Bachelorarbeit, 2020
44 Seiten, Note: 2:1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter 2
METHOD
Chapter III
RESULTS
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
Appendix A: PIS and Informed Consent
Appendix B: Debrief Template
Appendix C: Basic Information Sheet
Appendix D: The Schutte Self Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSEIT)
Appendix E: Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale
Appendix F: Triandis Culture Orientation Scale
Appendix G: Vignette
Appendix H: Ethical approval
Appendix I: Effron and Miller (2011) vignette
Appendix J: Graph representations of Descriptive Statistics
Appendix K: Power Analysis
I would first like to thank my advisor Dr. Karen Maher of the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, School of Psychological, Social and Behavioral Sciences at Coventry University; UK. She was always open to queries and support whenever I had a doubt about my research or writing.
Furthermore, I would like to thank Dr. Darshan Perera; Director of Colombo International Institute of Higher Education Sri Lanka, for providing the foundation, knowledge and motivation for my journey.
Last but not the least, I must express my profound gratitude to my family and friends for providing me with constant inspiration and unfailing support.
This completion would not have been possible without them.
Thank you.
Tharumini Weerakoon
This research examined factors affecting Diffusion of Entitlement to identify the most likely individual to be prone to Diffusion of Entitlement. This was explored by considering 3 key factors; Self-esteem, Emotional Intelligence and Culture Orientation.
An online survey of a cross sectional correlational design was conducted on 96 undergraduate students (21 males and 75 females, mean age = 21.1, SD = 4.72) from Coventry University, UK. 3 scales measuring the 3 independent variables along with a decision vignette to measure if an individual was prone to Diffusion of Entitlement or not was provided. The results were analyzed to show a high significance value for High Emotional Intelligence predicting Diffusion of Entitlement and no prediction from Self Esteem and Culture Orientation.
Keywords- Diffusion of Entitlement, Self Esteem, Emotional Intelligence, Culture Orientation
In numerous situations, a societal norm designates people to equal sized shared commodities; for example, equal pay for men and women doing similar work (Deutsch 1975). This norm of equality can affect some individual’s views on correctness when it comes to scarce consumable commodities and could lead to an individual inhibiting their consumption to feed the others (van Dijk, Wilke, Wilke, and Metman 1999; Harris and Joyce 1980; van Dijk and Wilke 1995; Allison, McQueen and Schaerfl 1992).
It is worthwhile noticing that while this norm is valid in situations, some individuals react to a surge of scarcity in commodities caused by hindered supply or increase in demand by delaying or inhibiting consumption (Effron and Miller 2011). Even during the circumstance of equally shared commodities, some individuals may delay the amount they intake to meet the necessities of equality (Rutte, Wilke, and Messick 1987). Conversely, some scarce commodities are problematic to share equally (Effron and Miller 2011). This includes objects and privileges; for example, taking a seat in overcrowded public transport, causing equal division to be difficult. Understanding why individuals respond to scarcity of indivisible commodities in different manners, for example; some individuals inhibiting intake and some not doing so; and what the differences in these individuals are, is the focus of the current paper.
Past concepts and studies shows that scarcity heightens consumption in a situation where equal partition is not possible (Young 1995; Jang et al 2015). This could be because when individuals realize equal division is impossible, they free themselves from the equality norm; the state of being equal (Brehm 1966). Researchers state that individuals tend to allocate commodities in an egotistical manner when they realize difficulty in equal division (McLean Parks et al 1996; Young 1995 and Allison and Messick 1990). It is also shown that scarcity increases attractiveness in commodities because they are anticipated by others signified by higher demand (Brock and Brannon 1992; Brehm 1966; Worchel, Lee and Adewole 1975; Brock and Ostrom 1968; Lynn 1999 and Cialdini 1988). Scarcity messages put up by companies for advertising implement two messages involving limited time and limited quantity (Cialdini 2008; Balachander and Stock 2009; Gierl and Huettl 2010). This makes purchasers feel that the commodities are valuable and unique. Thus, having a good influence on the evaluation of the commodity (Aggarwal, Jun and Huh 2011). This sums up to when an individual is free from the equality norm and there is higher demand caused by a lower supply, in turn increasing attraction and consumption making the commodity more desirable (Brock and Ostrom 1968). However, it has been investigated that the underlying motive for people to increase using a commodity is to evoke emotional gratification (Wiedmann et al 2009). Displaying emotions and other internal factors show a significant role in commodity consumption and appeal.
There are situations in which the equality norm is still applicable and equal division continues to be impossible and as a result scarcity reduces consumption (Effron and Miller 2011). Considering a social gathering including appetizers in which, as the number of guests increase the more uncomfortable guests feel to serve themselves the appetizers and to violate the equality norm (Effron and Miller 2011). They state that even when a commodity can be equally divided, the shortage in supply will interrupt consumption by constraining people from serving for themselves. This is described as Diffusion of Entitlement (Effron and Miller 2011). Entitlement meaning common understanding of the social legality or suitability of performing such an action. Diffusion of Entitlement describes a situation where the number of individuals wanting an undividable, desirable commodity heightens in relation to the number of people who can have it. Therefore, the less allowed or entitled an individual will feel to serve themselves and more time taken before someone consumes the commodity (Effron and Miller 2011).
This phenomenon in terms of scarce consumable commodities is where an individual does not feel privileged or commendable to have the last portion of commodities available, varying from a slice of appetizer to a drink (Effron and Miller 2011). The last one will remain untouched by all the willing bystanders at an adult get-together or occasion. The principles in economics state that limited quantity increases the demand (Chendroyaperumal and Chendrayan 2010) and this is regularly benefitted by advertisers as ‘limited edition, till stocks last’, but Diffusion of Entitlement befalls when limited supply is to be observed and so the demand reduces (Jang et al 2015) .
Effron and Miller (2011) did a progression of examinations on Diffusion of Entitlement. The findings illustrated that when consumable commodities were low in supply the demand gradually reduced in comparison to the unlimited supply condition. The less supply or the more interest for a product, the more individuals needed to have it. Simultaneously, they were less inclined to take it. It was also shown that individuals were less accepting of another individual when they served themselves the consumable commodity in a limited supply condition (Effron and Miller 2011). This information adds to research demonstrating that regularly we are less egotistical and care more for the result of others. However, it is unclear why only some people are prone to Diffusion of Entitlement and what the differences in these individuals are, due to the lack of research in this area. If a commodity is free, every individual should be feeling equally entitled to obtain the commodity.
Studies done in the recent past have noted that there is a negative relationship with entitlement and self-esteem and the highest association being with academic self-esteem (Greenberger et al 2008; Chowning and Campbell 2009). Soon after Kopp et al (2011) questioned past findings by using a measurement scale that found a positive association between entitlement and self-esteem.
Previous research has also touched upon an individual not feeling worthy to own the last piece (Effron and Miller 2011). This could conceivably be because of an individual’s self-esteem; confidence in one’s own worth (Lessard, Greenberger and Chen 2016). It was observed in a series of studies done by Effron and Miller (2011) that when participants were given the feeling of entitlement, by making them feel like they deserved the commodity more than their peers, they were less likely to be affected by Diffusion of Entitlement. The feeling of entitlement provided to them made them gain confidence in their self-worth which led to consumption of the scarce commodity (Effron and Miller 2011). This would have been clearer if the level of self-esteem before and after the feeling of entitlement and non-entitlement was measured. However, there could be many more factors affecting this situation depending on the individual.
Recent research has discovered that individuals instinctively consider small packages to reduce and limit caloric intake (Zeelenberg 2008; Coelho do Vale, Pieters) under certain circumstances, individuals will consume extra when the package presentation is small in contrast to the larger packaging (Scott et al 2008 and Coelho do Vale, Pieters, and Zeelenberg 2008). These evident conditions could include a person’s body image (O'Dea 2012 and Banister and Hogg 2004) and wanting to look socially desirable in front of others to avoid judgement (Bayer 1929 and Hsia and Wood-Gush 1984; Herman 2015). In this case, these factors go against Social Facilitation.
Social Facilitation is the consequence of social context on behavior (Nisbett and Storms 1972). In terms of eating behavior, it has been studied that individuals consume more when with other people than being alone (Frank 1944; Nisbett and Storms 1972; Conger et al 1980; Polivy et al 1979 and Edelman et al 1986). However, this is not the case when it comes to scarce commodities, individuals tend to be affected by other social and personal influences which vary individuals’ behavior in such situations, like self-esteem (Hsia and Wood-Gush 1984).
In view of the previous literature discussed, the present study will aim to explore out predictions between Self Esteem and the extent of Diffusion of Entitlement.
Emotional intelligence is defined as the ability to monitor one’s own or others’ emotions and putting themselves in another person’s situation (Austin 2007). There are several types of skills involved in Emotional Intelligence (Davies et al 1998 and Goleman 1998, Cattell, 1963; Gardner, 1983, 1993; Guilford, 1967; Sternberg, 1988; Thorndike, 1920; Wechsler, 1987). One such skill involves recognition of others’ emotions. Empathy is an ability that shows emotional awareness. This includes recognizing others’ feelings and interpreting the cause for the feelings whilst contributing in the emotional experience without involved in the situation (Keen 2007 and Gagan 1983).
People with higher empathy and emotional intelligence for others’ emotions are faster to pick up social signals and read what other people need (Leiberg 2006). There have been numerous studies conducted on Empathy and Emotional Intelligence in the past. Research have found correlations between Entitlement and Emotional Intelligence (Jackson et al 2011) and Social Obligation (Greenberger et al 2008), this is where individuals feel like they are responsible for others’ wellbeing. Individuals displaying less Social Obligation showed lower Emotional Intelligence in terms of empathy (Jackson et al 2011).
A study done by Barasch et al (2014) shows that individuals with a low Emotional Intelligence can behave in selfish manners and engage in less altruistic behavior. Coherent with this concept, there is experimental confirmation that supports the demonstration of individuals experiencing a substantial cost to themselves when it comes to helping others (Camerer and Thaler 1995 and Batson 1991). However, even in large gatherings in which people cannot earn social benefits or materials, one may be motivated towards the good deeds ambitious by selfish desires instead of being motivated to reduce an individual’s suffering. For example, hunger; individuals may be motivated intrinsically, such as feeling good for empathizing for another person. This motivation allows an individual with high emotional intelligence to resist commodities and so to behave in an entitled manner (Arménio 2010; Andreoni 1990; Cialdini, Darby, and Vincent 1973; Cialdini et al 1987). However, due to the lack of evidence it is unclear whether there is a relationship between the level of emotional intelligence and the affect it has on Diffusion of Entitlement in consumption of scarce commodities. Nevertheless, studies done on emotional intelligence which includes a lab setting has drawbacks. Individuals will tend to be dishonest when answering the questionnaires as they are uncomfortable to answer truthfully, if the answers are not socially desirable (Andreoni 1990). This causes unreliable results.
Taking into consideration previous literature, this study will aim to explore out predictions between Emotional Intelligence and the extent of Diffusion of Entitlement.
Research also highlights the differences in culture and contribution to the different levels in entitlement (Achacoso 2002). An individual from an individualistic culture is more likely to focus on the rights and concerns of each person, whereas a collectivistic culture stresses on the significance of community (Parks and Vu 1994). When in social situations, culture can have varying effects on individuals in their behavior including eating behavior (Frank 1944; Nisbett and Storms 1972). Peoples consumption behaviors are different when they are with other people compared to when eating alone. Norms of suitable behavior are arranged by the behavior of other individuals as well as shared cultural experiences and cultural etiquettes (Higgs 2015). Individuals are quick to follow norms if it is perceived to be suitable based on social comparisons. However, this depends on other factors such as, how concerned an individual is on social acceptance and judgements (Vartanian 2015). There is clear evidence that there are differences in individuals from collectivistic and individualistic cultures, in wanting to be socially accepted and liked (Berman, Murphy and Singh 1985; Vartanian 2015). Instead, people in individualistic cultures show more independent attitudes (Parks and Vu 1994) and less consideration on social acceptance.
Taarof is known as an Iranian etiquette and an old Persian tradition. This explains Iranian behavior when they lower themselves in order to put others needs first as a sign of respect (Pana 2020). From very small days’ Iranian kids are taught to share. However, when equal divisibility becomes problematic they engage in self-lowering to respect the other person (Pana 2020). Even when equal divisibility is possible the cultural norm is such that they refuse to eat anything offered till everyone else has their chance (Pana 2020).
The German word andstandreste or Höflichkeitsgeste is used to refer to Diffusion of Entitlement in a German cultural setting. It phrases as the piece which out of decency one does not take or the polite piece (Mumford 2020; Presbyterian Blues 2020). This is referred to as trivselbit in the Swedish community, meaning the comfort and security piece (Mumford 2020; Presbyterian Blues 2020). In countries like Hong Kong and Chile an individual does not take the final piece due to superstitious beliefs. It is believed that unmarried people will be cursed to certainly not marry if one takes the last piece ( Presbyterian Blues 2020). Furthermore, Minnesotans believe this etiquette strongly, in fact small children are punished if seen reaching for the last piece (Mumford 2020). Cultural studies seem to state such varying behavior and norms, yet there is no direct evidence as to where it all began. The roots to such behavior have been attended to be traced down by evolutionary psychologists, wherein they show altruism and empathy as attractive and desirable traits when in a group which leads to higher number of sexual partners and mating (University of Nottingham 2008). The human brain triggers when it comes to the cost of raising children so it would have been considerably important for ancestors to choose mates who are considerate about others which lead to superstitious beliefs in the current world.
In view of the previous literature on different norms being discussed, the present study aims to explore out predictions between Culture orientation and the extent of Diffusion of Entitlement.
The present study is looking to expand the currently underdeveloped research area into factors affecting Diffusion of Entitlement in an individual. The current study seeks to explore out respondents’ attitudes towards Diffusion of Entitlement and whether emotional intelligence, self-esteem and culture orientation can predict outcomes related to Diffusion of Entitlement through analysis of validated scales responded by undergraduate students in an online survey.
The inhibitory effect of this case in scarcity prevents commodities from being used efficiently. This identified gap in research helps understand behavior to recognize factors related to Diffusion of Entitlement which can benefit to guide social marketing for behavior change in areas such as climate change focused on food wastage and obesity.
Based on literature discussed the final analysis of the scales will hypothesize that:
1. Low self-esteem will significantly predict Diffusion of Entitlement as lower self-worth can reduce feelings of being entitled to available commodities (Effron and Miller 2011; Greenberger et al 2008 and Chowning and Campbell 2009).
2. High emotional Intelligence will significantly predict Diffusion of Entitlement as higher awareness leads to consideration of others emotions (Arménio 2010; Andreoni 1990; Cialdini, Darby, and Vincent 1973; Cialdini et al 1987).
3. Collectivistic cultures will significantly predict Diffusion of Entitlement as individuals in collectivistic cultures are individuals brought up midst the thought of “we” rather than “I” (Parks and Vu 1994). They work as a community and are taught to put others needs before theirs, thus more likely to resist taking scarce commodities.
The current study used a cross sectional correlational design. This study looked into the relationships between variables with 3 separate constructs of interest, these Independent Variables (IV) were; the scores on Emotional Intelligence, Self Esteem and Culture Orientation. The Dependent Variable (DV) was a measure of the number of participants who were affected by Diffusion of Entitlement when answering the decision vignette. To control any response bias; which arose when respondents did not wish to answer the questions frankly; the survey was conducted anonymously, and non-leading questions were used in the vignette.
Respondents were recruited via opportunity sampling on SONA system in exchange of 30 research credits as well as through volunteer sampling for non- psychology students on Bristol Online Surveys. 96 Coventry University undergraduate students; 21 males and 75 females, (mean age = 21.1, SD = 4.72) was included for the data analysis of the study. The frequencies and percentages of respondents’ ethnicities can be viwed in Appendix J. The exclusion criteria for the present study was that respondents should be above 18 years of age. Prior to data collection, ethical approval by the Coventry University ethics committee was obtained (see Appendix H). All materials were administered digitally via Bristol Online Survey, in which scales and questions were presented in order.
At the start of the online survey, respondents were presented with the participant information sheet and informed consent (see Appendix A). In which complete anonymity was confirmed as well as their right to withdraw was explained with instructions. The respondents were deceived by the aim of the study in the participant information sheet, this was to prevent them from providing biased, unreliable results. However, upon completion of the survey respondents were provided with a debrief sheet explaining why they have been deceived and what the true aim was (see Appendix B). If they felt uncomfortable, they were given information on how to withdraw their responses by quitting the survey at any given occasion. The lead researcher’s and supervisor’s email address was mentioned for any queries or complaints (see Appendix A). This survey had no risks to the respondents. The respondent was then presented with the demographic sheet (see Appendix C) followed by the first scale; The Schutte Self Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSREI) structured by Salovey and Mayer (1990) testing Emotional Intelligence (see Appendix D). This was then followed by the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (see Appendix E) and the Triandis Culture Orientation scale (see Appendix F) respectively. At the end of the survey the respondent was provided with a vignette (see Appendix G) on a dilemma scenario and allowing the respondent to choose which scenario he or she is more likely to agree with; this measured Diffusion of Entitlement.
Firstly, respondents completed a basic demographic questionnaire (Appendix C), obtaining information on their age, gender, ethnicity and whether they study psychology or not. Due to the study’s focus being on Diffusion of Entitlement in adult gatherings, the exclusion criteria was 18 years and less. Data from any respondent under 18 years of age was removed by the researcher due to exclusion criteria. Gender was included to observe any relationship among gender and the extent of Diffusion of Entitlement as an internal factor affecting the results and as there is a known relationship between emotional intelligence in terms of empathy and gender (King 1999; Sutarso 1999; Wing and Love 2001 and Singh 2002). Ethnicity was included to differentiate out the individualistic and collectivistic countries that have taken part in the study to find significance in the third aim; To predict outcomes of Diffusion of Entitlement through Culture orientation. In order to measure biases, the objectives of the study were guessed, it was important to know the frequency of respondents who studied psychology.
The Schutte Self Report questionnaire (SSREI) consists of a 5 point Likert type scale of 33 questions (Appendix D), from 1 being strongly agree to 5 being strongly disagree for example, “When I experience a positive emotion, I know how to make it last” (Schutte and Malouff 1998). It is based on Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) scale that comprises of three aspects in Emotional Intelligence including appraisal of self and other, regulation of emotion in self and other and utilization of emotion of self and other. The SSREI has been used widely in literature for the conciseness and availability (Perez et al 2005). Internal Consistency in the SSREI in the study done by Schutte et al (1998) examined to have a Cronbach’s alpha value of .90. Further studies have also reported the mean alpha across samples to be .87 (Ciarrochi et al 2001, 2002). Schutte et al (1998) also reports a test re- test reliability within two weeks of a score of 0.78). The scale also shows no relationship to cognitive abilities, and personality dimensions except for openness to experience thus representing good validity (Brackett and Mayer 2003; Schutte et al 1998).
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE) is a scale for accessing self-esteem in individuals (Rosenberg 1965). It consists of a 4 point Likert type scale of 10 questions (Appendix E), ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree (e.g. I feel that I have a number of good qualities). The RSE scale showed high values in reliability, with an internal consistency of Cronbach’s alpha .89 (Carroll and Coetzer 2011). Independent studies with varying samples showed alpha coefficients from .72 to .87 which is high. Test re-test for 2 weeks was measured to be .85, representing good test re-test reliability (Silber and Tippett 1965; (Cooper-Evans, Alderman, Knight, and Oddy 2008 and Shorkey and Whiteman 1978).
The Culture Orientation Scale (Triandis and Gelford 1998) consists of a 9 point Likert type scale with 16 questions (Appendix F), ranging from 1 as never or definitely no and 9 as always or definitely yes. Traindis (1995) shows two attributes that further differentiates culture known as horizontal and vertical. Horizontal is when group members show cohesion and have the feeling of oneness. Whereas, vertical he mentions a sense of service to the group, members sacrificing only for the benefit of the group. The results on the Culture orientation scale displays as Horizontal Individualism; perceived as equal status as other individuals whilst maintaining individualism. Horizontal Collectivism; considered equal status and is interdependent. Vertical Individualism; autonomous and displaying inequality between individuals and Vertical Collectivism; all individuals are diverse from each other but self is defined in terms of the group. This is one of the few scales that adhere to multi- dimensional constructs. Studies shows that the Culture orientation scale has a coefficient alpha reliability for the subscales as follows r= .60 for Horizontal Individualism, r= .62 for vertical individualism, r= .68 for Horizontal Collectivism and r= .65 for vertical collectivism (Bearden et al 2006 and Shavitt et al 2006).
The vignette (Appendix G) used, describes a simple and relatable scenario that eliminated gender and name biases as well as food preferences to make sure such variables will not be interfering. The scenarios contrasted between a high demand low supply situation to arise Diffusion of Entitlement and then provided with three possible reactions. The final reaction which “serving regardless the situation” was aimed at respondents who have an average score in self-esteem and emotional intelligence. The vignette is a replica of the vignette used by Effron and Miller (2011) in their study to measure Diffusion of Entitlement (Appendix I).
96 Coventry University undergraduate students; 21 males and 75 females, (mean age = 21.1, SD = 4.72) was included for the data analysis of the study. Power analysis for a Binomial logistic regression was conducted using the guidelines recognized in Lipsey and Wilson (2001) and G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner and Lang 2013) to determine a sufficient sample size using an alpha of 0.05, a power of 0.95, a large effect size (odd ratio = 2.02) and two-tailed test. The desired sample size was calculated to be 42 (see Appendix K). 66.70% of the respondents reported a European ethnicity, 25% with an Asian ethnicity and 7% with an African Ethnicity (see Appendix J). Whilst out of all the respondents 93.80% were psychology students and 6.30% were non- psychology students. For Emotional Intelligence, the respondent frequency for High Emotional Intelligence was 54% and 46% calculated as Low Emotional Intelligence (see Appendix J).
The current study comprised of an Emotional Intelligence scale which provided outputs of low and high emotional intelligence, Self Esteem scale which was analyzed on raw scores to provide more power over the analysis and Culture Orientation which provided raw scores for each of the sub categories; Horizontal collectivism (HC), Horizontal Individualism (HI), Vertical Collectivism (VC) and Vertical Individualism (VI). The DV measurement vignette provided binary output as to whether the respondent was affected by Diffusion of Entitlement or not. Hence a Binomial Logistics Regression was conducted on the screened data.
[...]
Der GRIN Verlag hat sich seit 1998 auf die Veröffentlichung akademischer eBooks und Bücher spezialisiert. Der GRIN Verlag steht damit als erstes Unternehmen für User Generated Quality Content. Die Verlagsseiten GRIN.com, Hausarbeiten.de und Diplomarbeiten24 bieten für Hochschullehrer, Absolventen und Studenten die ideale Plattform, wissenschaftliche Texte wie Hausarbeiten, Referate, Bachelorarbeiten, Masterarbeiten, Diplomarbeiten, Dissertationen und wissenschaftliche Aufsätze einem breiten Publikum zu präsentieren.
Kostenfreie Veröffentlichung: Hausarbeit, Bachelorarbeit, Diplomarbeit, Dissertation, Masterarbeit, Interpretation oder Referat jetzt veröffentlichen!
Kommentare