G. E. Bolton (Eds.), Pinkley, R. L., Griffith, T. L., & Northcraft, G. B. (1995). BFixed pie^ ala The Oxford handbook of economic conflict resolution (pp. 266– mode: Information availability, information processing, and the ne- 278). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ gotiation of suboptimal agreements. Organizational Behavior and oxfordhb/9780199730858.013.0019. Human Decision Processes, 62(1), 101–112. https://doi.org/10. Tamborski, M., Brown, R. P., & Chowning, K. (2012). Self-serving bias 1006/obhd.1995.1035. or simply serving the self? Evidence for a dimensional approach to J Bus Psychol

narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(8), 942–946. Personality, 76(4), 875–902. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.030. 2008.00507.x. Tasa, K., & Bell, C. (2017). Effects of implicit negotiation beliefs and Vincent, L. C., & Kouchaki, M. (2016). Creative, rare, entitled, and dis- moral disengagement on negotiator attitudes and deceptive behav- honest: How commonality of creativity in one’s group decreases an ior. Journal of Business Ethics, 142,169–183. https://doi.org/10. individual’s entitlement and dishonesty. Academy of Management 1007/s10551-015-2800-4. Journal, 59,1451–1473. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.1109. Taylor, J. M., Bailey, S. F., & Barber, L. K. (2015). Academic entitlement Volkema, R., Fleck, D., & Hofmeister, A. (2010). Predicting competitive- and counterproductive research behavior. Personality and unethical negotiating behavior and its consequences. Negotiation Individual Differences, 85,13–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. Journal, 26(3), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979. 2015.04.024. 2010.00273.x. ten Brinke, L., Black, P. J., Porter, S., & Carney, D. R. (2015). Walton, R. E., Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J., & McKersie, R. B. (1994). Psychopathic personality traits predict competitive wins and coop- Strategic negotiations: A theory of change in labor-management erative losses in negotiation. Personality and Individual Differences, relations. Harvard Business School Press. 79,116–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.001. Whitman, M. V., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Shanine, K. K. (2013). Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and validation of an internation- Psychological entitlement and abusive supervision: Political skill ally reliable short-form of the positive and negative affect schedule as a self-regulatory mechanism. Health Care Management Review, (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 227–242. 38(3), 248–257. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0b013e3182678fe7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297301. Yam, K. C., Klotz, A. C., He, W., & Reynolds, S. J. (2017). From good Thompson, L. (1995). The impact of minimum goals and aspirations on soldiers to psychologically entitled: Examining when and why citi- judgments of success in negotiations. Group Decision and zenship behavior leads to deviance. Academy of Management Negotiation, 4(6), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01409713. Journal, 60,373–396. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0234. Thompson, L. L., Wang, J., & Gunia, B. C. (2010). Negotiation. Annual Zeigler-Hill, V., & Wallace, M. T. (2011). Racial differences in narcissis- Review of Psychology, 61,491–515. https://doi.org/10.1146/ tic tendencies. JournalofResearchinPersonality,45(5), 456–467. annurev.psych.093008.100458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.06.001. Tomlinson, E. C. (2013). An integrative model of entitlement beliefs. Zetik, D. C., & Stuhlmacher, A. F. (2002). Goal setting and negotiation Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 25(2), 67–87. performance: A meta-analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-012-9208-4. Relations, 5(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430202005001537. Tritt, S. M., Ryder, A. G., Ring, A. J., & Pincus, A. L. (2010). Zitek, E. M., & Jordan, A. H. (2017, online first). Psychological entitlement Pathological narcissism and the depressive temperament. Journal predicts failure to follow instructions. Social Psychological and of Affective Disorders, 122(3), 280–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Personality Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617729885. jad.2009.09.006. Zitek, E. M., & Vincent, L. C. (2015). Deserve and diverge: Feeling Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Keith Campbell, W., & entitled makes people more creative. Journal of Experimental Bushman, B. J. (2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporal Social Psychology, 56,242–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp. meta-analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of 2014.10.006.