Entitled Due to Deprivation vs. Superiority: Evidence That Unidimensional Entitlement Scales Blend Distinct Entitlement Rationales across Psychological Dimensions

Abstract We aimed to corroborate the notion that the Psychological Entitlement Scale (PES), a popular unidimensional index of psychological entitlement, resembles a blend of vulnerable- and grandiose-based entitlement rationales across various psychological dimensions. College participants (N = 523) were randomly assigned to complete either the PES or a recently validated, multidimensional adaptation of the PES that purports to assess entitlement due to deprivation (vulnerable-based entitlement; “PES-V”) and superiority (grandiose-based entitlement; “PES-G”) claims. Participants then completed a battery of psychological dimensions including: narcissism constructs, interpersonal vulnerability and mood pathology, psychological health, normal personality and personality-disorder traits, motivation systems, a deprived identity, and status aspiration. Profile-similarity indices indicated that PES was more similar to PES-G than PES-V across psychological dimensions. Likewise, additional analyses revealed that indicators of “narcissistic entitlement” exhibited stronger profile similarity to PES-G than PES-V across psychological dimensions. In conclusion, profiles of the PES and narcissistic entitlement appear to blend grandiose- and vulnerable-based entitlement, but grandiose-based (vs. vulnerable-based) entitlement seems more prominent in the blend. As a result, unidimensional measures can create a somewhat misleading portrait of the psychologically entitled.