Running head: EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET

Extending the Nomological Net of Academic Entitlement Patrick L. Estes Edgewood College Madison, WI

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET Extending the Nomological Net of Academic Entitlement

The purpose of this exploratory study is to investigate the possible relationship between a newly proposed psychological construct, academic entitlement (AE), and two other theoretically related variables; academic self-efficacy (ASE) and achievement goal orientation (AGO). More specifically, one of the primary goals of this study is to further define the AE construct and provide further validation for a newly developed AE measure. Kopp, Zinn, Finney, & Jurich (2011) have proposed a new AE measure (Academic Entitlement Questionnaire; AEQ), although no other studies to date have provided further validation for this scale. AE has been defined as, the tendency to possess an expectation of academic success without a sense of personal responsibility for achieving that success (Chowning & Campbell, 2009, p. 982). ASE is a context specific form of self-efficacy and refers to students confidence in their ability to carry out academic tasks such as preparing for exams and writing term papers (Zajacova, Lynch, & Espenshade, 2005). Lastly, AGO is defined as an individuals set of beliefs that reflect the reasons why they approach and engage in academic tasks (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Pintrich, 2000; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2002; Wentzel, 1999). In recent years, a number of different sources have noted the apparent rise in college students sense of psychological entitlement, which is often thought of as a component of narcissism (citation of some of these sources?). Is the U.S. educational system failing when it comes to preventing or curtailing these types of attitudes? Could the system actually be reinforcing a sense of entitlement among college students? If this is the case, how will society thrive with leaders who are primarily motivated out of self-interest, yet are supposedly responsible and well educated? Are college students simply becoming more entitled or could some of these manifestations of seemingly entitled attitudes be influenced by other underlying
David Gibson! 1/14/14 6:35 AM
Comment [1]: I am not sure you can make this jump. Self-interest has always been a part of the educated leaders of the western world. Milton Friedman even said something like, business only ethical responsibility is to profit back in the 60s. That means the leaders of those organizations are fairly self-interested. With that in mind, could you still be a very selfinterested individual and not be academic entitled much less narcissistic?

David Gibson! 1/14/14 6:32 AM

Deleted: , including

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET

factors? The research proposition in the proposed study is that this newly proposed AE construct is not simply unidimensional, rather it is a multi-faceted construct. Understanding these entitled student attitudes must be a priority among higher education professionals because of their likely impact on the learning environment, student success, and long-term success beyond college. The theoretical orientation guiding the researchers set of hypotheses is of a logical positivist orientation. 1. What role does AE play in successful college completion? a. To what extent is AE related to ASE independent of demographic variables? b. To what extent is AE related to AGO independent of demographic variables? c. To what extent is AE related to demographic variables? d. To what extent is ASE related to AGO independent of academic variables? (secondary) H1. AE will be significantly negatively correlated with ASE. H2(a). Students higher in AE will be significantly more likely to be performance-oriented than mastery-oriented (i.e., more extrinsically reward driven than intrinsically reward driven). H2(b). Students lower in AE will be significantly more likely to be mastery-oriented than performance-oriented (i.e., more intrinsically reward driven than extrinsically reward driven). H3(a). AE will have no relationship with first-generational status, class standing, transfer status, full/part-time status, residential status, employment status, and number of advanced placement (AP credits) transferred.
Trevor Nagle! 12/18/13 11:47 AM
Comment [2]: YES! !

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET H3(b). Male college students will report significantly higher AE than female college students.

H4. There will be no relationship between ASE and AGO (i.e., Intrinsic Goal Orientation subscale and Extrinsic Goal Orientation subscales). The proposed method of research is quantitative in nature. More specifically, an online survey instrument is proposed as the method of data collection for this study. The dependent variable, AE, will be operationalized and assessed using the AEQ (summative scale; level of measurement is interval), with a higher total score indicating higher AE attitudes. The two independent variables, ASE and AGO, will be operationalized and assessed using the Academic Self-Efficacy scale (ASES; Leach, Queriolo, DeVoe, & Chemers, 2003) and two subscales (i.e., Extrinsic Goal Orientation and Intrinsic Goal Orientation subscales) of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991), respectively. Both of the independent variables will be measured on a 7-point Likert scale (level of measurement is interval). A number of spurious relationships will also be taken into consideration. Examples of control variables that will be included in the survey instrument include first-generational status, sex, and year in school. The direction of the analysis is deductive because the goal is to test specific hypotheses and generalize the findings beyond undergraduate students at the institution at which the proposed study will be conducted. As Leedy and Ormrod (2013) emphasized, The line between basic research and applied research is, at best, a blurry one (p. 27), and while the ultimate goal of investigating AE is geared toward applied research, the proposed study is largely basic research because of its exploratory nature. Review of the Literature Academic Entitlement
Trevor Nagle! 12/18/13 11:50 AM
Comment [3]: In your ultimate final paper for the Capstone, this will be Chapter 2: Literature Review and it will begin on a new page. Just FYI for future iterations!.nothing wrong with how you have it here.

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET Researchers have discussed a shift in attitudes among the current college student population that resembles a sense of entitlement (e.g., Twenge, 2006), which has recently been

conceptualized as AE. Researchers have speculated about the wide variety of potential causes of these entitled attitudes, which by itself suggests these attitudes develop from more than a single source. For example, some have noted that college students, especially first-year students, may lack the knowledge necessary to succeed in college and that these academically entitled attitudes may be a result of students failing to shift their expectations from high school to college (Chowning & Campbell, 2009). As Chowning and Campbell (2009) noted, college freshmen often have a difficult time adjusting academically and socially when transitioning from high school. Chowning and Campbell also argued, from a social psychological perspective, that feelings of anonymity in large lectures halls might lead to diffusion of responsibility, resulting in entitled student attitudes. While this is clearly a complex issue that is rooted in various disciplines, it seems necessary to further explore these entitled attitudes in students in order to best help current and future generations of college students succeed. This AE construct has been increasingly gaining attention among researchers from various disciplines and has been described as a potentially serious threat to higher education (Dubovsky, 1986; Twenge, 2009). There are several examples that demonstrate an increasing prevalence of AE attitudes among students. To illustrate, college professors know all too well how common disputes over grades are with students. As Baer (2011) highlighted, Faculties across disciplines have noted an increasing number of students who are highly distressed over grades, and this distress is accompanied by pervasive demands of professors (p. 565). Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that suggests there is a widening gap between students expectations of what is needed to succeed in college and how to apply these behaviors or
Trevor Nagle! 12/18/13 11:51 AM
Comment [4]: Themselves suggest!although its not clear if itself is related to causes or attitudes!.

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET strategies to succeeding academically (Keenberg & Drescher, 2012). This evidence does not only exist anecdotally. For example, one study found that one-third of undergraduate students expected at least a B for attendance (Twenge, 2006). Likewise, in an analysis of an incoming freshman cohort, Shapiro (2012) found that a majority (57%) of students agreed that if they did all the homework for a particular course that they should receive at least a B. In sum, these findings taken together might indicate the prevalence of AE. Academic Self-Efficacy Self-efficacy has been defined as a self-evaluation of ones competence to successfully execute a course of action necessary to reach desired outcomes (Bandura, 1977, 1982, 1986). ASE is a context specific form of self-efficacy, which refers to students confidence in their ability to carry out academic tasks, such as preparing for exams and writing term papers (Zajacova, Lynch, & Espenshade, 2005). This construct is closely related to attributions. Attributions are another form of cognitive appraisal that individuals make based on their selfefficacy beliefs when evaluating environmental demands as threats or challenges.

According to self-efficacy theory, attributions are only one type of cue that students use to praise their self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986). Additional attributions that may be used by an individual to judge their self-efficacy include the amount of effort expended and perceived difficulty of task, which both inevitably affect academic performance indirectly through self-efficacy. Individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to perceive a situation as a challenge rather than a threat (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001). When situations are seen as a challenge, individuals tend to use more effective coping strategies and persist at the situation (Bandura, 1977). On the other hand, individuals with low self-efficacy tend to avoid challenging tasks, while individuals with high self-efficacy tend to work harder and persist longer in the face of

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET difficulty, even if the task is uninteresting (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). In fact, research suggests students with high ASE who attempt difficult tasks experience more relaxed feelings, which are incompatible with anxiety (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). In other words, high ASE students appear more resilient. In contrast, low ASE students may perceive a task as more difficult than it is in reality, which creates feelings of anxiety, stress, and uncertainty about how to approach problems (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). This finding is consistent with Banduras (1995) findings that self-efficacy plays a role in the perception of external demands and mediates the relation between external stressors and psychological stress (as cited in Zajacova, Lynch, & Espenshade, 2005, p. 680). Chemers, Hu, and Garcias (2001) findings also support

this notion, as they found ASE was negatively correlated with college stress in their study of 376 undergraduates. ASE has been shown to have significant motivational consequences in students (Bandura, 1997; Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001). When students perceive they are making progress towards their own learning goals they experience positive motivational effects (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001). In other words, greater ASE leads to further motivation and these two variables affect one another bi-directionally. Research has also shown that high ASE students tend to use cognitive strategies more effectively (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). It isnt surprising then that research has consistently shown ASE to be a fairly strong predictor of grades and persistence among college students (Zajacova, Lynch, & Espenshade, 2005). In fact, Pintrich and De Groot (1990) found that ASE was the best predictor of GPA among the variables they included in their model. A wealth of research has demonstrated the critical role ASE plays in student success (e.g., Angell, 2006; Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001; Elias & Loomis, 2000; Freeman, Anderman,

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET & Jensen 2007; Robbins et al., 2004). Previous research suggests low ASE students are more likely to change majors (Elias & Loomis, 2000) and have a lower sense of belonging (Freeman, Anderman, & Jensen 2007). Moreover, Angell (2006) found that students with high ASE were

more intrinsically motivated to learn and learned for the sake of pleasure and satisfaction, which was reinforced through feelings of intelligence. In a meta-analysis of psychosocial and study skill factors, Robbins et al. (2004) found that academic goals, ASE, and academic-related skills were the best predictors of retention. Specifically, Robbins et al. found ASE to be the best overall predictor for both college outcomes measured (i.e., GPA and retention). Moreover, Robbins and colleagues concluded that educational persistence models may underestimate the importance of academic engagement, as evidenced by academic goals, academic-related skills, and academic self-efficacy constructs, in college students retention behavior (p. 275). While Robbins et al. indicated achievement goals were an important aspect of student success, they also noted that there were not enough studies that included measures of mastery and performance goal orientations to include in their meta-analysis. Achievement Goal Orientation Based on previous research demonstrating the importance of considering students goals for learning (e.g., Ames, 1992; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Linnenbrink, 2005; Robbins et al., 2004), AGO will be included as a primarily independent variable in the present study. Learning goals affect students motivation to learn, specifically in terms of their intrinsic motivation (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot, 1999). AGO is defined as an individuals set of beliefs that reflect the reasons why they approach and engage in academic tasks (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Pintrich, 2000; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2002; Wentzel, 1999). Research has identified two primary academic goal
Trevor Nagle! 12/18/13 11:57 AM
Comment [5]: If you had said!.Robbins and colleagues concluded, Education persistence! the capital E would have been correct. By adding in the that, you need a small-letter e in this case.

Trevor Nagle! 12/18/13 11:55 AM

Deleted: E

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET orientations, including mastery and performance orientations (Ames & Archer, 1988). Mastery orientation can be described as learning for the sake of learning and is thought to increase a students intrinsic motivation. Conversely, performance orientation can be described as a students focus on obtaining extrinsic rewards, such as grades. Students with a performance

orientation derive satisfaction in completing a task from extrinsic sources (e.g., grades). Mastery oriented students pursue challenging tasks and endure when faced with difficult situations (Ames, 1992). On the other hand, performance oriented students tend to avoid challenges and situations that would expose their incompetence, and prefer simple tasks where success is certain (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). When faced with challenges, performance oriented students also exhibit withdrawal or avoidance behavior out of fear of failure (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). In general, mastery orientation is preferred over performance orientation. Empirical research supports this claim, as performance orientation has been found to negatively correlate with a number of positive psychological and academic variables (Linnenbrink, 2005), while mastery orientation has been found to positively correlate with a number of positive psychological and academic variables. For example, performance orientation has been associated with higher anxiety, a greater likelihood to engage in academic dishonesty, and surface level approaches to learning (Linnenbrink, 2005). Linnenbrink (2005, as cited in Sakiz, 2011) further elaborated on the negative consequences of performance orientations when she asserted that performance approach goal orientations are detrimental for students academic achievement, cause anxiety, and are not associated with motivational outcomes such as selfregulation, interest, self-efficacy, and academic help-seeking (p. 776). By contrast, mastery goal orientations have practically been found to positively correlate with almost all motivational and academic achievement variables (Linnenbrink, 2005;

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, & Lehto, 1997). Mastery orientation leads to an adaptive behavioral pattern characterized by challenge seeking, intrinsic motivation, and persistence (Ames, 1992; Church, Elliot, & Gable, 2001; Dweck, 1986). Diseth, Pallesen, Brunborg, & Larsen (2010) found that perceived appropriate workload was positively related to a deep

10

approach to learning (i.e., mastery orientation), while a surface level approach (i.e., performance orientation) was negatively related to perceived appropriate workload. These findings taken together with the other studies the researcher has reviewed on ASE suggest that ASE and AGO may be closely related. That is, characteristics of high ASE students align closely with mastery orientation, while characteristics of low ASE students align closely with performance orientation. In conclusion, research suggests that mastery approach goal orientations can provide important academic, social, and psychological benefits to students, especially when compared to performance approach goal orientations, which appear to lead to maladaptive behavioral patterns such as challenge avoidance, task withdrawal, and diminished intrinsic motivation. Previous Studies Examining AE In this section (comma) the researcher will review three of the limited number of studies that have investigated AE (Chowning & Campbell, 2009; Greenberger, Lessard, Chen, & Farruggia, 2008; Reinhardt, 2012). Research has shown that entitlement attitudes are positively correlated with maladaptive and antisocial behaviors, such as greed, aggression, lack of forgiveness, hostility, dominance, Machiavellianism, difficulty with relationships, intention to harm, perception by others that one is hostile or deceitful, holding grudges, and taking items that belong to others (Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, & Bushman, 2004; Raskin & Terry, 1988). When a person feels that he or she is entitled to a certain outcome and does not receive it, the response is often one of anger rather than one of disappointment (Major, 1994, as cited in

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET

11

Kopp, Zinn, Finney, & Jurich, 2011). It is not surprising then that AE has been associated with uncivil student behaviors (Chowning & Campbell, 2009) and other inappropriate student behaviors, such as academic dishonesty (Greenberger, Lessard, Chen, & Farruggia, 2008). A re-occurring theme among the handful of studies that have specifically investigated AE have found only moderate overlap between narcissism, psychological entitlement, and AE. In other words, AE appears to be a distinctly separate construct from narcissism and entitlement. Furthermore, while entitlement has been thoroughly investigated among the literature, limited studies have investigated the newly developed AE construct. In the following section, the researcher will review the existing literature relevant to AE. Study 1: Greenberger, Lessard, Chen, and Farruggia (2008). In a two-part study of undergraduates, Greenberger, Lessard, Chen, and Farruggia (2008) developed one of the several existing AE measures. In their study, Greenberger and colleagues examined the relationship between AE and a number of other relevant variables and dispositional personality characteristics, such as self-esteem, narcissism, and psychological entitlement. One important finding from their study was that AE was found to only moderately overlap and have a positive correlation with psychological entitlement and narcissism, as the authors hypothesized. These results support the notion that AE is a similar, although distinctly different construct from psychological entitlement and narcissism. Furthermore, Greenberger, Lessard, Chen, and Farruggia (2008) found that AE was negatively related to a number of other positive characteristics. For example, they found a negative correlation between AE and self-esteem, work orientation, and social commitment. In the second part of their study they examined the relationship between AE and parenting practices, motivation, achievement anxiety, academic achievement, and academic dishonesty.

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET

12

Additionally, AE was positively correlated with achievement anxiety, extrinsic motivation, and academic dishonesty. It is interesting to note that although students higher in AE tended to cheat and display more academically dishonest behaviors, it did not appear that these behaviors paid off with higher grades, given the negative relationship between AE and academic achievement, as measured by GPA. Lastly, AE was positively correlated with parental academic expectations, although Greenberger and colleagues concluded that the personality variables they investigated explained considerably more of the variance in AE than the perceived parenting practices measures. Furthermore, they were only able to account for 31% of the variance in AE using the variables they included in their study using a regression analysis, which suggests there are still important variables to consider as components of AE. One limitation of their study is that intrinsic motivation was not measured, as only a measure of Extrinsic Academic Motivation was included. The proposed study will provide a more comprehensive examination of the relationship between AE and motivation, and attempt to capture a greater amount of variance that predictive model of student success may account for by including measures of AE and other theoretically important variables. Study 2: Chowning and Campbell (2009). Chowning and Campbell (2009) also made an attempt at developing an AE measure. Their two-factor AE instrument includes measures of Externalized Responsibility for students academic success and students self-serving Entitled Expectations regarding professors and course policies. The focus of Chowning and Campbells study was slightly different than Greenberger, Lessard, Chen, and Farruggias (2008) in that these researchers were interested in investigating incivil student behavior and identifying a stable individual personality difference (i.e., AE) that predicted inappropriate student behaviors. The working definition of AE that

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET

13

Chowning and Campbell used was conceptually similar to Greenberger and colleagues, although they did not explicitly mention demanding attitudes towards teachers. Chowning & Campbell defined AE as, the tendency to possess an expectation of academic success without taking personal responsibility for achieving that success (p. 982). In their four-part study, Chowning and Campbell (2009) examined the relationship between the AE measure they developed and a number of different constructs, such as narcissism, self-esteem, psychological entitlement, and general personality characteristics. Their findings support those of Greenberger, Lessard, Chen, and Farruggia (2008) in that AE was only moderately related to psychological entitlement and narcissism, suggesting its existence as an independent construct. Furthermore, Chowning and Campbell found that freshmen that externalized their responsibility in their academic pursuits often scored higher on AE. Likewise, in a laboratory task, high AE students evaluated the experimenter more negatively than students with lower AE scores. Here again, the entitled student is seen externalizing their responsibility for their actions and displacing this on the experimenter. Additionally, AE, specifically the Externalized Responsibility subscale of Chowning & Campbells (2009) AE measure, was negatively correlated with need for cognition (i.e., extent to which people engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activities), personal control, which is closely related to locus of control, and self-esteem, all of which are essential components for academic success. The finding that AE and self-esteem are negatively correlated is consistent with Greenberger, Lessard, Chen, and Farrugias (2008) findings. In terms of personality correlates, AE was negatively related to agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion. According to a recent meta-analysis of the Big 5 personality traits, (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness) two out of three of these personality traits
Trevor Nagle! 12/18/13 12:05 PM
Comment [6]: This is a bit confusing!so is it just the subscale which is negative correlated with a need for cognition? If so, its problematic to say that AE (as a whole) is negative correlated.

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET (agreeableness and conscientiousness) were identified as significant positive predictors of academic performance, with the latter being the strongest predictor (Poropat, 2009). These

14

findings suggest the need to further investigate the AE construct among college students, as AE appears to be related to a number of variables that are counterproductive to learning, student engagement, and academic performance (Kopp, Zinn, Finney, & Jurich, 2011). Lastly, Chowning and Campbell (2009) examined the relationship between a number of demographic variables and AE. Consistent with the findings from Greenberger, Lessard, Chen, and Farruggia (2008) and other previous studies on entitlement (e.g., Ciani, Summers, & Easter, 2008; Hartman, 2012), men scored significantly higher than women on the Externalized Responsibility subscale of the AE measure. Their findings didnt indicate any differences between class level and AE, which is contrary to what one would expect. One may expect firstyear students to score higher on AE measures than upperclassmen, although results suggested otherwise. This also supports the notion of academic entitlement as an individual difference not necessarily diminishing as a student gains more experience in college. One criticism of the AE measure developed by Chowning and Campbell (2009) was that the authors did not describe how many factors their AE measure included, how the scale was developed, or any other information regarding it that is critical for assessing the usefulness of the instrument (see Kopp, Zinn, Finney, & Jurich, 2011 for a detailed psychometric critique of all existing AE measures). Reinhardt (2012), the author of the next study the researcher has reviewed, raised the question as to whether the researchers who have investigated AE are measuring the same construct. Furthermore, Reinhardt (2012) emphasized the importance of developing a valid instrument to measure AE and noted that, In order for research and
Trevor Nagle! 12/18/13 12:06 PM
Comment [7]: Write out fully!.avoid contractions, i.e., did not

Trevor Nagle! 12/18/13 12:05 PM

Deleted: their

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET discussion to occur, there needs to be a common understanding of what constitutes academic entitlement (p. 4). Study 3: Reinhardt (2012). In a recent study, Reinhardt (2012) took the existing items from four separate AE

15

measures and attempted to extract an interpretable factor structure in order to create a conceptual framework. Reinhardt also examined the relationship between AE and various other related constructs, including ones proposed in this study. His results suggest that AE is a multidimensional construct with seven factors: narcissism, professors agency, arguing for grades, expectations for grade increase, professors etiquette, reward for effort, and input on classroom operations. Most importantly, and consistent with previous studies, Reinhardt found that academic entitlement was related to, but distinctly different from, psychological entitlement. The first variable of interest that Reinhardt (2012) examined as it relates to the present study was academic goal orientation (AGO; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Finney, Pieper, & Barron, 2004; Bong, 2001). AGO is defined as the learning aims students have relating to their academic work and was measured using the Achievement Goal Questionnaire (AGQ), which includes four subscales: Mastery-Approach Orientation, Mastery-Avoidance Orientation, PerformanceApproach Orientation, and Performance-Avoidance Orientation. Reinhardts results showed that AE was positively related to performance-avoidance and mastery-avoidance orientations, and to a lesser extent performance-approach. Furthermore, mastery-approach orientation was negatively related to AE. Consistent with these findings, Reinhardt also found that students higher in AE were less likely to be intrinsically and extrinsically motivated (identified regulation specifically), thus not surprisingly these students were more likely to be amotivated. Reinhardt concluded that it seems that students with a greater sense of entitlement may not be motivated

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET academically at all and raised an important question: Are these students expecting to coast through their degrees by simply being present, while placing all the responsibility for their education onto others, while also expecting to be rewarded when they are forced to exert effort academically? I agree with Reinhardt up to a point, although I cannot accept his overall indication that these academically entitled students are expecting to get through school without exerting any effort whatsoever. Is it possible that poor academic preparation and inaccurate expectations for college that students bring from high school contribute to what has been observed as entitled student behaviors? Could these issues simply be a symptom of a larger issue, such as decreasing academic preparedness of incoming freshmen? One might hope this would be the case because that would indicate that higher education institutions have more control over shaping and re-calibrating these behaviors and expectations than they would otherwise. The second variable of interest as measured by Reinhardt (2012) was course selfefficacy, as measured by the College Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (CASES; Owen & Froman, 1988). Although previous researchers (e.g., Achacoso, 2002) have called for a further investigation of how other motivational variables such as persistence, self-efficacy beliefs, and

16

Trevor Nagle! 12/18/13 12:09 PM

Comment [8]: Avoid first person!.you can write this in third person and get the same thoughts across. Well know that it is your agreement/disagreement or your perspective, because youre the author.

control of learning relate to AE, Reinhardt was the first to include both a measure of self-efficacy and AE. His results showed a negative relationship between AE and ASE. Interestingly, ASE was positively related to arguing for grades. These findings taken together suggest that academically entitled students may be less confident in their academic endeavors, leading to abandonment of personal responsibility, while still expecting to be rewarded for their effort. Reinhardt concluded that this could create a cycle that reinforces this type of inappropriate

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET student behavior. This finding is consistent with the concept of grade inflation and how some authors have suggested grade inflation may contribute to the reinforcement of AE attitudes.

17

Methods The purpose of this exploratory study is to investigate the possible relationship between a newly proposed psychological construct, AE, and two other theoretically related variables, including ASE and AGO. More specifically, one of the primary goals of this study is to further define the AE construct and provide further validation for a newly developed AE measure. Kopp, Zinn, Finney, & Jurich (2011) have proposed a new AE measure, although no other studies to date have provided further validation for this scale. The two primary independent variables in this study are ASE and AGO, while the dependent variable is AE. Data Collection Methods The proposed quantitative exploratory study will employ a correlational, cross-sectional research design. More specifically, an online survey instrument using Qualtrics Research Suite, Version 37,892 (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) will be developed and will include three scales adopted from previous studies to measure AE, ASE, and AGO. The researcher expects that the survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Measurement The four primary measures involved in the survey instrument for the current study include the AEQ (Kopp, Zinn, Finney, & Jurich, 2011) to measure AE, the Academic SelfEfficacy Scale (Leach, Queriolo, DeVoe, & Chemers, 2003) to measure ASE, and the Intrinsic Goal Orientation (i.e., mastery goal orientation) and Extrinsic Goal Orientation (i.e., performance goal orientation) subscales of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
Trevor Nagle! 12/18/13 12:19 PM
Comment [9]: Be explicit here with the length of the survey, i.e., number of items. Since youre estimating 15 minutes for completion, how many items does this include? I know I could go through the measurement section to piece that together, but as your reader, dont make me work that hard. !

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET (MSLQ; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991) to measure AGO, and a demographic questionnaire. Academic Entitlement. This construct is defined as the expectation that one should receive certain positive academic outcomes (e.g., high grades) in academic settings, often independent of performance (Kopp, Zinn, Finney, & Jurich, 2011, p. 106). The proposed

18

survey instrument will include the AEQ (Kopp et al., 2011) to measure AE. The AEQ (a = .81 .84) consists of eight statements related to students expectations within the classroom and is measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree). For the purposes of the analysis, this scale will be treated as an interval level of measurement. An example item includes If I don't do well on a test, the professor should make tests easier or curve grades. Academic Self-Efficacy. This construct is defined as individuals' convictions that they can successfully perform given academic tasks at designated levels (Schunk, 1991). The researcher will measure this construct using the ASES (Leach, Queriolo, DeVoe, & Chemers, 2003). The ASES consists of eight statements about participants confidence and perceived ability or competence in accomplishing academic tasks and is measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Definitely NOT true of me and 7 = Definitely true of me). For the purposes of the analysis, this scale will be treated as an interval level of measurement. An example item includes I am very capable of succeeding at the university. Achievement Goal Orientation. This construct is defined as a persons set of beliefs that reflect the reasons why they approach and engage in academic and learning tasks. Two subscales from the MSLQ (Intrinsic Goal Orientation [a = .74] and Extrinsic Goal Orientation [a = .62]) are included in the survey instrument. The MSLQ (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, &

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET

19

McKeachie, 1991) was designed to measure students' motivational orientations and their use of different learning strategies, and is measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Definitely NOT true of me and 7 = Definitely true of me). For the purposes of the analysis, this scale will be treated as an interval level of measurement. Example item from the Intrinsic Goal Orientation subscale includes In a class like this, I prefer course material that really challenges me so I can learn new things and an example item from the Extrinsic Goal Orientation subscale includes the most important thing for me right now is improving my overall grade point average, so my main concern in this class is getting a good grade. Demographics. Based on the review of the literature, a number of standard demographic questions commonly used in educational research have been selected for proposed survey instrument. The following demographics will be collected from participants responses to demographic questions on the proposed survey instrument: first-generational status (1 = firstgeneration and 0 = not first-generation; nominal scale), sex (1 = male and 2 = female; nominal scale), class standing (1 = freshman/first-year, 2 = sophomore, 3 = junior, 4 = senior, and 5 = unclassified; ordinal scale), transfer status (1 = transferred to Edgewood College and 2 = began at Edgewood College; nominal scale), full/part-time status (1 = full-time and 2 = part-time; nominal scale), residential status (1 = lives on-campus and 2 = lives off-campus; nominal scale), employment status (1 = working during school year and 2 = not working during school year; nominal scale), and advanced placement (AP) credits (self-reported number of AP credits transferred; ratio scale). The previously listed demographic variables are considered spurious variables and will be controlled for as such. Sampling

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET

20

The theoretical population in the proposed study includes undergraduate students in the U.S. Undergraduate students at the college where the proposed study will be conducted will serve as the study population. Eligible participants for the proposed study will include undergraduate students enrolled at a small liberal arts college in the Midwest during the spring 2014 semester. Participant demographics are expected to reflect those found at the college at which the study will be conducted (29.8% male and 70.2% female; 85.3% white and 14.7% ALANA; Office of Institutional Assessment & Research, 2012). Additionally, the proportions of faculty who are contacted to assist in the recruitment of participants, specifically in terms of the school in which they teach, are expected to represent the overall college. According to Leedy and Ormrod (2013), 20% of the population should be sampled if the population is around 1,500. The sampling frame for the proposed study will be approximately 1,716 undergraduates; therefore, the optimistically expected sample size will be approximately 343 students, which is roughly 20% of the overall study population. A more conservative and realistic estimate of the expected sample size is between 100 and 150 students. Ideally, a probabilistic, stratified random sampling procedure would be utilized for the proposed study. However, this option has been ruled out by the researcher because of time and resource constraints. The next best sampling option that has been identified by the researcher for the proposed study is a non-probability technique. More specifically, a purposive proportional quota sampling technique will be employed to obtain as representative of a sample as possible. Regardless, the researcher emphasizes the fact that any results from the proposed study must be generalized with great caution. The researcher will employ this sampling technique by first selecting classes that are held during the time of the day in which most classes are held to maximize the sample size. The
David Gibson! 1/14/14 6:51 AM
Comment [12]: I will say ditto to Trevors thought here, and this may very well become part of your manuscript. However, you may write it as, Purposive proportional quota sampling technique was employed with the goal of obtaining a representative sample. In the case of this research, the sample (was or was not representative).

Trevor Nagle! 12/18/13 12:12 PM

Comment [10]: Based on our earlier conversation, this is hoped, but not expected based on how you plan to access this sample, right?

David Gibson! 1/14/14 6:49 AM

Comment [11]: Trevors comment is accurate, but this will be a statement that is eliminated once the data are collected.

Trevor Nagle! 12/18/13 12:12 PM

Deleted: in

Trevor Nagle! 12/18/13 12:13 PM

Comment [13]: This reinforces my comment above!you can hope to be representative, but you shouldnt expect to be.

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET researcher has consulted with several experts to make this decision and has come to the conclusion that between the timeframe of 10am and 12pm is most appropriate to select from

21

based on the number of courses in session. Another researcher at the same college the study will be conducted at has used a similar sampling technique to garner a more than sufficient sample size of over 400 respondents (D. Lambert, personal communication, November 30, 2013). The researcher will first identify courses with professors that he has worked with previously through his employment at the College for the sake of convenience and their likelihood of agreeing to participate. From there, classes will be randomly selected from all possible classes during the 10a to 12p timeframe using a random number generator in Microsoft Excel. The researcher prior to the start of the spring 2014 semester will identify the classes to be included in the sample. Professors teaching the selected courses will be contacted during the first week of the spring 2014 semester and data collection will occur between weeks four and six of that same semester. Several options will be provided to professors to assist in the recruitment of student participants. The first and preferred option will be to have the researcher take approximately 15 minutes at the beginning of one of their class periods to administer the survey to students. If that is not possible, the second option will be to have the professor send out a recruitment email including a brief description of the study, as well as the survey link to students enrolled in their class. All professors will be asked to send out at least one reminder email including the survey link to students enrolled in their course regardless of which initial recruitment option they select from. Per the proposed proportional quota sampling technique chosen, survey responses will be collected until approximately 102 male and 241 female responses have been obtained. The sampling technique will only be used proportionally for gender, as it has been deemed impractical by the researcher to include additional demographic variables in terms of obtaining
Trevor Nagle! 12/18/13 12:15 PM
Comment [14]: Since youre doing a purposive, convenience sample, why not simply send it to all possible classes to try and maximize your ultimate sample size?

David Gibson! 1/14/14 6:54 AM

Comment [15]: Ditto

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET equivalent proportions. One strength of the proposed sampling technique is that a higher response rate will be more likely if time is given to the researcher to administer the survey

22

instrument during class time rather than sending out a mass email and hoping for responses. On the other hand, this can be considered a limitation at the same time because the researchers request to administer the survey during class time will make faculty members less likely to agree with the first and preferred option for administering the survey. Moreover, one additional limitation of the proposed sampling technique is that the extent to which the results can be generalized will be quite variable and are directly dependent upon the demographics of respondents. Procedure. Two weeks into the spring 2014, faculty teaching the selecting courses based on the sampling method described previously will be contacted through email. This email will include a brief explanation of the current study, as well an electronic document copy of the survey instrument. The researcher will request faculty members assistance in sending the researchers recruitment message with the survey link to students enrolled in their undergraduate courses four weeks into the semester. The survey link will also be added to the Colleges Research Participant Pool website for students to complete for course credit, if applicable. The survey will remain open for two weeks after the initial launch. The first page of the online survey will be an implied consent form, which will explain the purpose of the study and the terms of participation. Students will be informed that their participation is voluntary and that they may withdraw at any time. The participants will provide informed consent by checking I agree at the bottom of the introductory page of the online survey before they are allowed to proceed. Participants selecting I disagree will be sent to the
Trevor Nagle! 12/18/13 12:17 PM
Comment [16]: Until you receive HPRB approval (not sure if you have, as I havent seen those emails), you should only state that Within two weeks of obtaining HPRB approval, !..

David Gibson! 1/14/14 6:54 AM

Comment [17]: This will be determined later. Not a big deal.

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET

23

end of the survey using Qualtrics skip logic feature. Participants will also be assured that their responses will remain confidential and will only be used by the researcher for the purpose of this study. All data collected will be stored in password-protected files and only anonymous, aggregated results will be released and shared in any reports. At the end of the survey participants will be asked to provide their student ID number, class they would like to apply the course credit to, and name of instructor if they are participating to earn course credit. Data Analysis Survey data will be exported from Qualtrics as a .SPSS file. All analyses will be conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics, release version 19.0.0.1. Initial analysis will include descriptive statistics to determine the representativeness of the sample in relation to the overall student population. Significance testing (e.g., t-tests and chi-squared tests) will be used to determine what demographic variables may be related to independent variables. Discussion Strengths of the Proposed Research Design Efficient collection of large amounts of data. The researcher will utilize a web-based survey for data collection, which will allow him to quickly gain a great deal of information from student participants in a non-threatening, and time- and cost-efficient manner. Considering that the proposed study is exploratory in nature, a survey instrument is the most logical choice for collecting the relatively large amounts of data that will be needed to explore the relationships between the variables of interest. Additionally, the researcher has easy and cost-free access to the two main technologies/software packages that will be used to collect and analyze data (i.e., SPSS and Qualtrics).

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET Broad collection of input from diverse group of students. A proportional quota

24

sampling technique (non-probabilistic) will be employed to obtain as representative of a sample as possible for the proposed study. This sampling approach is the next best option for obtaining a sufficient sample size that is fairly representative of the larger student body at the College without employing a probability sampling approach, which has been determined unrealistic under the given circumstances and constraints. The goal in using this approach is to obtain a fairly representative sample of students in terms of undergraduate academic division representation among the four primary and largest schools (i.e., Arts & Sciences, Business, Education, and Nursing). This type of representation will allow for greater likelihood of generalizing the results beyond the College at which the proposed study will be conducted (e.g., to similar academic departments at other institutions), assuming a sufficient sample size is obtained. Limitations of the Proposed Research Design Inability to make causal inferences. The nature and design of the proposed correlational study does not allow the researcher to make causal inferences. The researcher acknowledges that this is a common limitation shared by many educational psychology research studies and that correlation doesn't imply causation. This holds true even if the researcher decided to utilize more advanced statistical modeling techniques, such as structural equation modeling (SEM). For example, latent variable modeling is frequently used in the field of educational psychology research to explain the directional relationship between a number of variables. In this scenario, the researcher must still approach making any type of causal inferences between variables with caution (T. Nagle, personal communication, October 31st, 2013).
David Gibson! 1/14/14 6:58 AM
Comment [19]: I would just eliminate this paragraph. Why make any claim about causal inference? It is generally implicit in social science research. How you term your findings will be most important. For example you might indicate, High levels of AE resulted in a significant negative effect on AGO independent of ASE as well as all demographic variables explaining 36% of the variance in the AGO.

David Gibson! 1/14/14 6:55 AM

Comment [18]: Regression is a predictive form statistical analysis, because will be indicating that AE explains some percentage of the variance in each of the dependent variables. At least I think that is the thinking.

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET Use of self-report data. Survey instruments rely on self-reported data. Both the independent and dependent variables measured by survey instrument rely on self-reported

25

items. Individuals are not always the best judge of their own attitudes, beliefs, feelings, and past behaviors, or may respond in socially desirable ways, and the researcher acknowledges the accuracy of these measures may questioned. Ideally, a researcher would utilize behavioral measures that can be objectively measured in a study of this nature, but under the researchers current constraints they have decided that a survey approach is most feasible despite the use of self-reported measures. Conclusion A potential flaw in research design of the proposed study could be the sampling approach and method the researcher has proposed. The researcher would benefit from spending more time and effort considering their sampling procedure and approach in designing a more effective research project in the future. More specifically, and under more ideal conditions, the researcher may consider looking into probability sampling methods that could be used to help obtain as representative sample as possible and maximize the generalizability of their findings. Considering that academic entitlement has only been formally acknowledged in the literature within the last five years or so, a wealth of potential research projects exist for exploring this construct and related topics. A limited number of studies have investigated AE so the door is virtually wide-open for exploration. The study population in the proposed study is primarily Caucasian. Future research would benefit from examining academic entitlement and the other variables included in the proposed study using a more demographically diverse sample of college students. Furthermore, the type of institution and location (small, private 4-year institution in the Midwest) at which this study will be conducted, may be considered as both a limitation and

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET strength, primarily the latter. For example, it may be a limitation in that the results must be generalized with caution to other types of institutions and those in different locations. On the other hand, AE has not been investigated within this particular institutional setting previously, which adds to the existing literature on the construct. Researchers have only touched the tip of the iceberg in terms of investigated this topic. Many additional unanswered questions exist, including: How does AE develop? What can

26

institutions do to help minimize these entitled student behaviors? Does a measure of AE provide any utility for assessing the effectiveness of academic programs, early student interventions, or other retention related initiatives? How do AE attitudes hold longitudinally? Do students become less academically entitled as they gain more education? Is AE seen in non-traditional students and/or online students, or is it mutually exclusive to the most current generations? It would be beneficial in general to investigate AE in additional student demographics and populations. This last question posed by the researcher is one in which the researcher hopes to capitalize on considering that both these student populations (non-traditional and online) exist at the institution at which the current study will be conducted. The study is intended to help clarify the nomological network of AE by investigating theoretically related variables, such as ASE and AGO, which have not been included as measures within a single study of AE to the researchers knowledge. Moreover, the proposed study intends to help clarify the relationship between AE and academic achievement. Kopp, Zinn, Finney, and Jurich (2011) noted that the sample used in their study in which they developed their AE measure only included freshman and was primarily female. The proposed study also adds to the existing literature by examining AE in particular student demographics (e.g., upper classmen) that have not been included in previous studies, have only been investigated within a single

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET

27

study, or have been underrepresented in samples from other studies. Lastly, the proposed study will be the first study to replicate and test the validity of the newly devised AEQ (Kopp et al., 2011), which will allow for greater utility of this measurement instrument.

References Achacoso, M. V. (2002). What do you mean my grade is not an A? An investigation of academic entitlement, causal attributions, and self-regulation in college students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Texas, Austin. Retrieved from http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/2486 Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261. Ames, C. & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260. Angell, L. R. (2006). The relationship of impulsiveness, personal efficacy, and academic motivation to college cheating. College Student Journal, 40, 118131. Baer, J. C. (2011). Students' distress over grades: Entitlement or a coping response? Journal of Social Work Education, 47(3), 565-577. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1982). The assessment and predictive generality of self-percepts of efficacy. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 13, 195-199. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Trevor Nagle! 12/18/13 12:20 PM

Comment [20]: Start this on a new page always..Just an FYI

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET Bong, M. (2001). Role of self-efficacy and task-value in predicting college students' course performance and future enrollment intentions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(4), 553-570. Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83(1), 2945.

28

Ciani, K., Summers, J., & Easter, M (2008). Gender differences in academic entitlement among college students. The Journal of Genetics, 169(4), 332-344. Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55. Chowning, K., & Campbell, N. J. (2009). Development and validation of a measure of academic entitlement: Individual differences in students externalized responsibility and entitled expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 982997. doi:10.1037/a0016351 Diseth, ., Pallesen, S., Brunborg, G., & Larsen, S. (2010). Academic achievement among first semester undergraduate psychology students: the role of course experience, effort, motives and learning strategies. Higher Education, 59(3), 335-352. doi:10.1007/s10734009-9251-8 Dubovsky, S. L. (1986). Coping with entitlement in medical education. The New England Journal of Medicine, 1672-1674. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132.

29

Elias, S. M., & Loomis, R. J. (2000). Using an academic self-efficacy scale to address university major persistence. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4), 450-454. Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational psychologist, 34(3), 169-189. Elliot, A. J., & Church , M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232. Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A meditational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461-475. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2! 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501. Finney, S. J., Pieper, S. L., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Examining the psychometric properties of the Achievement Goal Questionnaire in a general academic context. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(2), 365-382. Freeman, T. M., Anderman, L. H., & Jensen, J. M. (2007). Sense of belonging in college freshmen at the classroom and campus levels. The Journal of Experimental Education, 75(3), 203-220. Greenberger, E., Lessard, J., Chen, C., & Farruggia, S. P. (2008). Self-entitled college students: Contributions of personality, parenting, and motivational factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(10), 11931204. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9284-9 Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., & Lehto, A. T. (1997). Predictors and

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1284-1295. Hartman, T. B. (2012). An analysis of university student academic self-entitlement: Levels of entitlement, academic year, and gender. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Eastern Michigan University. Retrieved from http://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1758&context=theses Keenberg, D. A., & Drescher, B. A. (2012, April). Academic entitlement plus teaching to the

30

test: Recipe for ignorance. Poster session presented at the 2012 Annual Convention of the Western Psychological Association (WPA), San Francisco, CA. Kopp, J. P., Zinn, T. E., Finney, S. J., & Jurich, D. P. (2011). I cant believe she gave me a C!: Measuring entitlement in higher education. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 44(2), 105-129. Leach, C. W., Queirolo, S. S., DeVoe, S., & Chembers, M. (2003). Choosing letter grade evaluations: The interaction of students achievement goals and self-efficacy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 495-509. Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013), Practical research: Planning and design (10th ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Linnenbrink, E. A. (2005). The dilemma of performance-approach goals: The use of multiple goal contexts to promote students motivation and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 197-213. Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Achievement goal theory and affect: An asymmetrical bidirectional model. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 69-78. Office of Institutional Assessment & Research. (2012). Edgewood College quick facts 2012-

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET

31

2013, Madison, WI: Edgewood College. Retrieved from the Edgewood College Office of Institutional Assessment & Research website at http://my.edgewood.edu/sites/services/iro/Data/Institutional%20Research/Quick%20Fact s/Quick%20Facts%202012-2013.pdf Owen, S. V., & Froman, R. D. (1988). Development of a College Academic Self-Ef"cacy Scale. (Report No. TM 012 263). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED298158). Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 544-555. Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322-338. Qualtrics. (2013). Qualtrics Research Suite (Version 37,892). Provo, UT: Qualtrics. Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-component analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5. Reinhardt, J. (2012). Conceptualizing academic entitlement: What are we measuring? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Windsor. Retrieved from http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=etd

EXTENDING THE NOMOLOGICAL NET Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261288. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261 Sakiz, G. (2011). Mastery and performance approach goal orientations in relation to academic

32

self-efficacy beliefs and academic help seeking behaviors of college students in Turkey. Educational Research, 2(1), 771-778. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207231. Shapiro, P. D. (2012). Entitled to cheat: An examination of incoming freshmen at a small regional university. The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology, 4(1), 2. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2002). Internal and external frames of reference for academic self-concept. Educational Psychologist, 37(4), 233-244. Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation me: why today's young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled--and more miserable than ever before. New York: Free Press. Twenge, J. M. (2009). Generational changes and their impact in the classroom: Teaching Generation Me. Medical Education, 43, 398-405. Wentzel, K. R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships: Implications for understanding motivation in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 7697. Zajacova, A., Lynch, S. M., & Espenshade, T. J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and academic success in college. Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 677-706. doi:10.1007/s11162004-4139-z