The Aggrieved Entitlement Scale: A New Measure for an Old Problem

Abstract

Aggrieved entitlement (AE) refers to the defensiveness and hostility majority-group members feel toward the outgroup in response to a perceived threat of lost privileges. Over the last couple of years, AE has garnered a great deal of attention in the media as well as in the empirical literature because of its connection with extremism and violence against minority groups. Yet, to date, research quantifying and measuring the construct of AE is scant. In this paper, we aim to bridge this gap. Across two studies (N₁ = 813; N₂ = 1,100) we explore the factor structure of the Aggrieved Entitlement Scale (AES) and examine its concurrent and divergent validity with related demographic, attitudinal, and personality factors. We found that the AES was positively correlated with racist attitudes, fear-based xenophobia, authoritarianism, sexism, transphobia, and sexual entitlement. We further found that it was negatively correlated with feminist attitudes, honesty-humility, and compassionate love. In both samples, scores were higher among men (vs. women) and heterosexual (vs. sexual minority) individuals. Finally, in contrast to our expectations, racial and ethnic minority participants scored higher in AE than White participants. Results from this work offer initial support for the use of the AES and call for more research into the topic.

Aggrieved entitlement (AE) refers to this response of resentment, defensiveness, and anger toward those who are perceived as attempting to take away one’s privileges (Kimmel, 2017). Those who hold AE attitudes may espouse beliefs that they deserve certain benefits based on their majority-group identity while also feeling like victims of the same societal structures from which they reap the most benefits (Kimmel, 2013). Alarmingly, feelings akin to AE have been linked to instances of extremism and violent attacks against women, gender, sexual, and religious minorities, and People of Color (Marganski, 2019; Reyna et al., 2022; Vito et al., 2018). Therefore, in this divisive climate, understanding the attitudes that sow anger, bitterness, and violence is more crucial than ever. In this article, we present a scale designed to measure attitudes that fall on the continuum of AE along with the initial steps we have taken to validate it.

Cultural Change Viewed as a Threat

It is indisputable that the makeup of North American societies is changing. More people than ever identify as members of the LGBTQIA2S+ community. Further, recent estimates suggest that by 2045, although still representing the single largest ethnic or racial group, White individuals will make up less than 50% of the population in the United States (Vespa et al., 2018). Not all view this demographic shift as a welcomed change, however. As argued by the Cultural Inertia Theory, change is resisted and actively opposed when perceived as threatening to the dominant, stable culture that represents the status quo (Zárate et al., 2012). Consequently, cultural and demographic changes may be seen as both symbolic and realistic, existential threats to majority groups (Bai & Federico, 2020, 2021; Pereira et al., 2010). In turn, this perceived threat may leave majority-group members feeling attacked, emboldening some to go on the offensive and exhibit hostility or discrimination toward minority-group members (Craig & Richeson, 2014a, 2014b; Pereira et al., 2010). These forms of hate-motivated behavior can range from microaggressions to hate crimes (Cramer et al., 2023), such as “retaliatory” hate crimes that are committed to avenge a perceived threat against the majoritized in-group (McDevitt et al., 2002). Some White individuals may view racial equality as a zero-sum game that they are losing (Duckitt et al., 2002). Such claims of victimhood are far from uncommon and often used to justify discrimination and oppression tactics against outgroups, as seen throughout history, for example, in the Tulsa race massacre (Reyna et al., 2022), or instances of gender-based violence against women (Marganski, 2019). Ultimately, at the center of the “oppressed majority” who claims victimhood and enacts violence against the outgroup, lies a resistance to change, which is seen as threatening, and causes feelings of entitlement to perceived lost privileges (Reyna et al., 2022).

Aggrieved Entitlement

Members of majority groups may hold the entitled belief that they are deserving of certain benefits solely based on their identities. These entitled beliefs are normalized from expectations arising from generations of reinforced ideologies that highlight Whiteness, heterosexuality, and masculinity (Kimmel, 2017; Marganski, 2019). In turn, privileged individuals are less likely to recognize inequality and more likely to defend the status quo (Reyna et al., 2022). These sentiments posit that when challenged, it is not only acceptable, but encouraged, to protect the status quo, namely hegemonic masculinity, Whiteness, or heteronormativity (Kalish & Kimmel, 2010; Marganski, 2019; Vito et al., 2018). Individuals who feel this way may direct their anger toward people who are different from them in potentially drastic ways, such as through mass shootings, hate crimes, or sexual violence (DeKeseredy et al., 2019; Marganski, 2019; Vito et al., 2018). Taken together, AE represents the ambivalent combination of feelings of superiority and the anxiety surrounding beliefs that one’s in-group is unjustly being deprived of their deserving benefits (Reyna et al., 2022).

AE, Outgroup Hostility, and Extremism

Individuals with sentiments of AE may choose to punish people they feel are responsible for their perceived losses in social status (Kalish & Kimmel, 2010). A growing body of work suggests that many acts of extremism (e.g., mass shootings) may not be random acts of violence and, instead, represent a form of systemic violence against gender, sexual, and race/ethnic minorities (Silverman, 2020). Indeed, a 2022 U.S. Department of Justice report suggests that almost 98% of public mass shooters were men, more than 50% were White, and more than 20% were radicalized online studying previous mass shooters (National Institute of Justice, 2022).

At the individual level, these acts of violence and extremism, seen especially in young people, have been positively linked to the dark tetrad traits (i.e., Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism), a cluster of subclinical antisocial traits characterized by shallow effect, callousness, and interpersonal exploitations. This may suggest that a personality style typified by a lack of empathy and diminished ability to regulate intense emotions (e.g., anger and fear) is an important factor to consider (Karasavva, 2019). Indeed, dark personality traits are related to self-serving attributes, entitlement, a belief in deserving more than others (Deol & Schermer, 2021), and aggression (Zhu & Jin, 2021). At the societal level, we see systematic inequalities best exemplified in the “-isms,” including racism, right-wing authoritarianism, and sexism (Marganski, 2019). With these ideas in mind, individuals with AE would likely feel intimidated by the changing world and may perceive this as a loss while fearing the uncertain future of the “White man” (Kimmel, 2017; Reyna et al., 2022).

Aggrieved Entitlement, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, and Social Dominance Orientation

Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) defines those who, in general, oppose social change and are threatened by people or ideas that are “non-native” to their country or things that are not considered traditional (Mayer et al., 2020). Social dominance orientation (SDO) posits that some may be hypersensitive to the perceived scarcity of resources and privilege and thus be motivated to act in a way that will ensure their in-group dominance and superiority (Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt et al., 2002; Pratto et al., 1994). Overall, both RWA and SDO represent status-legitimizing ideologies that allow social inequalities to be viewed as fair and legitimate (Duckitt & Sibley, 2007). People high on RWA and SDO tend to have a strong preference for social control and endorse harsh punitive practices for those who deviate from the norms (Duckitt et al., 2010). Attitudes and beliefs related to RWA and SDO can be traced back to feelings of threat and AE (Smith, 2022). This was likely amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic as young people became more fearful of their economic and social future (Smith, 2022). Crucially, such ideologies often invoke outrage against feminists for promoting cultural changes that are perceived to take opportunities away from White men and promote sexist beliefs ranging from justifying or normalizing rape to intimate partner violence (DeKeseredy et al., 2019; Marganski, 2019; Renström, 2024; Reyna et al., 2022).

Measuring Aggrieved Entitlement

Generally, researchers of AE stress the need for proactive approaches in detecting violence relating to AE (Marganski, 2019; Reyna et al., 2022) and the need for its operationalization and measurement (DeKeseredy et al., 2019). However, despite the attention sentiments related to AE have received, there is little prior work measuring the AE continuum. Silverman (2020) developed an index of AE from items from the General Social Survey. Despite the scores of participants not differing significantly based on their race or gender, Silverman (2020) emphasized the need for a quantitative measure of AE. In response to this, the Aggrieved Entitlement Scale (AES; Karasavva & Forth, 2022) was developed to tap into attitudes related to racism, RWA, transphobia, and sexism, that fall on a continuum (Karasavva & Forth, 2022). We examined how AE influences non-consensual intimate image dissemination perpetration and victimization in a college sample (Karasavva & Forth, 2022). The AES showed good internal consistency (α = .85) and was positively correlated with threatening and distributing a nude or sexual image of someone without their consent (Karasavva & Forth, 2022).

The Current Study

Discussions on the current state of civil unrest and divisiveness often center on sentiments that echo the construct of AE. Yet, there is a clear gap in the literature quantifying AE feelings and exploring the demographic, personality, and attitudinal factors related to AE. This study aims to bridge this important gap in the empirical literature by formally evaluating and conducting the initial steps to validate the AES (Karasavva & Forth, 2022). The measure of AE and results from this work can then be used to garner a better understanding of the individual factors that contribute to interpersonal and systemic violence, aggression, and outgroup hostility and ways to prevent them.

More specifically, in Study 1, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine the most highly loaded and conceptually statistically suitable items, as well as to establish a preliminary factor structure for the AES. In Study 2, we employed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test and validate the factor structure identified in Study 1. The development of the AES was exploratory in nature as the literature on the topic is limited. Items of the AES were developed to integrate the social concepts of prejudice, sexism, and RWA. Therefore, we hypothesized there would be a single score of AE for the AES, which will be evaluated through an EFA. In addition, we hypothesized that the AES would have a positive relationship with sexual entitlement (H1), dark personality traits (H2), and accepting myths related to non-consensual intimate image dissemination (H3). In Study 2, we considered concurrent and divergent validity and hypothesized that we would find a positive association between AES and prejudice (H4) and sexism (H5) and negative associations with honesty-humility (H6) and compassion (H7). Finally, across both studies, we hypothesized that the demographic characteristics and identities of participants would influence their attitudes and AE tendencies. Thus, we hypothesized that participants who identified as heterosexual, White men (H8) would score higher on the AES.

Method: Study 1

Sample

In the final sample (N = 813), the majority of participants identified as women (72.2%; men = 27.4%; nonbinary = 0.1%; other = 0.2—including gender fluid and agender) and heterosexual (81.7%; bisexual = 11.6%; gay or lesbian ¹  = 2.6%; pansexual = 2.3%; asexual = 0.6%; queer = 0.4%; other = 0.6%—including undecided, questioning, and fluid). A broad range of ethnicities were represented in the sample, with most participants identifying as White (34.1%) followed by Middle Eastern (33.3%), Asian (12.4%), Black (10.6%), Other (e.g., Persian, Mixed, Bengali; 3.4%), East Indian (2.6%), Indigenous (1.7%), and Latinx (1.5%). Participants ranged in age from 16 to 60 with a mean age of 20.07 years (SD = 4.30, Mdn = 19.00).

Measures

AES

The AES (Karasavva & Forth, 2022) is a 9-item self-report measure used to assess participants’ level of beliefs related to AE. Respondents were asked to rate their agreement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”) to each statement. The total score was computed by averaging the participants’ ratings across all items. Items were generated using a deductive and theory-based reasoning method, following the best and most commonly used practices in scale development (Ladhari, 2010; Morgado et al., 2017). This approach was rooted in a comprehensive review of relevant literature (Kimmel, 2013, 2017) and existing scales theoretically similar to the AE construct (e.g., the Sexual Entitlement subscale in Hanson Sex Attitude Questionnaire [HSAQ]; Hanson et al., 1994; the Neosexism Scale [NS]; Tougas et al., 1995; and the Short Version of the RWA Scale; Zakrisson, 2005). We also consulted with an expert in developing personality-based measures to refine our items. This process ensured strong conceptual clarity and content validity for the scale.

Sexual Image-Based Abuse Myth Acceptance

The Sexual Image-Based Abuse Myth Acceptance (SIAMA) is an 18-item self-report questionnaire used to assess attitudes toward minimizing or excusing harm and blaming survivors of image-based sexual abuse (Powell et al., 2019). The SIAMA is modeled after the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Payne et al., 1999) and is comprised of two subscales: Minimize/Excuse, containing 12 items, and Blame, containing 6 items. Participants rated their agreement with each item using a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly Agree”). Previous studies have shown that both SIAMA subscales, as well as the full measure, have excellent reliability (α = .86–.94; Powell et al., 2019). Higher scores denote greater acceptance of myths related to non-consensual intimate image dissemination.

Short Dark Tetrad

The Short Dark Tetrad (SD4) is a 28-item self-report questionnaire used to assess the degree to which participants hold subclinical levels of dark traits, namely Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and everyday sadism (Paulhus et al., 2020). Each personality subscale (i.e., Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism) includes seven items, and participants rate their agreement to each item using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”). The SD4 has previously shown good reliability across all four dark personality traits (Machiavellism: α = .75; narcissism: α = .80; sadism: α = .81; psychopathy: α = .81; Paulhus et al., 2020).

HSAQ: Sexual Entitlement Subscale

The HSAQ (Hanson et al., 1994) is a 47-item self-report questionnaire used to assess the degree to which sexual offenders hold specific sex-related attitudes. The HSAQ includes six subscales including Sexual Entitlement, Sexy Children, Frustration, Affairs, Sex/Affection Confusion, and Sexual Harm. The Sexual Entitlement subscale of the HSAQ has previously shown great reliability (α = .81; Hanson et al., 1994). The 9-item Sexual Entitlement Subscale of the HSAQ was used within the present study as a measure of male sexual entitlement. Participants rate their agreement using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”).

Procedure

The AES was created as part of a larger project on image-based sexual abuse (Karasavva, 2020). The study was approved by the host institution’s Research Ethics Board and was completed online via Qualtrics between October 2019 and February 2020. Participants were undergraduate students enrolled in a psychology course at a Canadian University who completed the study in exchange for partial course credit. Participants were informed they would be asked questions about their experiences with image-based sexual abuse, their personality traits, and attitudes surrounding various social issues. Once participants provided consent to participate in the study, they provided demographic information and were asked to complete a series of surveys, including the SIAMI, SD4, and HSAQ, in random order. During debriefing, participants were told about the purpose of the study and were offered resources relevant to image-based sexual abuse, in-person sexual abuse, and general psychological well-being.

Results: Study 1

Data Screening

Each variable contained less than 3% of missing data. For each variable with missing data, Little’s (1988) missing completely at random (MCAR) test was performed. All variables were found to be MCAR. Intercorrelations across all independent variables were also assessed: all variance inflation factors were found to be <10, meaning there was no multicollinearity present. Cronbach’s alphas are provided in Table 2. All scales showed good reliability, with the exception of the HSAQ. Thus, caution should be taken when interpreting results with the HSAQ. Missing data was handled using multiple imputations. All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS statistics, version 29.

Table 2.

Bivariate Correlations Between AES and SD4, SIAMA, and HSAQ and Cronbach’s Alpha Values.

Measures	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. AES	(.85)
2. SD4—Machiavellianism	−.26*	(.79)
3. SD4—Narcissism	.24*	.45*	(.80)
4. SD4—Psychopathy	.33*	.36*	.45*	(.82)
5. SD4—Sadism	.26*	.36*	.28*	.49*	(.80)
6. SIAMA—Minimize/excuse	.44*	.26*	.21*	.32*	.29*	(.87)
7. SIAMA—Blame	.36*	.27*	.13*	.14*	.15*	.44*	(.88)
8. SIAMA—Total	.47*	.31*	.20*	.27*	.26*	.86*	.83*	.(89)
9. HSAQ	.44*	.30*	.30*	.35*	.27*	.49*	.30*	.47*	(.56)

Note. AES = Aggrieved Entitlement Scale (Karasavva & Forth, 2022); SD4 = Short Dark Tetrad (Paulhus et al., 2020; SIAMA = Sexual Image-based Abuse Myth Acceptance (Powell et al., 2019); HSAQ = Hanson Sex Attitude Questionnaire (HSAQ)–Sexual Entitlement Subscale (Hanson et al., 1994).

^*p < .001.

Item Selection

An EFA was conducted to identify the underlying factor structure of the nine AES items, using an oblique rotation (direct oblim). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was excellent (KMO = .894) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant, χ²(36) = 2557.031, p < .001. An initial analysis of eigenvalues showed that all factors had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criteria of 1; however, the scree plot supported a single-factor structure. As such, for ease of interpretation, a single factor, which accounted for 48.03% of total variance, was retained. Although some statisticians suggest retaining items with factor loadings of .4 or greater (Field, 2013), more recent research suggests using cut-offs of .5 (for a review see Cheung et al., 2024). Accordingly, Item #1, “It is my birthright to achieve greatness” was removed for falling below the .5 factor loading threshold; the remaining items exhibited factor loadings between .59 and .79 and were retained (see Table 1). The correlations among the remaining eight items ranged between .29 and .62 suggesting a low to moderate relationship between them. The communalities were all above .3 (ranging between .31 and .55) confirming common variance among the items. Inter-item and total correlations are found in Supplemental Appendix B.

Table 1.

Principal Component Analysis Factor Loadings of AES Items.

AES Items	Factor Loading
1. It is my birthright to achieve greatness	.44
2. Women and minorities actually have more rights	.63
3. White men are the ones who are truly persecuted in today’s culture.	.71
4. Reverse sexism and reverse racism are real and valid problems that I or people I know, often have to deal with.	.59
5. Our government should prioritize helping real citizens first, instead of immigrants who offer nothing of value to our country.	.73
6. If our culture wasn’t so politically correct, I would have achieved great things.	.76
7. Race and gender quotas in jobs and universities are taking jobs away from well-deserving White men.	.75
8. I believe I have been cheated out of opportunities that have been given to undeserving minorities instead so the employer can appear to be politically correct.	.79
9. I believe that the invasion of immigrants is a threat to our way of life	.77

Note. AES = Aggrieved Entitlement Scale.

AES and Demographic Characteristics

A three-way ANOVA was then conducted to determine if AES average scores varied for groups with different demographic identities. More specifically, we examined how participants with a different gender (man, woman), sexual orientation (heterosexual, sexual minority), and ethnic/racial (White, ethnic/racial minority) identity, scored on the AES. Because of the small number of nonbinary, gender fluid, and agender participants, they were excluded from all gender analyses. Simple main effects analysis showed that gender (F[1, 801] = 5.81, p = .016, partial η = .01) and sexual orientation (F[1, 801] = 17.55, p < .001, partial η = .02) had a significant effect on AES scores, but identifying as a member of an ethnic or racial minority did not (F[1, 801] = 0.44, p = .510, partial η = .001). More specifically, we found that in our sample, men (M = 2.05, SD = 0.09) scored significantly higher than women (M = 1.82, SD = 0.04) on the AES, t(811) = 48.13, p < .001, d = 3.16. As did heterosexual participants (M = 2.14, SD = 0.03), when compared to sexual minority participants (M = 1.74, SD = 0.09), t(811) = 93.78, p < .001, d = 5.96. We found no significant interaction effect between gender, sexual orientation, and ethnic/racial identity on the average AES score.

Correlational Analysis

A series of bivariate correlations were conducted to assess the relationship between AES, SIAMA, sexual entitlement, and dark personalities (see Table 2). The AES was positively correlated with sexual-image-based abuse myth acceptance (both total and subscale scores), sex attitudes, and psychopathy, with moderate effect sizes. Similar positive associations were also observed between the AES and Machiavellianism and narcissism but with small effect sizes. The strongest correlation was observed between AES and SIAMA total (r = .47, p < .001) with the weakest being between AES and narcissism (r = .24, p < .001).

Discussion: Study 1

Study 1 provided evidence for a single-factor, eight-item measure of AE with adequately demonstrated construct validity. Notably, while the effect sizes for the majority of these relationships were moderate, the relationships between the AES and dark personality traits of narcissism and Machiavellianism were small. In addition, men (vs. women) and heterosexual (vs. sexual minority) participants scored higher on the AES; however, counter to our prediction, there were no differences in scores on the AES between White versus non-White participants.

Method: Study 2

Sample

The final sample consisted of 1,100 undergraduates. Most were women (74.6%; men = 24.5%; transgender = 0.1%; nonbinary = 0.5%; other = 0.3%—e.g., gender fluid and agender), heterosexual (80.5%; gay or lesbian ¹  = 4.1%; bisexual = 12.4%; other = 3.0%—e.g., pansexual, questioning, and undecided), White (51.3%; Arab = 7.6%; Asian = 20.1%; Black = 8.7%; Indigenous = 1.5%; Latinx = 2.5%; other = 8.3% —e.g., mixed, biracial, and Ashkenazi Jewish). Participants’ ages ranged from 17 to 68 (M = 21.13, Mdn = 19.00, SD = 5.51), and Canadian citizens (85.9%), were born in Canada (72.0%). Regarding the socioeconomic background of our participants, 12.8% reported a household income of less than CAD 20,000, 15.3% between CAD 20,000 and CAD 40,000, 24.9% between CAD 40,000 and CAD 80,000, 18.6% between CAD 80,000 and CAD 100,000, and 28.3% over CAD 100,000.

Measures

Demographic Questionnaire

Participants reported their age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic background, whether they were Canadian citizens (yes/no), if they were born in Canada, and their household income.

AES

For a description of the AES (Karasavva & Forth, 2022), please see Study 1. Within this sample, the AES demonstrated good reliability (α = .85).

Modified Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale

Racist attitudes were assessed using the Modified Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS), a 20-item questionnaire measured according to a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”). The total score was computed by summing the scores of all items. Since data collection took place in Canada, the wording of the items was changed from U.S. to Canada. The scale has shown acceptable reliability ranging from .70 to .86 (Neville et al., 2000). CoBRAS showed excellent reliability (α = .91).

Fear-Based Xenophobia Scale

Fear-based xenophobia was assessed using the Fear-Based Xenophobia Scale (FBXS; Van Der Veer et al., 2011), a 9-item scale derived from the original 30-item scale to specifically measure xenophobia driven by fear on a 5-point Likert. Participants rate their agreements to all nine items ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”). Final scores were computed by summing each item score, with higher scores denoting greater fear-driven prejudice toward immigrants. The current study obtained excellent internal consistency (α = .93) for the FBXS.

Short Version of the RWA Scale

Behaviors and attitudes predicted to be associated with RWA were assessed using the Short Version of the RWA Scale, which is a short form of Altemeyer’s (1998) 30-item RWA Scale (Zakrisson, 2005). Items with the lowest contribution to reliability and the highest correlations to SDO were selected to be a part of the short version of the scale (Zakrisson, 2005). Previous CFA identified that this measure contains three factors; authoritarian aggression (four items), conventionalism (five items), and authoritarian submission (six items; Zakrisson, 2005). Factor loadings varied from .54 to .66 for authoritarian aggression, .27 to .55 for conventionalism, and .48 to .57 for authoritarian submission (Zakrisson, 2005). The RWA Scale showed good internal consistency in the current study (α = .78).

Modified Genderism and Transphobia Scale

Transphobic attitudes were measured using a modified subscale of the Genderism and Transphobia Scale (Hill & Willoughby, 2005; Supplemental Appendix C). For the current study, we only included seven items assessing transphobia that were related to “the morality/shame” factor and excluded items with loadings that fell under the “teasing” or “violence” factors proposed by Hill & Willoughby (2005). If there were two similar items (e.g., “God made two sexes and two sexes only” and “People are either men or women”), we retained only one item, typically ones that had no religious undertones. An EFA using an oblique rotation (direct oblimin) supported a single-factor structure accounting for 61.1% of the total variance. Participants rated their agreement to each statement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”). The final score was computed by taking the means of all items, with higher scores denoting more negative attitudes toward transgender and gender-diverse individuals. Finally, the measure showed adequate reliability (Cronbach’s α = .75).

Neosexism Scale

The NS (Tougas et al., 1995) is an 11-item scale used to assess discrete and subtle views of gender inequality seen most notably within employment discrimination. Participants responded to each item using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”). Total scores were computed by creating an aggregate score across all items, with higher scores implying greater feelings of misogyny. NS demonstrated good reliability (α = .86).

Modified Feminist Attitude Inventory

Feminist attitudes toward the women’s movement, gender equality, and gender roles were measured using the Modified Feminist Attitude Inventory (FAI-M; Renzetti, 1987; Supplemental Appendix D) which includes 14 statements measured according to a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”). The original scale included 24 items, however, 10 items from the original scale that overlapped conceptually significantly with the NS were not included. An EFA using an oblique rotation (direct oblimin) supported a single-factor structure accounting for 40.7% of the total variance. Total scores were constructed by summing the scores of all items, with higher scores indicating less traditional and more feminist attitudes toward gender. The FAI-M showed adequate reliability in our study (Cronbach’s α = .88).

HEXACO–60 Honesty-Humility Subscale

The HEXACO–60 Honesty-Humility subscale is derived from the HEXACO-60 (HEXACO-HH; Ashton & Lee, 2009), and contains nine items measuring sincerity, fairness, greed-avoidance, and modesty. Respondents complete the scale using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”). Total scores were computed by creating an aggregate score across all items, with higher scores indicating greater characteristics of honesty-humility. Internal consistency was poor (α = .54) for the Honesty-Humility subscale, suggesting that findings should be interpreted with caution.

Compassionate Love Scale: Stranger-Humanity Version

The Stranger-Humanity Version subscale of the Compassionate Love Scale (CLS:SHV; Sprecher & Fehr, 2005) is comprised of 21 statements assessing an individual’s beliefs or behaviors toward strangers or the general public on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Not at all true for me”) to 7 (“Very true of me”). The total score was calculated through the mean of the total score with higher scores suggesting more compassion toward unknown people. CLS:SHV demonstrated excellent reliability (α = .95) within the present sample.

Procedure

This study received approval from the university’s Research Ethics Board. Data collection took place entirely online between May 1st and September 30th, 2020. Participants were undergraduate students enrolled at Canadian University who completed the study in exchange for partial course credit. Participants were informed about the study’s purpose and that the questions’ content included topics like racism and sexism that could be upsetting to some. Additionally, participants were reminded that they could skip any questions they did not wish to respond to without any penalty. Once they indicated their consent, participants were asked to provide their demographic information and to complete a series of online questionnaires in a random order. During debriefing, participants were told the hypotheses of the study and were provided with a list of university and local resources about mental health.

Results: Study 2

Data Screening

Data was first screened for missing values. Across the scales, there was less than 5% missing data, except for items 9 and 15 of the RWA Scale (5.1% and 5.4%, respectively). Little’s MCAR test was not significant for any of the variables with missing data, suggesting that data were MCAR. Multiple imputation was used to handle the missing data. All scales were normally distributed (skewness < |2| and kurtosis < |3|). All variance inflation factors were found to be <10, suggesting the absence of multicollinearity. All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS statistics, version 29, and R Studio.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

A CFA with maximum likelihood estimation was conducted using the eight items identified in Study 1, specifying a single higher-order factor. The analysis was conducted using the lavaan latent variable analysis package in R (Rosseel, 2012). The independence model estimating that all variables are uncorrelated demonstrated poor model fit and was rejected, χ²(28) = 1317.05, p < .001; Root Mean Square Error of Approximatio (RMSEA) = 0.34, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.00. Our hypothesized model produced significant improvement over our independence model, χ²(20) =85.30, p < .001, and produced acceptable fit, RMSEA = 0.09, CFI = 0.95. The standardized loadings ranged between .54 and .76 (Table 3). No modifications were made to improve the fit of the model.

Table 3.

Factor Loadings of AES Items.

AES Item	Standardized Loadings
1. Women and minorities actually have more rights.	.64
2. White men are the ones who are truly persecuted in today’s culture.	.68
3. Reverse sexism and reverse racism are real and valid problems that I or people I know, often have to deal with.	.54
4. Our government should prioritize helping real citizens first, instead of immigrants who offer nothing of value to our country.	.69
5. If our culture wasn’t so politically correct, I would have achieved great things.	.66
6. Race and gender quotas in jobs and universities are taking away jobs from well-deserving White men.	.76
7. I believe I have been cheated out of opportunities that have been given to undeserving minorities instead so the employer can appear to be politically correct.	.74
8. I believe that the invasion of immigrants is a threat to our way of life.	.76

Note. AES = Aggrieved Entitlement Scale.

AES and Demographic Characteristics

A three-way ANOVA was then conducted to determine if average AES scores varied between groups with different demographic identities. More specifically, we examined how participants with a different gender (man, woman), sexual orientation (heterosexual, sexual minority), and ethnic/racial (White, ethnic/racial minority) identity, scored on the AES. We note that nonbinary, agender, and gender-diverse individuals were not included in the gender analysis, due to a small sample size. Simple main effects analysis showed that gender (F[1, 1077] = 31.63, p < .001, partial η = .03), sexual orientation (F[1, 1077] = 13.36, p < .001, partial η = .01), and identifying as an ethnic or racial minority (F[1, 1077] = 9.96, p = .002, partial η = .01) had a significant effect on AES scores. As in Study 1, we found that men (M = 2.14, SD = 0.07) scored significantly higher than women (M = 1.72, SD = 0.03) on the AES, t(1,070) = 9.96, p < .001, d = 7.80. As well, heterosexual participants (M = 2.07, SD = 0.03) scored significantly higher than sexual minority participants (M = 1.79, SD = 0.07), t(1,070) = 31.63, p < .001, d = 5.20. Interestingly, those who identified as a racial or ethnic minority (M = 2.05, SD = 0.06) had significantly higher AES scores than their White (M = 1.81, SD = 0.05) counterparts, t(1,070) = 13.36, p < .001, d = 4.00. Replicating Study 1 findings, we found no significant interaction effect between gender, sexual orientation, and ethnic/racial identity on the average AES score.

Correlational Analysis

A series of bivariate correlations were then conducted to assess the relationship between AES, racial attitudes, authoritarianism, xenophobia, transphobic attitudes, neosexism, feminist attitudes, honesty-humility, and compassionate love. As observed in Table 4, AES scores were positively associated with racial attitudes, fear-based xenophobia, authoritarianism, attitudes toward transgender individuals, and neosexism, with large effect sizes. Alternatively, AES scores demonstrated a negative relationship to feminist attitudes, honesty-humility, and compassionate love. Notably, while the effect size between the AES and feminist attitudes was large, the effect sizes for the latter two relationships were smaller.

Table 4.

Bivariate Correlations Between AES and Study Variables and Cronbach’s Alpha Values.

Measure	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. AES	(.85)
2. CoBRAS	.72*	(.91)
3. FBXS	.71*	.57*	(.93)
4. RWA	.59*	.56*	.52*	(.78)
5. ATTI-M	.54*	.53*	.55*	.55*	(.75)
6. NS	.71*	.72*	.63*	.60*	.64*	(.86)
7. FAI-M	−.68*	−.78*	−.57*	−.60*	−.67*	−.81*	(.88)
8. HEXACO-HH	−.12*	−.05	−.14*	.02	−.05	−.11*	.05	(.54)
9. CLS:SHV	−.28*	−.34*	−.30*	−.23*	−.26*	−.32*	.34*	.29*	(.95)

Note. The parentheses on the diagonal denote the Cronbach’s alpha. AES = Aggrieved Entitlement Scale (Karasavva & Forth, 2022). CoBRAS = Modified Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (Neville et al., 2000); FBXS = Fear-Based Xenophobia Scale (Van Der Veer et al., 2011); RWA = Short Version Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (Zakrisson, 2005); ATTI-M = Modified Attitudes toward Transgendered Individuals (Hill & Willoughby, 2005); NS = Neosexism Scale (Tougas et al., 1995); FAI-M = Modified Feminist Attitudes Inventory (Renzetti, 1987); HEXACO-HH = Honesty-humility subscale of the honesty- humility, emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience (Ashton & Lee, 2009); CLS:SHV = Compassionate Love Scale–Stranger-Humanity Version (Sprecher & Fehr, 2005).

^*p < .001.

Discussion: Study 2

Study 2 provided support for the concurrent and divergent validity of the AES. However, while statistically significant, the relationships with honesty-humility and compassion were small. Given the large sample size, there is undoubtedly an increased risk for type II errors. As such, readers are encouraged to interpret these findings within the context of such small effects, large sample sizes, and broader theoretical context. Further, as in Study 1, we found that participants who identified as men (vs. women) and heterosexual (vs. sexual minority); scored higher on the AES. Counter to expectations, however, those identifying as racial/ ethnic minorities had higher scores of AES than White participants.

General Discussion

Across two studies, we found that the AES was positively correlated with several related constructs of sexism, authoritarianism, sexual entitlement, and racist attitudes. In addition, it was negatively correlated with honesty-humility, compassionate love, and feminism. Finally, as expected, we found that although men and sexual majority participants scored higher than women and sexual minority participants, respectively. However, contrary to our predictions racial and ethnic minority participants also scored higher than White participants.

Structure of the AES

All items on the AES were significantly associated with one another (see Supplemental Appendix A). Item 1 of the original nine items had the lowest relationship with the remaining items and the lowest factor loading (i.e., .38) and was dropped from the AES. Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses a single-factor structure was identified as most suitable. Additionally, across the two studies, the AES also showed good internal consistency and reliability. However, future research is needed to assess the test-retest reliability of the AES to ensure consistency in individual participants’ responses across time.

AE, Gender, and Sexuality

Collectively, our results offer some initial support to the idea that gender may play a role in espousing AE attitudes. First, men scored higher than women in AE and AES scores were positively correlated with sexist attitudes and negatively correlated with feminist ideals. Hegemonic masculinity is rewarded by the current societal structures which may motivate some men to remain vigilant in perceived threats to their masculinity (Stanaland et al., 2023). Accordingly, challenges to traditional notions of masculinity could contribute to feelings of AE, especially among those who may fear that their status or authority is threatened (DeKeseredy et al., 2019; Meth, 2023; Vito et al., 2018). Since feminism seeks to challenge and dismantle traditional gender norms, roles, and power structures that have historically favored men, it is easy to see how it could trigger feelings of AE among those who feel their privileged positions are threatened. In practice, this could manifest in sexist attacks against women and nonbinary individuals that can even result in violence (DeKeseredy et al., 2019; Vito et al., 2018). Ultimately, although the effects observed were small, our findings highlight the potential of gender norms in contributing to AE attitudes and the need for further research. The AES was also linked with negative views of transgender individuals and that heterosexual participants held higher levels of AE than sexual minority participants. In the face of greater recognition of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, AE may be fueled by a worldview that centers heteronormativity.

AE and Race

Our work supports the nuanced and complex relationship between race and AE. First, we found, as expected, that AE was linked to racist attitudes. However, in contrast to our expectations, White participants scored lower on the AES than ethnic or racial minority participants, albeit the difference between group scores was relatively small. Education, class mobility, or financial stability do not necessarily shield minority individuals from biased or discriminatory behaviors (Parker et al., 2020). Consequently, some may react defensively and become resentful, particularly if they perceive that adhering to societal expectations doesn’t lead to the expected rewards. This resentment might manifest as AE toward other ethnic or racial minority groups seen as challenging the status quo and may be especially relevant in our sample of university students. There could also be cultural values, like pride, autonomy, and individualism, within certain minority communities that might contribute to perceptions of AE. Finally, internalized racism, stemming from systemic oppression and discrimination, may have contributed to these results as some ethnic minority individuals may attempt to counter their personal feelings of oppression by projecting it outward (James, 2022). Overall, our findings underscore a potential interplay of identity, societal expectations, and cultural influences in shaping feelings of AE within diverse racial and ethnic contexts, however, due to the small effects the relationship between AE and race should be further evaluated.

AE, Dark Personality Traits, and Attitudes

We also found a positive relationship between AE, dark personality traits, sexual entitlement, and non-consensual intimate image dissemination myth acceptance. Our results are in line with previous work that has shown dark personality traits being linked with entitled behaviors (Deol & Schermer, 2021). Notably, the weakest correlation observed among the dark personality traits was between the AES and narcissism. This small but positive effect is consistent with recent research supporting a three-dimensional model of narcissism which includes antagonism/entitlement (Miller et al., 2021). However, other traits that mark dark personalities like callousness may be more closely linked to AE.

The online disinhibition effect suggests that the perceived invisibility and absence of contextual and non-verbal cues in digital interactions can embolden some to express or endorse ideas they would not offline (Suler, 2004). Therefore, it is not surprising that online forms of sexual violence are often minimized, excused, or blamed on the victim (Karasavva et al., 2023) and that these attitudes are related to AE.

In contrast, we found a negative relationship between AE and compassionate love (r = .29) and honesty-humility (r = .11), albeit with small effect sizes. This could be due to a focus of aggrieved entitled individuals on self-interest and a lower inclination toward caring for others. However, replication studies are needed to corroborate these findings and to ensure their validity, given their modest effect sizes.

Limitations and Future Directions

Our samples of undergraduate students living in a fairly diverse city in Canada in both studies may have suppressed AES scores. This study also relied on self-report measures, potentially allowing participants to respond in a socially desirable, rather than forthright, manner. Including a measure of social desirability could help assess if participants answered honestly. In addition, some measures, including the FAI-M and the Attitudes Towards Transgendered Individuals Scale were modified. Although CFA and the computed Cronbach’s alpha values suggest that the modified versions of the measures were acceptable, it is possible that they do not capture the full scope of the original, full measures. Therefore, we treat our analysis of the relationship between AE, transphobia, and feminist attitudes as preliminary, and future work is necessary to delineate and clarify it. There is also a wide range of studies exploring the relationship between personality traits and constructs related to AE, like prejudice (Sibley & Duckitt, 2008). In this work, we only included the honesty-humility HEXACO subscale, but future work should examine how the rest of the Big 5 relate to AE. We were also not able to collect data from enough gender or sexual minority participants, resulting in having to combine all non-heterosexual participants in one group and excluding all analyses on transgender, nonbinary, and other gender-diverse folks. Similarly, all non-White participants were grouped together. Finally, we have a limited examination of political attitudes and ideologies, apart from one measure about authoritarianism. In the same vein, there is a need for deeper exploration into the relationship between AE and racist attitudes, including antisemitism. Further, given both the predictive power of RWA on general prejudice (Asbrock et al., 2010; Duckitt & Sibley, 2007), and the overlap between AE and RWA, investigation into the relationship between AE and prejudice could shed light on potential differences in structure and provide additional support for convergent validity.

Finally, future work should seek to delineate the relationships between AE and different gender, sexual, and ethnic/racial groups. Importantly, understanding these relationships more clearly will enhance the validity and applicability of the AES across diverse populations. With further research, validation, and replication across samples and settings, the AES holds significant potential as a versatile measurement tool. For example, within clinical settings, it could assess AE levels and related behaviors, informing targeted therapeutic interventions. Within forensic settings, it may offer insights into behavioral motivations, aiding in risk assessment and rehabilitation efforts. Occupational settings may use it to identify AE attitudes that reflect and influence team dynamics and organizational culture, while research settings could explore broader social and psychological impacts.

Implications and Conclusion

This study is, to the best of our knowledge, the first to introduce and assess the validity of a measure for AE, the AES. Cultural competence and humility training could potentially be used to counteract or reduce AE. These programs, which often include psychoeducation regarding cultural diversity, have been shown to increase empathy and understanding of various occupational fields and populations (Foronda et al., 2018). Finally, our results suggest that those who espouse AE attitudes are not a monolith and greater work should explore the ways that ethnic minorities may express AE toward others.

Author Biographies

Vasileia Karasavva, MA, is a clinical psychology doctoral student at the University of British Columbia. Her research focuses on online interactions and online antisocial behaviors, including technology-facilitated sexual violence. She is interested in cyberpsychology research that can then be applied in policy, treatment, and educational material with the ultimate goal of creating the blueprint for healthier scripts for online communications.

Jayme Stewart, MA, is a clinical psychology doctoral student at the University of British Columbia in British Columbia, Canada. Her research seeks to expand contemporary understandings of psychopathy within community, forensic, and corporate settings, enhance violence management and reduction practices, and support survivors of sexual violence.

Jaimie Reynolds, BSc, is a second-year Master in Psychological Science student at Memorial University in St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada. She is working under the supervision of Dr. Marin Day in the Societal Cognition Lab. Her research focuses on well-being, environmental psychology and behaviors, and conducting program evaluations for both non-for-profit and public sector programs.

Adelle Forth, PhD, is a professor of Forensic Psychology in the Department of Psychology, at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. Her research centers on studying the early manifestations of psychopathy, investigating the cognitive and affective mechanisms underlying psychopathy, development of assessments to identify psychopathic traits, and most recently, the impact of psychopathy.