Content uploaded by Noa Vilchinsky
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Noa Vilchinsky on Nov 23, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Testing the Concept of Relational Entitlement in the Dyadic Context:
Further Validation and Associations With Relationship Satisfaction
Sivan George-Levi and Noa Vilchinsky
Bar Ilan University
Rami Tolmacz
Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, Israel
Gabriel Liberman
Data-Graph, Research and Statistical Counseling, Holon, Israel
The sense of relational entitlement is the perception one has of what one deserves from one’s partner, and
it may play a crucial role in determining the quality of a couple’s relationship. However, the concept was
only recently subjected to empirical examination. The main goals of the current study were to continue
the work initiated by the scale developers (Tolmacz & Mikulincer, 2011) by (1) further validating the
Sense of Relational Entitlement Scale (SRE) in a sample of adult couples; and (2) examining the
contribution of each partner’s sense of relational entitlement to his or her own and his or her partner’s
relationship satisfaction. A sample of 120 Israeli, heterosexual, older couples (age ⫽58 years) in
long-term relationships completed the study measurements. Factor analyses revealed that the SRE scale
consisted of two major dimensions: conflicted entitlement and assertive entitlement. Applying an
Actor-Partner-Interdependence Model (APIM) analysis indicated that the more conflicted one felt with
regard to what one was entitled to, the less satisfaction one felt with the relationship. Additionally, the
higher one’s entitlement expectations were of one’s partner (a subfactor of the assertive entitlement
dimension), the more one’s partner was satisfied with the relationship. The sense of entitlement construct
seems to be relevant to the context of dyadic relationships and, as such, is worthy of further attention and
investigation.
Keywords: Actor-Partner-Interdependence Model, couples, relationship satisfaction, sense of entitlement
Sense of entitlement—the subjective perception of what one
deserves in a specific situation—is part of every interpersonal
relationship (Solomon & Leven, 1975;Spiegel, 1987). Though
one’s sense of entitlement might be relevant in many areas of
human existence, there is growing evidence attesting to the crucial
role it plays in determining the quality of couples’ relationships
(Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, & Bushman, 2004). This
kind of relational entitlement is conceptualized as the extent to
which an individual feels that his or her wishes, needs, and
expectations should be fulfilled by a romantic partner (Tolmacz &
Mikulincer, 2011).
Tolmacz and Mikulincer (2011) recently developed the Sense of
Relational Entitlement Scale (SRE) and showed its associations
with relationship satisfaction in a sample of young adults, most of
whom were single. Pursuant to Tolmacz and Mikulincer’s own
recommendation to further validate the SRE along an individual’s
entire life span, in the current study we assessed the SRE scale
among middle-aged partners in long-term dyadic relationships.
Adopting the well-established dyadic perspective (Revenson &
Delongis, 2011;Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2000), we also assessed,
among this same sample, the contribution of one’s sense of rela-
tional entitlement to both one’s own and one’s partner’s relation-
ship satisfaction.
Sense of Entitlement
The first conceptualization of entitlement in the psychology
literature can be traced back to Freud (1916). Freud wrote about
patients who claimed they were entitled to some sort of compen-
sation from life, mostly because of their congenital deficiencies.
Freud found Shakespeare’s Richard III to be a prototypical exam-
ple of this kind of character. He also claimed that—albeit to a
lesser degree—this personality characteristic was shared by all
human beings in general. Edith Jacobson (1959) elaborated on
Freud’s ideas and added that the notion that certain individuals felt
they deserved more than others may not in fact have stemmed from
early disadvantages but, on the contrary, from the feeling that they
were in possession of exceptional virtues. Therefore, because of
their alleged superiority, these individuals may have felt more
entitled than others (Jacobson, 1959).
In the field of personality psychology, entitlement has been
regarded mostly within the context of narcissism, (e.g., Campbell
et al., 2004;Edelstein, Newton, & Stewart, 2012;Emmons, 1984;
Wink, 1991). Narcissism is an individual differences concept that
Sivan George-Levi and Noa Vilchinsky, Department of Psychology, Bar
Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel; Rami Tolmacz, Interdisciplinary Cen-
ter (IDC) Herzliya, Israel, Gabriel Liberman, Data-graph, Research and
Statistical Counseling, Holon, Israel.
This study was supported by a grant from the Israel Foundation Trustees.
This study is partially based on the first author’s dissertation study carried
out at Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sivan
George-Levi, Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan,
Israel 52900. E-mail: sivan.george@gmail.com
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Journal of Family Psychology © 2014 American Psychological Association
2014, Vol. 28, No. 2, 193–203 0893-3200/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0036150
193
is comprised of grandiosity and an exaggerated sense of self on the
one hand, and feelings of inferiority and low self-esteem on the
other (Emmons, 1984;Exline, Baumeister, Bushman, Campbell, &
Finkel, 2004). The entitlement component within the spectrum of
narcissism consists of the tendency to expect favored treatment
from others (Exline et al., 2004).
Although the concept of entitlement was initially perceived as a
negative characteristic, contemporary scholars (Kriegman, 1983;
Levin, 1970;Moses & Moses-Hrushovski, 1990) have expanded
the sense of entitlement concept to include the healthy assertion of
needs and rights. The concept has since been differentiated into
three attitudes toward personal entitlement: assertive or appropri-
ate entitlement, excessive or exaggerated entitlement, and re-
stricted or understated entitlement (Kriegman, 1983;Levin, 1970;
Moses & Moses-Hrushovski, 1990). An assertive or appropriate
sense of entitlement characterizes people who are able to realisti-
cally appraise what they can expect from others. This appropriate
sense includes the ability to assertively and confidently stand up
for one’s preferences and is considered an adaptive form of enti-
tlement, crucial to one’s well-being. Individuals who have a sense
of restricted entitlement are characterized by a limited sense of
sovereignty and self-assuredness; they are usually reserved, unas-
sertive and timid. Finally, people characterized by an excessive
sense of entitlement believe they deserve to have their needs and
wishes fulfilled regardless of others’ emotions and wishes.
Sense of Relational Entitlement
Although theorists conceptualized the sense of entitlement as a
global trait (e.g., Campbell et al., 2004), it is generally agreed upon
that an individual’s sense of entitlement takes on different forms
depending on the social situation he or she is in (Moses & Moses-
Hrushovski, 1990). Tolmacz and Mikulincer (2011) have stressed
that entitlement plays an especially important role in a couple’s
relationship. From the perspective of personality psychology and
according to Bowlby’s attachment theory (Bowlby, 1979), percep-
tions and memories of the type or quality of care that individuals
received from early attachment figures shape the way they respond
to their attachment figures in adulthood. Person (1989) claimed
that the romantic relationship is the prototypical scenario in which
people expect to have their emotional needs fulfilled, especially
those that were neglected during childhood development. In addi-
tion, social exchange theories also suggest that entitlement issues
are relevant to the distribution of resources within romantic rela-
tionships and thus are crucial to the understanding of relationship
function and satisfaction (Lerner & Mikula, 1994). Thus, it is
plausible to suggest that romantic relationships are the primary
domain in which entitlement-related wishes, needs, and expecta-
tions will be uniquely expressed.
Indeed, there are several clinical reports showing how crucial
the sense of entitlement is to a couple’s relationship (e.g., Billow,
1999;Blechner, 1987). For instance, empirical studies have shown
that excessive entitlement is associated with issues such as vio-
lence and aggression among couples (Wood, 2004), divorce rates
(Sanchez & Gager, 2000), and selfishness in romantic relation-
ships (Campbell et al., 2004). Fortunately, the SRE scale, recently
developed by Tolmacz and Mikulincer (2011), enables an empir-
ical investigation of the sense of entitlement in the context of the
romantic relationship. The authors found both the excessive and
restricted types of relational entitlement to be maladaptive, and
high scores on these two types were associated with higher levels
of distress and lower levels of relationship satisfaction.
The Current Study
Tolmacz and Mikulincer (2011) were innovative in conceptual-
izing the idea of relational sense of entitlement and in developing
a specific scale measuring entitlement in couples’ relationships.
However, most of their sample consisted of young singles, and
their self-reported relational entitlement scale was therefore not
related to actual long-term dyadic bonds. In addition, Tolmacz and
Mikulincer (2011) themselves raised concerns regarding the inner
structure of the SRE they had devised (p. 85) and recommended
that further validation steps of the SRE be conducted. Therefore, in
the current study we further invested in assessing the SREs inner
structure as well as in assessing its associations with attachment
that, as stated earlier, is theoretically conceived to be the bedrock
of sense of entitlement.
Assuming that issues of entitlement are relevant to the dyadic
relationship along the entire course of the couple’s life together, in
the current study we extended the work initiated by Tolmacz and
Mikulincer (2011) by focusing on long-term relationships between
mature adults versus shorter-term relationships among singles. By
testing and revalidating the entitlement construct among a mature
sample, we attempted to assess its usefulness for understanding
dyads at a later phase of life span development.
Until recently, research on couples’ relationships largely focused
on the individual, with much less attention given to both partners
(Revenson & Delongis, 2011). Recent studies, however, support the
notion that the dyadic perspective on relationships is critical as there
is a growing need to combine the individual view with a contextual
one (Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2000). The dyadic perspective con-
siders how each partner influences the other partner’s cognitions,
emotions, and actions. Methodologically, the recent development of
sophisticated multilevel statistical models has permitted a more accu-
rate examination of couples’ data. Multilevel modeling takes into
account the dependency among couples that standard regression anal-
ysis is unable to account for (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992;Kashy &
Kenny, 2000;Kenny, Kashy & Cook, 2006).
Therefore, the current study focuses on couples in long-term rela-
tionships and in doing so extends prior findings by investigating the
concept of relational entitlement from a dyadic perspective. Overall,
our goals in this research were (1) to further validate the measure of
relational entitlement in a sample of adult couples in long-term
romantic relationships and (2) to use this measure to demonstrate the
contribution of each partner’s sense of relational entitlement to one’s
own and one’s partner’s relationship satisfaction. We hypothesized
that whereas assertive entitlement would be positively associated with
relationship satisfaction for both partners, restrictive and excessive
senses of relational entitlement would be negatively associated with
both partners’ relationship satisfaction.
Method
Participants and Procedure
The current sample consisted of 120 Israeli heterosexual cou-
ples. The average age for men was 59.64 years (SD ⫽8.40) and for
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
194 GEORGE-LEVI, VILCHINSKY, TOLMACZ, AND LIBERMAN
women 57.24 years (SD ⫽8.01). The average number of years of
education was 15.8 for men (SD ⫽2.6) and 15.5 for women (SD ⫽
2.6), and the majority of both men (80%) and women (73.5%)
described themselves as having a good to very good economic
status. The couples had been married or living together for an
average of 32.64 years (SD ⫽10.90) and had on average 2.9
children (SD ⫽.92).
The study was approved by the Bar Ilan University IRB. The
couples were recruited between April 1st, 2011, and March 15th,
2012 via a convenience sample (“snowball” procedure). The re-
search team was instructed to look for middle-aged couples among
their and their parents’ acquaintances. Approximately 150 middle-
aged couples in long-term relationships were approached, of which
120 agreed to complete the study’s battery of self-report question-
naires. Upon approval of the IRB, the completion of the question-
naires was regarded as agreement to participate in the study
(informed consent was not required), and no incentives were
offered. The couples were instructed to fill out the questionnaires
at a time and place of their choosing, as long they did so indepen-
dently, without consulting one another. The couples completed the
questionnaires in one sitting, and completion lasted between 25
and 35 min. Ten couples completed the questionnaires using a free
Web-based method (qualtrics.com) that was specifically pro-
grammed for the current study and that was an option offered to
participants. Most of them, however, preferred to use the standard
paper/pencil method.
Measures
Sense of Relational Entitlement. Participants completed the
33-item SRE (Tolmacz & Mikulincer, 2011). Participants were
asked to rate the extent to which each item was descriptive of their
attitudes, feelings, beliefs, and reactions in romantic relationships.
Ratings were done on a 5-point scale (1 ⫽not at all,5⫽very
much). The authors of the instrument conducted a factor analysis
that yielded a five-factor solution as follows: (1) “Vigilance re-
garding negative aspects of partner and relationship” describes the
person’s tendency to overfocus on the negative features of the partner and
the relationship, as well as a tendency to e nd t he relationship when it
does not meet the person’s expectations or needs (e.g., “I’m often
preoccupied with the question of whether my partner is good
enough for me”); (2) “Sensitivity to relational transgressions and
frustrations” describes the intensity of the person’s negative feel-
ings and thoughts when facing frustrations or conflicts in the
relationship (e.g., “When I’m not getting what I deserve from my
partner, I become very tense”); (3) “Expectations for partner’s
attention and understanding” describes expectations for the part-
ner’s attention, concern and understanding (e.g., “I have high
expectations of my partner”); (4) “Assertive entitlement” describes
the ability to assertively and realistically stand up for one’s needs
and wishes in the relationship (e.g., “I insist on getting what I
deserve in my relationship”); and (5) “Restricted entitlement”
describes an inhibited ability to express one’s needs, wishes and
expectations in the relationship (e.g., “I’m often preoccupied with
the question of whether I deserve my partner”).
In Tolmacz & Mikulincer’s study, Cronbach’s ␣for the five
SRE factors ranged from .74 to .91. Based on the intercorrelations
between the five factors and following a second-order factor
analysis, the three factors of “vigilance,” “sensitivity,” and “ex-
pectations” were unified into one major factor titled “excessive
entitlement.” Scores were computed by averaging the relevant
items of each of the three major factors (“excessive,” “assertive,”
and “restricted” entitlement).
Relationship satisfaction. Relationship satisfaction was mea-
sured using the 10- item Hebrew version (Lavee, 1995)ofthe
ENRICH scale (Fowers & Olson, 1993;Olson, Fournier, & Druck-
man, 1987). Items were answered on a 7-point Likert scale and the
score was calculated as the mean of the items. Example items
were: “To what extent are you satisfied with your financial posi-
tion and the way you and your partner make financial decisions?”
and “To what extent are you satisfied with the personality char-
acteristics and personal habits of your partner?” Studies have
shown a good test–retest and internal consistency reliability of the
subscales and the total measure (Fowers & Olson, 1993). The
Israeli version was found to be valid in many studies (Lavee &
Katz, 2002;Lavee & Mey-Dan, 2003). Cronbach’s ␣for the 10
items in the current sample was .80.
Attachment orientations. Attachment orientations were as-
sessed via use of the Hebrew version of the Experiences in Close
Relationships scale (ECR; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). The
ECR is a 36-item measure assessing the two major dimensions of
adult attachment orientations: attachment anxiety (e.g., “I worry a
lot about my relationships”) and attachment avoidance (e.g., “I
don’t feel comfortable opening up to other people”). Participants
rated the extent to which each item was descriptive of their
feelings in close relationships on a 7-point scale ranging from 1
(not at all)to7(very much). In the current sample, Cronbach’s ␣
were high for the 18 anxiety items (.92) and the 18 avoidance items
(.86). Following the standard scoring procedure for the scale
(Brennan et al., 1998), two scores were computed by averaging
items on each subscale.
Statistical Analysis
The statistical analysis consisted of three steps: preparation of
the data for the statistical analyses; validation of the SRE; and
testing of the study hypotheses regarding the contribution of rela-
tional entitlement to relationship satisfaction.
Handling missing data. Multiple imputation analysis was
applied to deal with the issue of missing data for the 120 couples
who completed the study questionnaires. In short, according to
Enders (2010), the multiple imputation technique uses a
regression-based procedure to generate multiple copies of the
data-set, each of which contains different estimates of the missing
values. In the current analysis, we applied the SPSS.20 MI proce-
dure, and 10 copies of the data set were generated. After creating
these complete data sets, we estimated the models based on each
filled-in data set and subsequently used Rubin’s (1987) formulas to
combine the parameter estimates and SEs into a single set of
results. This procedure allows for the use of the full sample and
provides unbiased parameter estimates as long as the imputation is
done at random (missing completely at random, or MCAR).
Validation of the SRE. To validate the SRE, we applied a
confirmatory factor analysis followed by an exploratory factor
analysis and a second-order exploratory factor analysis. Pearson
correlation analyses were applied to assess the associations among
the different entitlement factors and the attachment orientations.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
195
RELATIONAL ENTITLEMENT
Testing the study hypotheses. To test the hypothesized mod-
els, we followed Kenny, Kashy, and Cook’s (2006) suggestion and
applied the APIM, using the Hierarchical Linear Model with
HLM-7.0. The first step in conducting an analysis of dyadic data
are to examine the degree of independence in the dependent
variable (West, Popp, & Kenny, 2008). Independence was as-
sessed by computing the intraclass correlation (Kenny et al., 2006),
which was found to be significant (ICC ⫽.37). Given this nonzero
correlation, the data for this set was considered dependent, and was
analyzed using dyadic analysis. Next, we compared the following
models: the unconditioned model consisting of the assessment of
the variance among the dyads regardless of any other explanatory
variable; the model which assesses the direct actor and partner
effects on relationship satisfaction; and the model with both actor
and partner effects and the interactions between these effects and
gender. Following Kenny et al. (2006), power () was calculated
by adding the design effect: (1 ⫹(n-1) ICC).
Results
Construct Validation of the SRE for Older Adults
Handling missing data. Overall, all of the items except two
had less than 2% missing values. Because of the fact that Little’s
test for MCAR (Little, 1988) was nonsignificant, indicating that all
of the missing values in the current sample were indeed missing at
random
2
(1225) ⫽1160.89, p⫽.90, a multiple imputations
procedure was applied.
Validation of the SRE. To examine the SREs internal struc-
ture, the following steps were carried out. First, we conducted a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to confirm the original five-
factor structure as reported by Tolmacz and Mikulincer (2011),
using M-plus version 5.2 software. The standard measurements for
goodness of fit are “Comparative Fit Index” (CFI) and “Tucker-
Lewis Index” (TLI). The recommended cut-off is 0.9 and above
for both goodness-of-fit measurements (Wang & Wang, 2012).
The goodness-of-fit of this solution was fair but not satisfactory:
2
(473) ⫽1075.19, p⬍.001;
2
/df ⫽2.27; CFI ⫽.832; TLI ⫽
.812; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) ⫽.073;
p⬍.001.
Subsequently, we omitted three items (items 19, 22, and 25),
which had the lowest loadings on each factor. These items were
also irrelevant and ambiguous for most participants (e.g., item 19
consisted of the following: “I am unable to make compromises in
choosing a partner.” The couples, being in long-term relationships
for many years, found this item difficult to relate to). Indeed, these
three items had the highest percentage of missing data (6.67%,
2.92%, and 1.25% of the participants did not answer items 25, 19,
and 22, respectively).
Next, we ran the confirmatory factor analysis again, this time
with the remaining 30 items. As expected, the solution’s goodness-
of-fit improved; however, it was still nonsatisfactory:
2
(383) ⫽
853.71, p⬍.001;
2
/df ⫽2.22; CFI ⫽.859; TLI ⫽.839;
RMSEA ⫽.072; p⬍.001. Because of the lack of a satisfactory
solution at this point, and to obtain a better understanding of the
factors’ inner structure, we computed Pearson correlations among
the five factors (see Table 1) and compared them with the original
results of Tolmacz and Mikulincer (2011). The authors of the
original instrument found the “vigilance,” “sensitivity,” and “ex-
pectations” factors to be highly correlated. They also found only
weak positive correlations between these three factors and both the
“assertive” and the “restricted” factors. However, in the current
study a different picture of associations among the factors
emerged. Most notably, the factor of “sensitivity” was correlated
moderately to highly (Cohen, 1988) with all the other factors and
not only with the “vigilance” and “expectations” factors. Subse-
quently, we also examined the correlations between all nine items
composing the “sensitivity” factor and the other four factors and
found that all “sensitivity” items correlated moderately to highly
with all the other factors (these correlations are not presented
because of space limitations). The finding that the “sensitivity”
factor had high covariance with all of the other factors explained
the inability to exert a satisfactory differentiating five-factor solu-
tion, and the “sensitivity” factor was therefore removed from any
further analysis.
Next, we conducted an additional confirmatory factor analysis
with the remaining 21 items after omitting the “sensitivity” factor.
The goodness-of-fit of this solution was now much improved:
2
(173) ⫽357.09, p⬍.001;
2
/df ⫽2.06; CFI ⫽.905; TLI ⫽
.884; RMSEA ⫽.067; p⬍.001. However, because we did not
have an a priori four-factor structure hypothesis, we applied a
much stricter criterion and conducted an additional exploratory
factor analysis with Oblimin rotation on the 21 items. We found
that items 14 and 15 of the “vigilance” original factor loaded high
on more than one factor, and less on their original theoretical-
bound factor, and thus we omitted these items from the analysis.
After omitting these two items, we conducted a final exploratory
Table 1
Pearson Correlations Among the Original Five Sense of Relational Entitlement Scale (SRE)
Factors (N ⫽240)
Factors 1 2 3 4
1. Vigilance regarding negative aspects of
partner and relationship
2. Sensitivity to relational transgressions
and frustrations .60
ⴱⴱⴱ
3. Assertive entitlement .31
ⴱⴱⴱ
.70
ⴱⴱⴱ
4. Expectations for partner’s attention and
understanding .11 .49
ⴱⴱⴱ
.55
ⴱⴱⴱ
5. Restricted entitlement .44
ⴱⴱⴱ
.32
ⴱⴱ
⫺.09 ⫺.08
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
196 GEORGE-LEVI, VILCHINSKY, TOLMACZ, AND LIBERMAN
analysis and a confirmatory factor analysis to finalize the solution
and obtain the relevant and final indexes.
The analyses of the remaining 19 items revealed a clear and
unequivocal four-factor solution with eigenvalues ⬎1, explaining
60.1% of the total variance. The items’ loadings, as well as the
reliabilities of each factor and their explained variance, are pre-
sented in Table 2. As can be seen, each item loaded exclusively on
only one of the four factors. The goodness-of-fit of this final
solution was satisfactory according to the following indexes:
2
(137) ⫽264.13, p⬍.001;
2
/df ⫽1.92; CFI ⫽.924; TLI ⫽
.906; RMSEA ⫽.062; p⬍.001. This four-factor structure with
the 19 items was found to be more satisfactory than all the former
factor structure solutions. The four factors revealed were identical
to the original four factors after omitting the “sensitivity” factor,
and they included: “assertive entitlement”; “restricted entitle-
ment”; “entitlement expectations” (shortened from the original
title: “expectations for partner’s attention and understanding”); and
“vigilance regarding negative aspects of partner and relationship.”
We subsequently rephrased the last factor as “excessive entitle-
ment,” as this factor was considered part of the “excessive factor”
in the original Tolmacz and Mikulincer (2011) study. In addition,
close scrutiny of the “excessive entitlement” factor items indeed
confirmed that this factor accurately reflects what was theoreti-
cally meant by excessive entitlement.
Next, we computed Pearson correlations among these four fac-
tors. As can be seen in Table 3, the intercorrelations between the
two factors representing a more conflicted, preoccupied, insecure,
or unresolved sense of entitlement (“excessive entitlement” and
“restricted entitlement”) were found to be significant and positive.
The intercorrelations between the two factors representing a more
secure, mature, healthy, or assertive sense of entitlement (“asser-
tive entitlement” and “entitlement expectations”) were also found
to be significant and positive. Thus, these intercorrelations indicate
the putative existence of a two-factor structure of the SRE scales.
In light of the above, we conducted a second-order factor analysis
of the four SRE factors, which revealed two major factors with
eigenvalues ⬎1, explaining 69.8% of the total variance. The item
loadings and the variance explained by each factor are presented in
Table 4. As can be seen, each item loaded exclusively on only one
of the two factors.
The first major factor consisted of the original factor describing
a person’s ability to express his or her needs in the romantic
relationship in an assertive, regulated, and appropriate manner,
together with legitimate expectations of a partner’s understanding,
acceptance, and empathy. This factor was therefore labeled “as-
sertive entitlement.” The second factor consisted of: (a) exagger-
ated feelings that one’s needs should be fulfilled by one’s partner,
as well as tendencies to focus on negative aspects of a romantic
partner when he or she did not meet these wishes (“excessive
entitlement”); and (b) an inhibited expression of one’s needs and
expectations in romantic relationships (“restricted entitlement”).
This factor was labeled “conflicted entitlement” as it mainly de-
scribes a state of imbalance with regard to one’s experience of
entitlement and a tendency to be preoccupied with entitlement
needs. No significant correlations were found between the two new
factors (r⫽.04, p⫽.39). On the basis of these findings, we
computed two total scores (an assertive entitlement score and a
conflicted entitlement score) for each participant by averaging the
Table 2
Content, Structural Coefficients, Explained Variance, and Reliabilities of the Sense of Relational Entitlement Scale (SRE) (N ⫽240)
SRE items 1 2 3 4
1. Excessive entitlement 0.86 0.05 ⫺0.06 ⫺0.09
I’m often preoccupied with the question of whether my partner is good enough for me (10)
Sometimes I feel my partner is not good enough for me (13) 0.85 ⫺0.02 ⫺0.02 ⫺0.02
I am obsessed with my partner’s faults (11) 0.79 0.07 0.01 ⫺0.00
When my partner frustrates me, I contemplate ending the relationship (27) 0.75 ⫺0.05 ⫺0.00 ⫺0.01
When my partner frustrates me, I start thinking about new relationships (6) 0.75 0.07 ⫺0.03 ⫺0.14
When my partner hurts me, I’m immediately filled with a sense of distrust (12) 0.60 ⫺0.15 0.03 0.24
I often feel I deserve to get more than I do in my relationship (31) 0.56 0.02 0.20 0.26
In my relationship, I’m sometimes filled with a kind of rage that I hardly ever experience
in daily life (33) 0.51 0.06 0.26 0.12
2. Expectations for partner’s attention and understanding
I have high expectations of my partner (2) ⫺0.11 0.85 0.07 0.02
I expect my partner to understand me without my having to explain myself (1) 0.14 0.79 ⫺0.16 ⫺0.06
I can’t give up my expectations of my partner in a relationship (3) 0.01 0.77 0.19 0.02
I expect my partner to be very attentive to me (5) 0.01 0.60 ⫺0.16 0.24
3. Restricted entitlement
Sometimes I feel I am not good enough for my partner (32) ⫺0.09 0.06 0.83 0.04
I’m often preoccupied with the question of whether I deserve my partner (23) 0.10 ⫺0.05 0.74 ⫺0.02
I feel my partner deserves to get more than he or she does in our relationship (26) 0.09 ⫺0.06 0.62 ⫺0.13
4. Assertive entitlement
I insist on getting what I deserve out of my relationship (30) 0.07 0.06 0.0 0.82
I deserve a partner who is very sensitive (18) 0.02 0.08 0.07 0.73
I think my partner is lucky to be with me (28) 0.01 ⫺0.13 ⫺0.22 0.69
I won’t make do with less than what I deserve in my relationship (7) ⫺0.09 0.22 0.05 0.62
Factor reliabilities (Cronbach’s ␣).88 .81 .63 .75
Explained variance (%) 26.14 17.60 9.70 6.86
Note. Numbers within parentheses refer to the ordering of the items in the scale. Numbers in bold represent loadings of the items grouped under each
specific factor.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
197
RELATIONAL ENTITLEMENT
relevant items. We also computed the four separate subfactor
scores (excessive, restricted, expectations, and assertive) for each
participant by averaging the items on each factor.
Finally, anxious attachment orientation was positively associ-
ated with “Total Conflicted Entitlement” (r⫽.18, p⬍.001) as
well as with its two subfactors (r⫽.14, p⬍.05, and r⫽.15, p⬍
.05 for the excessive and the restricted subfactors, respectively),
indicating that the more anxiously attached one is the more one
reports a conflicted sense of entitlement. In addition, avoidant
attachment was negatively associated with the subfactor of asser-
tive entitlement (r⫽⫺.17, p⬍.001). Thus, the higher one is on
the avoidant attachment dimension the lower one is on assertive
sense of entitlement. However, it should be noted that these
correlations, albeit significant, were small in size. No significant
associations were found among any of the attachment scales and
either the subfactor of expectations or the “Total Assertive Enti-
tlement” score.
The Contribution of SRE to Relationship Satisfaction
As was previously stated, we hypothesized that assertive enti-
tlement would be positively associated with relationship satisfac-
tion for both partners and that restrictive and excessive senses of
relational entitlement would be negatively associated with both
partners’ relationship satisfaction. We used the APIM framework
to analyze the association between one’s sense of entitlement and
one’s own relationship satisfaction as well as one’s partner’s
satisfaction. We conducted two APIM analyses: one with the two
SRE major factors (conflicted and assertive), and one with the four
entitlement subfactors (excessive, restricted, expectations, and as-
sertive) as the independent variables. The analyses consisted of
both partners’ relationship satisfaction as the dependent variables.
The assertive entitlement subfactor was found to be negatively
associated with women’s age (r⫽⫺.18, p⬍.05), and positively
associated with women’s number of children (r⫽.19, p⬍.05).
Therefore, women’s age and number of children were factored in,
to control for them (no associations were found between any of the
sociodemographic variables and the SRE scores among men).
Three models were compared in each analysis: Model 1 was the
unconditional model with no independent variables; Model 2 con-
sisted of all actor and partner effects; and Model 3 added the
interactions among all actor and partner effects and gender. Tables
5and 6depict the hierarchical linear modeling coefficients for the
actor and partner effects for the two major SRE factors (see Table
5), the four SRE subfactors (see Table 6), and relationship satis-
faction. Significant actor effects were found for conflicted entitle-
ment as well as its two subfactors: excessive entitlement and
restricted entitlement. For each partner, one’s level of either ex-
cessive entitlement or restricted entitlement was associated nega-
tively with one’s relationship satisfaction. Thus, the more one was
characterized by a conflicted sense of relational entitlement, the
less one was satisfied with the relationship.
Although no significant partner effect was detected with regard
to the two major entitlement factors, when we tested the APIM for
each of the four SRE subfactors, a significant partner effect with
regard to the subfactor of entitlement expectations was detected. It
was found that the higher the entitlement expectations one had of
his or her partner were, the more satisfied his or her partner was
with the relationship. Finally, one significant interaction regarding
relationship satisfaction was detected, between gender and actor’s
excessive entitlement subfactor, showing that the negative associ-
ation between one’s excessive entitlement and one’s relationship
satisfaction was stronger for men than for women. However, the
added variance of this interaction was not found to be significant.
Figure 1 summarizes the study results. Finally, effect sizes for both
models were very high (nearly 80% for the two second-order
factors model, and 99% for the four subfactors model), an ac-
knowledgment of the fact that the odds of tracing existing effects
were very high.
Discussion
Our main goal in the current study was to broaden the knowl-
edge regarding the interplay between an individual’s personality
makeup and his or her relationship with an intimate partner. We
focused on the theoretical concept of entitlement, rooted in both
psychoanalytic and personality literature as well as in the field of
social psychology. Though the concept of entitlement has been
studied extensively in various arenas, the relatively novel concep-
tualization of relational entitlement has only recently been sub-
jected to empirical operationalization. Therefore, the current study
aim was twofold: first, to further validate the SRE scale by
subjecting it to a series of factor analyses and by assessing its
associations with attachment orientations; and, second, to test the
associations among the SRE factors and relationship satisfaction
within dyads.
SRE-Scale Validation
The current analysis of the SRE scale identified a personality
construct that was similar although not identical to the original one
reported by Tolmacz and Mikulincer (2011). Four of the original
factors also emerged in the current study: “excessive entitlement”
(formerly termed “vigilance”), “restricted entitlement,” “assertive
entitlement,” and “entitlement expectations.” One deviation from
Table 3
Means, SDs and Pearson Correlations Among the Four Sense of
Relational Entitlement Scale (SRE) Factors (N ⫽240)
Factors M(SD)1 2 3
1. Excessive entitlement 1.57 (.68) 1
2. Entitlement expectations 3.43 (.88) .09 1
3. Restricted entitlement 1.63 (.69) .34
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.01 1
4. Assertive entitlement 3.14 (.93) .20
ⴱⴱ
.39
ⴱⴱⴱ
.07
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
Table 4
Structural Coefficients and Explained Variance of the Sense of
Relational Entitlement Scale (SRE) (N ⫽240)
Factors 1 2
1. Assertive entitlement .85 ⫺.00
2. Entitlement expectations .78 .00
3. Restricted entitlement ⫺.21 .84
4. Excessive entitlement ⫺.24 .79
Explained variance (%) 37.25 37.57
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
198 GEORGE-LEVI, VILCHINSKY, TOLMACZ, AND LIBERMAN
Tolmacz and Mikulincer’s (2011) suggested structure, which was
introduced in the current study, was the omission of the fifth
factor, originally labeled “sensitivity to relational transgressions
and frustrations.” This factor was formerly associated with only
two factors, hence creating a differentiated second-order factor. In
our study, however, this sensitivity factor correlated with all the
other four factors, which suggests that— unlike for young sin-
gles—for couples in long-term relationships it perhaps expresses a
more general tendency toward sensitivity in relationships and is
unable to differentiate between entitlement attitudes.
Additionally, whereas in the Tolmacz and Mikulincer (2011)
study a three-factor solution was suggested (albeit without suffi-
cient statistical justification), a more valid structure emerged in the
current study, in which four factors integrated into two second-
order factors that we titled conflicted relational entitlement and
assertive relational entitlement. We suggest that the conflicted
dimension of the SRE, which consists of both the excessive and the
restricted factors of entitlement, expresses one’s imbalance in
terms of two dialectical ends: the inflated confidence that one
deserves everything, and—at the other end of the spectrum—the
strong belief that one deserves nothing. The conflicted dimension
might therefore reflect the narcissistic conflict between grandiosity
on the one hand and vulnerability on the other (Edelstein et al.,
2012). Indeed, according to Wink (1991), the sense of entitlement
encompasses both aspects of narcissism.
The assertive dimension found in our study expresses a person’s
ability to maturely evaluate and assertively negotiate those things
that one can expect from his or her partner. No correlation was
found between the conflicted and assertive dimensions of rela-
tional entitlement, implying that being high on the assertive di-
mension does not automatically necessitate being low on the
conflicted dimension. These results support the assumption that
relational entitlement does not simply reflect a continuum ranging
from a low to a high level. Rather, one’s sense of relational
entitlement may be comprised of both assertive and conflicted
aspects concurrently.
Tolmacz and Mikulincer (2011) claimed that relational entitle-
ment is a personality construct deriving from early relationships
with primal attachment figures. Indeed, the authors reported on
significant associations among attachment avoidance and anxiety
orientations on the one hand and items representing excessive and
restricted entitlement (that we later labeled “conflicted entitle-
ment”) on the other hand. However, the authors also detected
much weaker associations among the attachment orientations and
the entitlement expectations items, and no associations at all were
found among attachment orientations and the assertive entitlement
items (note that both the expectations and assertive items were
unified into the assertive dimension of relational entitlement in the
current study).
Consistent with Tolmacz and Mikulincer’s study, we also found
that conflicted entitlement was moderately related to attachment
anxiety: that is, the less one feels his or her emotional needs will
be reliably attended to, the more one seems ambivalent regarding
whether or not one is entitled to anything at all from one’s partner.
These consistent associations seem to be in line with Tolmacz and
Mikulincer’s assertion that sense of entitlement in adulthood is
rooted in the crystallization of attachment security; however, sense
of entitlement is not synonymous with attachment. Future studies,
preferably longitudinal, which will focus on the developmental
processes underlying the manifestation of entitlement in adult-
Table 5
Hierarchical Linear Modeling Coefficients for Actor and Partner Effects of Sense of Relational
Entitlement Scale (SRE) Second-Order Factor Scores on Relationship Satisfaction
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Fixed effects
Intercept 5.61 (0.07) 5.57 (0.08) 5.53 (0.09)
Gender 0.06 (0.10) 0.08 (0.10)
Number of children 0.10 (0.07) 0.10 (0.07)
Women’s Age ⫺0.01 (0.01) ⫺0.003 (0.01)
Actor effects
Assertive entitlement 0.06 (0.08) 0.02 (0.11)
Conflicted entitlement ⫺0.28
ⴱ
(0.12) ⫺0.28 (0.15)
Gender ⫻Assertive 0.05 (0.15)
Gender ⫻Conflicted 0.03 (0.22)
Partner effects
Assertive entitlement 0.10 (0.08) 0.24
ⴱ
(0.11)
Conflicted entitlement ⫺0.06 (0.11) 0.08 (0.14)
Gender ⫻Assertive ⫺0.23 (0.14)
Gender ⫻Conflicted ⫺0.29 (0.21)
Random effects
Level 1 ⑀
20.52 (0.72) 0.51 (0.71) 0.49 (0.70)
Level 2 0
20.30
ⴱⴱⴱ
(0.55) 0.27
ⴱⴱⴱ
(0.52) 0.27
ⴱⴱⴱ
(0.52)
Deviance 615.88 604.02 599.53
⌬
2
— 11.86 4.49
Pseudo R
2
— .05 .07
Power () .76 .79
Note.SEs are in parentheses for fixed effects and SDs for random parameters. Results are reported with robust
SEs. The intercept represents the expected scores for relationship satisfaction at the mean of all included
explanatory variables for men. Unconditional ICC ⫽.37.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
199
RELATIONAL ENTITLEMENT
hood, will be better able to determine whether conflicted entitle-
ment is indeed a consequence of insecure attachment.
The Association Between SRE and Relationship
Satisfaction
The second goal of the current study was to assess the associ-
ation between one’s sense of relational entitlement and his or her
own relationship satisfaction and his or her partner’s satisfaction.
Findings showed that the more one was characterized by conflicted
entitlement, the less he or she felt satisfied with the relationship.
These results were found for the conflicted second-order factor as
well as for its two components: excessive and restricted entitle-
ment. The findings are consistent with the assumption that holding
either an inflated or a restricted sense of entitlement is maladaptive
within the context of a romantic relationship (Kriegman, 1983;
Moses & Moses-Hrushovski, 1990;Tolmacz & Mikulincer, 2011),
at least on the individual level.
From the psychoanalytic point of view, many intrapsychic and
interpersonal conflicts are the result of unmet childhood needs
because of deficiencies in the early parental bond, and individuals
who experienced such deficiencies will, therefore, continually seek
to fulfill these needs in their adult romantic relationships (Bowlby,
1979;Kernberg, 1975;Kohut, 1971;Millon, 1981). Thus, one
putative explanation for the current results is that people high on
the conflicted entitlement dimension will feel permanently dissat-
isfied with their partners’ ability to fulfill their extensive, never
fully met primary needs and expectations. The reason that this
explanation is referred to as putative is because of the highly
plausible alternative that after 30 years of being in an intimate
relationship, actual negative transactions within the dyads might
truly have heightened feelings of conflicted entitlement in each
partner.
We have found that the more entitlement expectations an indi-
vidual had of his or her partner, the more satisfaction the partner
took in the relationship. What individuals expect to receive from
their partners affects their evaluations and perceptions of their
relationships (Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000;Reis, Clark, &
Holmes, 2004;Stanley, Blumberg, & Markman, 1999). Our find-
ings add to the literature by showing that the positive expectations
held by one partner of the other are also associated with the
relationship satisfaction experienced by the partner.Simpson
(2010) asserted that individuals who hold expectations of their
partners also transfer to them a sense of security, care and trust,
and one possible explanation for this finding may be that these
Table 6
Hierarchical Linear Modeling Coefficients for Actor and Partner Effects of Sense of Relational
Entitlement Scale (SRE) Subfactor Scores on Relationship Satisfaction
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Fixed effects
Intercept 5.61 (0.07) 5.55 (0.08) 5.47 (0.10)
Gender 0.11 (0.12) 0.14 (0.12)
Number of children 0.08 (0.07) 0.08 (0.06)
Women’s Age ⫺0.01 (0.01) ⫺0.01 (0.01)
Actor effects
Excessive ⫺0.68
ⴱⴱⴱ
(0.10)
⫺1.06
ⴱⴱⴱ
(0.21)
Assertive ll0.10 (0.06) 0.11 (0.07)
Expectation 0.05 (0.06) 0.02 (0.09)
Restricted ⫺0.18
ⴱ
(0.09) ⫺0.09 (0.10)
Gender ⫻excessive 0.50
ⴱ
(0.22)
Gender ⫻assertive 0.04 (0.10)
Gender ⫻expectation 0.06 (0.14)
Gender ⫻restricted ⫺0.07 (0.16)
Partner effects
Excessive ⫺0.09 (0.10) ⫺0.01 (0.10)
Assertive ⫺0.04 (0.05) ⫺0.04 (0.09)
Expectation 0.10
ⴱ
(0.05) 0.14 (0.09)
Restricted ⫺0.03 (0.08) 0.04 (0.10)
Gender ⫻excessive ⫺0.10 (0.22)
Gender ⫻assertive ⫺0.02 (0.10)
Gender ⫻expectation ⫺0.09 (0.12)
Gender ⫻restricted ⫺0.12 (0.14)
Random effects
Level 1 ⑀
20.52 (0.72) 0.41 (0.64) 0.39 (0.63)
Level 2 0
20.30
ⴱⴱⴱ
(0.55) 0.11
ⴱⴱⴱ
(0.33) 0.11
ⴱⴱⴱ
(0.33)
Deviance 615.88 512.52 504.10
⌬
2
— 103.36
ⴱⴱⴱ
8.42
Pseudo R
2
— .37 .39
Power () .999 .999
Note.SEs are in parentheses for fixed effects and SDs for random parameters. Results are reported with robust
SEs. The intercept represents the expected scores for relationship satisfaction at the mean of all included
explanatory variables for men. Unconditional ICC ⫽.37.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
200 GEORGE-LEVI, VILCHINSKY, TOLMACZ, AND LIBERMAN
positive feelings add to the partner’s relationship satisfaction.
Thus, for couples in long-term relationships, high entitlement
expectations may imply that one’s partner still cares about him or
her and is highly invested in the relationship; one partner’s enti-
tlement expectations are therefore associated with the other part-
ner’s relationship satisfaction.
Interestingly, we did not find any associations between one’s
expectations and one’s own relationship satisfaction. Authors ar-
gue that high expectations do not have a solely positive impact on the
relationship, and the flipside of high expectations can be disappointment
(Stanley et al., 1999). Partners seem to compare what they receive
in the relationship with the expectations they have of it; if the
outcomes do not meet their expectations, they will be less satisfied
with their relationships (Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000).
Therefore, because of their occasional disappointments, it appears
that individuals who have high expectations of their partners are
not always satisfied with their relationships, especially if their
expectations are unrealistic (Florian & Vilchinsky, 2001). Our
findings suggest that even if one’s sense of assertive entitlement
(entitlement expectations in particular) is not associated with one’s
own relationship satisfaction, it may still be associated with the
other partner’s relationship satisfaction.
In summary, a thorough examination of the original SRE items
reveals a two- dimensional structure. The first factor, conflicted
entitlement, expresses the disparity in one’s own entitlement needs
and wishes: on the one hand one retains a strong belief that one
deserves to have all his or her needs and demands met by the
partner, and on the other hand one retains a strong sense that one
is not worthy of getting anything at all from the partner. Our
findings indicate that this conflicted dimension is associated with
less satisfaction within the context of the couple relationship. The
second dimension—assertive entitlement— expresses a person’s
ability to appropriately and realistically evaluate those things that
one can expect from his or her partner. This dimension seems to be
associated with the partner’s relationship satisfaction in the context
of the couple relationship.
The present study has several limitations. First, data was col-
lected at one time-point only, and therefore, we cannot conclu-
sively determine the degree to which the current results are a
function of developmental processes, rooted in early childhood
experiences, or of one’s reaction to one’s current, actual romantic
relationship. Moreover, we cannot determine the direction of the
association between relational entitlement and relationship satis-
faction. It is possible that it is the degree of relationship satisfac-
tion that generates specific wishes and expectations regarding the
fulfillment of one’s needs, and not the other way around, as
hypothesized. Furthermore, the participants in our study were
older married or cohabiting heterosexual couples, characterized by
a high economic status and level of education: a set of factors that
limits the ability to generalize from the findings. Finally, the
couples in our study were identified via a snowball procedure.
Despite the fact that “snowball’ sampling is a helpful and accept-
able method when the target population is scattered (Gilbert, 1993;
Salganik & Salganik, 2004), this kind of sampling can still limit
the generalizability of the findings.
Because of the current study’s cross-sectional design and other
limitations, we still cannot determine the developmental nature of
the two entitlement dimensions. We would recommend that future
studies investigate the SRE construct prospectively, across differ-
ent age groups, and longitudinally, along the relationship timeline.
It would also be useful to assess this construct during transitional
stages—for example, parenthood, or a period when one partner is
coping with an acute illness—times during which relational enti-
tlement needs, expectations, and conflicts are likely to be highly
activated within the dyad. By doing so, futures studies might help
uncover the underlying process mechanism of relational entitle-
ment.
.10*
-.68***
-.18*
Asserve
SRE
PARTNER
RS
ACTOR
RS
Expectaons
Excessive
SRE
CONFLICTED
SRE
ASSERTIVE
SRE
Restricted
SRE
-.28*
*p<.05. ** p<.01. *** p<.001.
Figure 1. Schematic summary of the study findings.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
201
RELATIONAL ENTITLEMENT
The research regarding relational entitlement is still in its in-
fancy; it is therefore premature to draw detailed clinical recom-
mendations from it. However, we cautiously suggest that marital
and family therapists may benefit from detecting the form of
relational entitlement (conflicted or assertive) that is more domi-
nant among their clients to apply an appropriate intervention.
Studies have shown that one of the greatest challenges in couple’s
therapy is partners’ unrealistic expectations and wishes from each
other and/or from the relationship (Amato & Rogers, 1997;Florian
& Vilchinsky, 2001). Entitlement wishes and expectations could
therefore be interpreted and reevaluated in the context of the
individual’s current romantic relationship, a process which might
lead to the adoption of a more realistic sense of entitlement toward
each partner.
References
Amato, P., & Rogers, S. (1997). A longitudinal study of marital problems
and subsequent divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 612–
624. doi:10.2307/353949
Billow, R. M. (1999). Power and entitlement: Or, mine versus yours.
Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 35, 473– 489. doi:10.1080/00107530
.1999.10746395
Blechner, M. J. (1987). Entitlement and narcissism: Paradise sought. Con-
temporary Psychoanalysis, 23, 244 –255. doi:10.1080/00107530.1987
.10746178
Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and braking of affectional bonds. London:
Tavistock.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self report measure-
ments of adult attachment: An integrative overview. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models:
Applications and data analysis techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
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, 29 – 45. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8301_04
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral science. Mah-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Edelstein, R. S., Newton, N. J., & Stewart, A. J. (2012). Narcissism in
midlife: Longitudinal changes in and correlates of women’s narcissistic
personality traits. Journal of Personality, 80, 1179 –1204. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-6494.2011.00755
Emmons, R. A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the
narcissistic empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 48, 53–78. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_11
Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J., Campbell, W. K., & Finkel,
E. J. (2004). Too proud to let go: Narcissistic entitlement as a barrier to
forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 894 –
912. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.894
Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). Ideals, perceptions,
and evaluations in early relationship development. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 79, 933–940. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.6
.933
Florian, V., & Vilchinsky, N. (2001). Frequency of marital problems and
their treatment difficulty: The Israeli therapists’ perspective. Society and
Welfare, 21, 281–309.
Fowers, B. J., & Olson, D. H. (1993). ENRICH marital satisfaction scale:
A brief research and clinical tool. Journal of Family Psychology, 7,
176 –185. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.7.2.176
Freud, S. (1916). Some character-types met with in psycho-analytic work.
The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund
Freud, Volume XIV (1914 –1916): On the History of the Psycho-Analytic
Movement, Papers on Metapsychology and Other Works, 309 –333.
Gilbert, N. (1993). Researching social life. London: Sage.
Jacobson, E. (1959). The “exceptions”: An elaboration of Freud’s character
study. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 14, 135–154.
Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and
groups. In H. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods
in social and personality psychology (pp. 451– 477). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kernberg, O. F. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcis-
sism. New York, NY: Aronson.
Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of self. New York, NY: International
University Press.
Kriegman, G. (1983). Entitlement attitudes: Psychosocial and therapeutic
implications. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 11,
265–281.
Lavee, Y. (1995). Marital quality inventory: Research and clinical uses.
Scientific Conference of the Psychologists Association. Ben Gurion
University, Beer Sheva, Israel.
Lavee, Y., & Katz, R. (2002). Division of labor, perceived fairness, and
marital quality: The effect of gender ideology. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 64, 27–39. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00027
Lavee, Y., & Mey-Dan, M. (2003). Patterns of change in marital relation-
ships among parents of children with cancer. Health & Social Work, 28,
255–263. doi:10.1093/hsw/28.4.255
Lerner, M. J., & Mikula, G. (Eds.). (1994). Entitlement and the affectional
bond: Justice in close relationships. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-0984-8
Levin, S. (1970). On the psychoanalysis of attitudes of entitlement. Bulletin
of the Philadelphia Association for Psychoanalysis, 20, 1–10.
Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for
multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statis-
tical Association, 83, 1198 –1202. doi:10.1080/01621459.1988
.10478722
Millon, T. (1981). Disorders of personality: DSM–III: Axis II. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Moses, R., & Moses-Hrushovski, R. (1990). Reflections on the sense of
entitlement. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 45, 61–78.
Olson, D. H., Fournier, D. G., & Druckman, J. M. (1987). Counselor’s
manual for PREPARE/ENRICH (Rev. Ed.). Minneapolis, MN:
PREPARE/ENRICH, Inc.
Person, E. S. (1989). Dreams of love and fateful encounters: The power of
romantic passion. London, United Kingdom: Penguin.
Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner
responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and
closeness. In D. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), The handbook of closeness
and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Revenson, T. A., & DeLongis, A. (2011). Couples coping with chronic
illness. In S. F. Olkman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of stress, health,
and coping (pp. 101–123). New York, NY: Oxford University.
Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2000). Two personalities, one
relationship: Both partners’ personality traits shape the quality of their
relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 251–
259. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.2.251
Rubin, D. B. (Ed.). (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys.
New York, NY: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470316696
Salganik, M. J., & Heckathorn, D. D. (2004). Sampling and estimation in
hidden populations using respondent-driven sampling. Sociological
Methodology, 34, 193–239. doi:10.1111/j.0081-1750.2004.00152.x
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
202 GEORGE-LEVI, VILCHINSKY, TOLMACZ, AND LIBERMAN
Sanchez, L., & Gager, C. T. (2000). Hard living, perceived entitlement to
a great marriage, and marital dissolution. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 62, 708 –722. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00708.x
Simpson, J. (2010). Psychological foundations of trust. In T. D. Fisher &
J. McNulty (Eds.), Current directions in human sexuality and intimate
relationships (pp. 168 –176). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Solomon, L., & Leven, S. (1975). Entitlement. Psychotherapy: Theory,
Research and Practice, 12, 280 –285. doi:10.1037/h0086444
Spiegel, R. (1987). Reflections on entitlement and idealization. Contem-
porary Psychoanalysis, 23, 272–277. doi:10.1080/00107530.1987
.10746181
Stanley, S. M., Blumberg, S. L., & Markman, H. J. (1999). Helping couples
fight for their marriages: The PREP approach. In B. Rony & H. M.
Therese (Eds.), Preventive approaches in couples’ therapy (pp. 279 –
303). Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel.
Tolmacz, R., & Mikulincer, M. (2011). The sense of entitlement in roman-
tic relationships–scale construction, factor structure, construct validity,
and its associations with attachment orientations. Psychoanalytic Psy-
chology, 28, 75–94. doi:10.1037/a0021479
Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2012). Structural equation modeling, applications
using Mplus. New York, NY: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118356258
West, T. V., Popp, D., & Kenny, D. A. (2008). A guide for the estimation
of gender and sexual orientation effects in dyadic data: An actor-partner
interdependence model approach. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 34, 321–336. doi:10.1177/0146167207311199
Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 61, 590 –597. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.590
Wood, J. T. (2004). Monsters and victims: Male felons’ accounts of
intimate partner violence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
21, 555–576. doi:10.1177/0265407504045887
Received February 6, 2013
Revision received December 16, 2013
Accepted January 22, 2014 䡲
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
203
RELATIONAL ENTITLEMENT
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Family Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.