SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İşletme / 2026 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2

Psychological Entitlement: A Conceptual Clarification in the Organizational Behavior Literature

Psikolojik Ayrıcalık: Örgütsel Davranış Literatüründe Kavramsal Bir Netleştirme

Seval Aksoy Kürü(MARMARA UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-1370-0287
Journal
İşletme
Pages
195–210
Publication Date
2026-09-23
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The proposed framework offers an integrative foundation for future empirical research and for organizational practices aimed at managing expectations and reducing ethical risks.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This conceptual article aims to clarify the theoretical boundaries between narcissism and psychological entitlement in the organizational behavior literature.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Existing research sometimes treats these constructs as interchangeable, creating ambiguity in explanations of employees’ justice evaluations, interpretations of ethical boundaries, and counterproductive work behaviors.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The proposed framework offers an integrative foundation for future empirical research and for organizational practices aimed at managing expectations and reducing ethical risks.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Psikolojik ayrıcalık · Narsisizm · Örgütsel davranış

Abstract

This conceptual article aims to clarify the theoretical boundaries between narcissism and psychological entitlement in the organizational behavior literature. Existing research sometimes treats these constructs as interchangeable, creating ambiguity in explanations of employees’ justice evaluations, interpretations of ethical boundaries, and counterproductive work behaviors. The study uses a conceptual synthesis approach to examine theoretical and empirical research from organizational behavior, social psychology, and business ethics and compares the two constructs in terms of their definitions, motivational foci, orientations toward norms, and organizational consequences. The review indicates that psychological entitlement is not merely a secondary manifestation of narcissism; instead, it is a distinct cognitive–moral mechanism operating through entitlement claims, weakened reciprocity norms, and the redefinition of ethical boundaries. Accordingly, the article discusses the distinctive role of psychological entitlement in explaining organizational justice perceptions, psychological contract evaluations, interpersonal conflict, and ethical risks. Its main contribution is to distinguish psychological entitlement from self-enhancement-oriented narcissism and position it as an independent theoretical construct that explains entitlement, reciprocity, and ethical justification processes in organizational contexts. The proposed framework offers an integrative foundation for future empirical research and for organizational practices aimed at managing expectations and reducing ethical risks.

Özet

Bu kavramsal makalenin amacı, narsisizm ile psikolojik ayrıcalık arasındaki kuramsal sınırları örgütsel davranış literatürü açısından netleştirmektir. Mevcut yazında bu iki kavramın zaman zaman birbirinin yerine kullanılması, çalışanların adalet değerlendirmelerinin, etik sınırları yorumlama biçimlerinin ve karşıt iş davranışlarının açıklanmasında kuramsal belirsizlik yaratmaktadır. Çalışmada örgütsel davranış, sosyal psikoloji ve iş etiği literatüründeki kuramsal ve ampirik araştırmalar kavramsal sentez yaklaşımıyla incelenmiş; iki yapı tanımları, güdüsel odakları, normlara yönelimleri ve örgütsel sonuçları bakımından karşılaştırılmıştır. İnceleme, psikolojik ayrıcalığın narsisizmin ikincil bir yansıması olmadığını; hak iddiası, karşılıklılık ilkesinin zayıflaması ve etik sınırların yeniden tanımlanması üzerinden işleyen özgül bir bilişsel-ahlaki mekanizma olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu doğrultuda psikolojik ayrıcalığın örgütsel adalet algıları, psikolojik sözleşme değerlendirmeleri, kişilerarası çatışmalar ve etik risklerin açıklanmasındaki özgün rolü tartışılmaktadır. Çalışmanın temel katkısı, psikolojik ayrıcalığı benlik yüceltme odaklı narsisizmden ayırarak, örgütsel bağlamda hak, karşılıklılık ve etik gerekçelendirme süreçlerini açıklayan bağımsız bir kuramsal yapı olarak konumlandırmasıdır. Önerilen çerçeve, gelecek ampirik araştırmalar ile beklenti yönetimi ve etik riskleri azaltmaya yönelik örgütsel uygulamalar için bütünleştirici bir zemin sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kürü, S. A. (2026). Psychological Entitlement: A Conceptual Clarification in the Organizational Behavior Literature. İşletme, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 195–210. https://doi.org/10.57116/isletme.1890605

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (37)

  1. Ackerman, R. A., & Donnellan, M. B. (2013). Personality traits of narcissism: A review of existing measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.038
  2. Aksoy Kürü, S. (2022). Psikolojik ayrıcalık: Bir ölçek uyarlama çalışması. Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 20(44), 461–480. https://doi.org/10.35408/comuybd.1028401
  3. Aksoy Kürü, S. (2024). Örgüt yararına etik olmayan davranışların belirleyicileri. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 13(1), 162–174. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.1346763
  4. Aksoy Kürü, S. (baskıda). When psychopathy becomes organisationally harmful: A conditional process model of psychological entitlement and organisational identification. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-02-2026-6502
  5. Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3
  6. Bandura, A. (2016). Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves. Worth Publishers.
  7. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
  8. Bolino, M. C., & Grant, A. M. (2016). The bright side of being prosocial at work, and the dark side, too. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 599–670. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1153260
  9. Bolino, M. C., Klotz, A. C., Turnley, W. H., & Harvey, J. (2013). Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(4), 542–559. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1847
  10. Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8301_04
  11. Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio, G. (2011). Narcissism in organizational contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 268–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.007
  12. Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Zapata, C. P., & Rich, B. L. (2013). Explaining the justice–performance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer? Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025208
  13. Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2007.27895338
  14. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
  15. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600208
  16. Grubbs, J. B., & Exline, J. J. (2016). Trait entitlement: A cognitive–personality source of vulnerability to psychological distress. Psychological Bulletin, 142(11), 1204–1226. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000063
  17. Harvey, P., & Harris, K. J. (2010). Frustration-based outcomes of entitlement and the influence of supervisor communication. Human Relations, 63(11), 1639–1660. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710362923
  18. Harvey, P., & Martinko, M. J. (2009). An examination of the role of attribution style in the psychological entitlement–justice relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(4), 459–476. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.549
  19. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (3. baskı). McGraw-Hill.
  20. Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386–408. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208687
  21. Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017103
  22. Klotz, A. C., & Bolino, M. C. (2013). Citizenship and counterproductive work behavior: A moral licensing view. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 292–306. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0109
  23. Lee, A., Schwarz, G., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2019). Investigating when and why psychological entitlement predicts unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(1), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3456-z
  24. Luan, Y., Zhao, K., Wang, Z., & Hu, F. (2023). Exploring the antecedents of unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB): A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 187(1), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05269-w
  25. Miller, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Comparing clinical and social-personality conceptualizations of narcissism. Journal of Personality, 76(3), 449–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00492.x
  26. Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1204_1
  27. Muchinsky, P. M., & Culbertson, S. S. (2016). Psychology applied to work: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (11. baskı). Hypergraphic Press.
  28. Neville, L., & Fisk, G. M. (2019). Getting to excess: Psychological entitlement and negotiation attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(4), 555–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9572-7
  29. Otto, K., Vahle-Hinz, T., Bamberg, E., & Schmitt, A. (2021). The entitlement paradox: How psychological entitlement relates to strain and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 26(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000251
  30. Priesemuth, M., & Taylor, R. M. (2016). The more I want, the less I have left to give: The moderating role of psychological entitlement on the relationship between psychological contract violation, depressive mood states, and citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(7), 967–982. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2080
  31. Raskin, R., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45(2), 590. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1979.45.2.590
  32. Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Sage Publications.
  33. Spector, P. E. (2019). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice (7. baskı). John Wiley & Sons.
  34. Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500
  35. Thompson, J. A., & Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Violations of principle: Ideological currency in the psychological contract. Academy of Management Review, 28(4), 571–586. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.10899381
  36. Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951–990. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306294258
  37. Yam, K. C., Reynolds, S. J., & Hirsch, J. B. (2017). The slippery slope of entitlement: When feeling entitled leads to unethical behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(6), 907–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000190