Emotional Entitlement as a Moderator of the Association Between War‐Related Trauma, Executive Functioning and Anxiety

ABSTRACT

Direct trauma exposure (DTE) affects both emotional and cognitive functioning, yet the mechanisms linking DTE to anxiety remain insufficiently understood. A community sample of 574 adults completed measures of state anxiety, executive function difficulties (EFD) and emotional entitlement following war‐related DTE. Results indicated that DTE participants reported higher anxiety and EFD, lower levels of positive and uncompromised entitlement compared to non‐exposed participants. EFD was positively associated with anxiety, and DTE was indirectly associated with anxiety through EFD, reflecting an indirect‐only mediation pattern. The indirect effect of DTE on anxiety via EFD was significant only at low and average levels of positive and negative entitlement, as higher positive and negative entitlement attenuated the DTE–EFD association. These findings highlight perceived EFD as a key mechanism linking DTE to anxiety and suggest that fostering adaptive forms of emotional entitlement may serve as an important resilience factor to reduce anxiety in the aftermath of trauma.

Summary

• Assessing emotional entitlement may help clinicians identify individuals who are particularly vulnerable to executive functioning difficulties and anxiety following direct trauma exposure.

• Given the association between reduced emotional entitlement and psychological distress, individuals following direct trauma exposure may benefit from interventions that incorporate emotional validation and reinforcement of the legitimate right to experience and express diverse emotions.

• Public programmes aimed at validating survivors' legitimate right to their emotional experiences could serve as a useful, supportive component in broader community resilience‐building programmes.

1. Introduction

Traumatic events have been shown to affect individuals across both emotional and cognitive domains. On the emotional level, exposure to trauma has consistently been associated with elevated anxiety symptoms (e.g., Makwana ²⁰¹⁹). This association has been observed across diverse trauma types and extended time intervals (Center for Substance Abuse Treatment ²⁰¹⁴; Roberts et al. ²⁰¹⁹), including war‐related trauma (Hamama et al. 2025), underscoring the pervasive and enduring nature of trauma's impact on emotional state.

In addition to its emotional toll, trauma has been shown to interfere with higher‐order cognitive processes, especially those related to executive functioning (EF). EF encompasses a set of cognitive skills, including inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, working memory and attentional regulation—capacities that support adaptive behaviour and goal‐directed action (Baggetta and Alexander 2016). Studies indicate that individuals with post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) display reduced performance on neuropsychological tests requiring these abilities (Ouhmad et al. 2024; Woon et al. ²⁰¹⁷). PTSD due to massive trauma, such as war, has also been associated with impaired EF, such as information processing speed, mental agility, cognitive control, attention and working memory (Theodoratou et al. 2023). Neuroimaging studies have shown that individuals with PTSD exhibit reduced structural integrity in brain regions related to EF, including cortical (e.g., anterior cingulate cortex and prefrontal cortex) and subcortical (e.g., amygdala and hippocampus) structures, as well as disrupted white matter integrity in key tracts connecting these regions (Hinojosa et al. 2024). The prefrontal cortex, a key structure for EF, is uniquely sensitive to stress, meaning that both acute and prolonged threat exposure can cause rapid functional decline and structural dendritic changes that severely impair complex, flexible thinking (Arnsten 2009). From a cognitive perspective, cognitive load theory posits that people have a limited cognitive capacity that can be influenced by both internal and external factors (Zhang et al. 2022), such as psychological stress, which has been shown to affect levels of cognitive load by consuming cognitive resources. When cognitive load becomes excessive, it may impair attentional processes and information processing efficiency (Li et al. 2022).

A growing body of research has highlighted the association between EF and mental disorders, in which anxiety plays a central role. These include obsessive‐compulsive disorder, depression (Snyder 2013) and anxiety (Moran 2016). Therefore, executive function difficulties (EFD) are theorized to contribute to the development and maintenance of anxiety‐related disorders (Zainal and Newman 2022). According to the cognitive model of pathological worry, attentional control deficits initiate and maintain excessive and uncontrollable worry (Hirsch and Mathews 2012). The iterative reprocessing model suggests that decision‐making in a novel or ambiguous situation requires cognitive processing, utilizing core EF components including inhibition, cognitive flexibility, working memory and processing speed. Failure to engage these EF capacities leads to reduced adaptive flexibility, impaired conflict resolution and maladaptive behavioural responses such as avoidance and reassurance‐seeking, characteristic features of anxiety disorders (Zainal and Newman 2022). Although individual associations between trauma, EF and anxiety have been documented, to the best of our knowledge, an integrative model proposing that trauma‐related executive dysfunction mediates the relation between direct trauma exposure (DTE) and anxiety symptoms has remained largely unexplored.

Although trauma affects both emotional and cognitive domains, not all trauma‐exposed individuals develop heightened anxiety symptoms, suggesting that individual differences and potential moderating mechanisms may underlie this association (e.g., Palgi and Shrira ²⁰²⁴; Zainal and Newman ²⁰²²). It is therefore important to consider psychological constructs that might exist at the intersection of these systems. One such underexplored construct is emotional entitlement. Emotional entitlement is a novel, multidimensional construct reflecting individuals' beliefs about their inherent right to experience a range of emotional states, both positive and negative. It comprises three components as follows. Entitlement to positive emotions (EEP) is the belief that one deserves to feel positive emotions, such as happiness or fulfilment. Entitlement to negative emotions (EEN) is the belief that one has the right to experience negative emotions, such as anger or sadness. Finally, uncompromised emotional entitlement (EEU) captures one's expectations of others to constantly meet their emotional needs and a tendency to feel resentment when they do not do so (Laslo‐Roth and George‐Levi ²⁰²⁴).

Although prior research has demonstrated associations between trauma exposure, anxiety and EF, most studies have examined these links retrospectively, in the aftermath of the traumatic events. Furthermore, even though executive dysfunction has been linked to clinical anxiety disorders, its role in explaining elevated levels of state anxiety in the general population has received far less empirical attention. Finally, the adaptive and maladaptive characterization of the emotional entitlement construct suggests that it may play a role in one's ability to cope with traumatic events. Specifically, high EEP has been linked to better mental health indicators—namely, higher levels of life satisfaction and lower levels of anxiety, stress, depression and loneliness (Huang et al. 2025; Laslo‐Roth and George‐Levi ²⁰²⁴). Although the adaptiveness of EEN has been found to vary depending on the situational context, EEU is considered to reflect a maladaptive and pathological form of exaggerated and unrealistic expectations of others to validate and support one's emotional needs. In addition, EEU has been positively associated with higher levels of anxiety, stress, depression and loneliness (Huang et al. 2025; Laslo‐Roth and George‐Levi ²⁰²⁴). In the present study, we thus addressed these gaps by examining trauma‐related anxiety and EF during an ongoing war. Additionally, we introduced emotional entitlement as a theoretically relevant construct that could potentially shape responses to trauma.

Our hypotheses were as follows:

1. We hypothesized that participants who experienced direct war‐related trauma would report higher levels of anxiety and greater EFD than participants who did not experience war‐related trauma.

2. We hypothesized that EFD would mediate the relation between DTE (trauma vs. no‐trauma group) and anxiety. Specifically, DTE would predict increased EFD, which in turn would be associated with higher levels of anxiety.

3. We further hypothesized a moderated mediation model (Model 7 in PROCESS), in which the indirect effect of DTE on anxiety through EFD would be moderated by the three subcomponents of emotional entitlement. Specifically, the positive association between DTE and EFD would be stronger among individuals with lower levels of EEP and EEN and higher levels of EEU.

2. Method

2.1. Participants and Procedure

A community sample of 574 participants volunteered to take part in this study. Data were collected in Israel over a 4‐month period (January to April 2025) during an ongoing war, approximately 18 months after its outbreak, when participants were still living under conditions of prolonged conflict. Participants were recruited from the community using a snowball method with acquaintances. All participants were over the age of 18. Exclusion criteria were having a neurological health condition and/or a psychiatric diagnosis (e.g., complex PTSD, multiple sclerosis and epilepsy). All participants signed informed consent, according to the rules of the authors' university's ethics committee. Data were collected online using Qualtrics, and participants completed a battery of questionnaires assessing anxiety, EF, emotional entitlement and demographic information.

Participants were divided into two groups based on their self‐reported direct exposure to war‐related traumatic events. As part of the demographic questionnaire, participants were asked whether they had personally and directly experienced such events. Individuals who reported direct exposure were assigned to the trauma group (N = 118; 57 men, 61 women; M age = 30.66, SD = 10.51), whereas all other participants were assigned to the non‐trauma group (N = 456; 131 men, 325 women; M age = 33.25, SD = 13.65).

Data collection took place approximately 18 months after the traumatic events, allowing for the assessment of post‐exposure psychological patterns rather than immediate stress responses. Most participants in both groups were single (58.3% in the non‐trauma group; 63.5% in the trauma group), did not have children (67.1% and 76.3%, respectively) and held a bachelor's degree as their highest level of education (49.3% in the non‐trauma group; 52.5% in the trauma group).

To ensure that the two groups were comparable in their background characteristics, a series of chi‐square tests and independent‐samples t‐tests were conducted. The groups did not differ significantly in education or parental status (i.e., being a parent vs. not being a parent). However, participants in the trauma group were younger than those in the non‐trauma group, t(230) = 2.24, p = 0.026. In addition, the proportion of women was higher in the non‐trauma group than in the trauma group, χ²(1) = 16.13, p < 0.001, and participants in the trauma group were more likely to be single and less likely to be married than those in the non‐trauma group, χ²(4) = 11.85, p = 0.019.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Deficits in EF

Perceived EFD were assessed using the Barkley Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale‐Short Form (BDEFS‐SF; Barkley ²⁰¹²), a self‐report questionnaire. Participants completed a 20‐item version derived from the original 89‐item BDEFS, which evaluates the frequency of EFD across multiple domains. These domains include self‐management of time (e.g., ‘waste or mismanage my time’), self‐organization/problem‐solving (e.g., ‘have trouble doing things in their proper order or sequence’), self‐restraint (e.g., ‘have low tolerance for frustrating situations’), self‐motivation (e.g., ‘don't have the willpower or determination that others seem to have’) and self‐regulation of emotion (e.g., ‘overreact emotionally’). Responses were rated on a 4‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never or rarely) to 4 (very often), indicating how frequently participants experienced each behaviour. The BDEFS‐SF includes the four highest loading items from each domain and has demonstrated high correlations with the corresponding full subscales of the original BDEFS (r = 0.90–0.94). The total score of the BDEFS‐SF is considered more psychometrically robust than individual subscale scores (Barkley 2012). In the present study, internal consistency was high, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients of 0.90.

2.2.2. State Anxiety

The state anxiety questionnaire evaluates anxiety experienced at the moment (Spielberger et al. 1970). We used the short version of the questionnaire, which includes 6 of the 20 original items. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which each of the feelings described them in the past 6 months on a 4‐point Likert scale (1–4). The total score is obtained by the summation of the items (final total scale 20–80), and a higher score indicates higher levels of anxiety (Marteau and Bekker 1992). The reliability coefficient for this questionnaire was Cronbach's alpha = 0.83.

2.2.3. Emotional Entitlement

Emotional entitlement was assessed by the emotional entitlement questionnaire (Laslo‐Roth and George‐Levi ²⁰²⁴). This scale consists of 15 items on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Sample items include statements such as ‘I deserve to enjoy life’. This scale is divided into three subscales: five items measuring emotional entitlement to positive emotions/EEP (Cronbach's α reliability = 0.82); five items measuring emotional entitlement to negative emotions/EEN (Cronbach's α reliability = 0.86); and five items measuring uncompromised emotional entitlement/EEU (Cronbach's α reliability = 0.85).

2.2.4. Sociodemographic Data and Trauma Exposure

Participants completed a brief sociodemographic questionnaire assessing gender, age, family status, parental status (yes/no) and education level. In addition, they were asked whether they had been directly exposed to life‐threatening war‐related traumatic events, which occurred approximately 18 months prior to data collection.

Response options included: ‘I was in a community that was attacked’; ‘I fought in the area’; ‘I assisted in evacuating casualties’; ‘No’; and ‘Other’ (which was designed as an open‐ended response). Participants who selected any of the first three response options on the DTE question, or who selected ‘Other’ and whose responses indicated direct exposure (e.g., being confined at home due to an active threat in their town), were assigned to the trauma group. Participants who selected ‘No’ were assigned to the non‐trauma group.

2.3. Data Analysis

Statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS Version 20 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). A sensitivity power analysis was conducted using G*Power 3.1 to determine the minimum effect size detectable with the available sample size. For a linear multiple regression model with up to eight predictors, α = 0.05, power = 0.80 and a total sample size of N = 574, the analysis indicated that the study was sufficiently powered to detect small effects of approximately f ² = 0.027. The preliminary analysis consisted of a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to examine the differences between the trauma and non‐trauma group and Pearson correlations to examine associations among the research measures. Finally, in order to examine the hypothesis in which the combination of EF deficits and emotional entitlement mediated the association between trauma and anxiety, three moderated mediation models (one for each subscale of emotional entitlement) were examined using PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes 2017), with Preacher and Hayes' (2008) bootstrapping method with 5000 resamples with replacement (Model 7; see Hayes ²⁰¹⁷). A moderated mediation model refers to a mediated effect that varies across levels of a moderator variable (Edwards and Lambert 2007). In this analysis, trauma group served as the independent variable, EF deficits as the mediating variable, anxiety as the dependent variable and emotional entitlement as the moderator of the relation between trauma and EF deficits (Model 7; see Hayes ²⁰¹⁷), as can be seen in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1.

The theoretical moderated mediation model.

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary Analyses

First, a two‐way MANOVA was performed, with trauma group (trauma vs. non‐trauma) and gender (men vs. women) serving as the independent variables and the dependent variables being EF deficits, the three subscales of emotional entitlement and anxiety levels. The MANOVA yielded a main effect for trauma group, F(5, 566) = 4.38, p < 0.001, partial η ² = 0.037, and for gender, F(5, 566) = 10.18, p < 0.001, partial η ² = 0.083. The interaction was not significant, F(5, 566) = 0.90, p = 0.482, partial η ² = 0.008. Means, SDs and F scores of the univariate analysis are presented in Table 1. Participants in the trauma group reported higher EF deficits, lower levels of positive and uncompromised emotional entitlement and higher levels of anxiety than participants in the non‐trauma group. Although the multivariate effect size for trauma group was modest, these differences emerged across theoretically central outcomes and were consistent with the proposed model. No significant differences were found between trauma groups when it came to negative emotional entitlement. Women reported higher levels of EEP, EEN and EEU than men. However, some of these effects, particularly the gender difference in EEU, were very small and should therefore be interpreted with caution. No significant differences were found between gender groups when it came to EF deficits and anxiety.

TABLE 1.

Means, standard deviations and F scores for ANOVAs between trauma groups and between men and women.

Dependent variable	Group	M	SD	F(1, 570)	p	Partial η2
Anxiety	No trauma	2.514	0.68	4.14	0.042	0.007
	Trauma	2.65	0.70
EF deficits	No trauma	1.75	0.47	7.70	0.006	0.013
	Trauma	1.89	0.52
EEP	No trauma	6.71	0.62	5.40	0.021	0.009
	Trauma	6.50	0.84
EEN	No trauma	6.24	1.08	3.03	0.082	0.005
	Trauma	5.95	1.08
EEU	No trauma	3.95	1.54	4.45	0.035	0.008
	Trauma	3.55	1.45
	Female	4.00	1.53

Dependent variable	Gender	M	SD	F(1, 570)	p	Partial η2
Anxiety	Male	2.49	0.71	2.99	0.084	0.005
	Female	2.57	0.68
EF deficits	Male	1.82	0.55	2.14	0.144	0.004
	Female	1.75	0.45
EEP	Male	6.44	0.87	27.58	0.000	0.046
	Female	6.78	0.52
EEN	Male	5.79	1.25	27.39	0.000	0.046
	Female	6.37	0.95
EEU	Male	3.60	1.50	5.40	0.02	0.009

Abbreviations: EEN = emotional entitlement to negative emotions, EEP = emotional entitlement to positive emotions, EEU = uncompromised emotional entitlement, EF = executive function.

In order to examine the association between the research variables on the one hand and the research and demographic variables on the other, Pearson correlations were calculated. The results of the descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table 2. The results indicated that anxiety was negatively correlated with EEP and positively correlated with EEN, EEU and with perceived EFD, as expected. Perceived EFD was positively related to EEU and negatively related to EEP. EEN was positively related to the other subscales of emotional entitlement and negatively related to age. Age was also negatively correlated with EF deficits.

TABLE 2.

Means, SDs and Pearson correlations among the study variables.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6
1Anxiety	—
2EF deficits	0.48**	—
3EEP	−0.15**	−0.26**	—
4EEN	0.18**	0.07	0.42**	—
5EEU	0.17**	0.25**	−0.04	0.19**	—
6Age	−0.06	−0.17**	0.04	−0.10*	−0.06	—
M	2.54	1.78	6.67	6.18	3.87	32.72
SD	0.69	0.49	0.67	1.09	1.53	13.10

Abbreviations: EEN = emotional entitlement to negative emotions, EEP = emotional entitlement to positive emotions, EEU = uncompromised emotional entitlement, EF = executive function.

^* p < 0.05.

^** p < 0.01.

3.2. Moderated Mediation Analyses

To examine whether the three subscales of emotional entitlement moderated the indirect effect of trauma on anxiety through EF deficits, we conducted three moderated mediation models (PROCESS Model 7; Hayes ²⁰¹⁷). In all models, trauma (0 = non‐trauma, 1 = trauma) was entered as the independent variable (X), EF as the mediator (M) and anxiety as the dependent variable (Y). Each emotional entitlement subscale—EEP, EEN and EEU—was tested separately as a moderator (W) of the trauma to the EF path while controlling for the remaining two entitlement dimensions, as well as age, sex and marital status.

3.2.1. Moderation by EEP

The model including EEP as a moderator was significant, F(8, 565) = 17.39, p < 0.001, R ² = 0.198. A significant interaction emerged between DTE and EEP in predicting EF, b = −0.20, SE = 0.06, t = −3.38, p = 0.001, 95% CI [−0.3170, −0.0841]. A conditional effects analysis showed that DTE was associated with greater executive dysfunction at low (b = 0.25, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [0.1354, 0.3635]), and average levels of EEP (b = 0.11, SE = 0.05, 95% CI [0.0210, 0.2070]), but this effect was not significant at high levels of EEP (b = 0.05, SE = 0.05, 95% CI [−0.0565, 0.1532]).

The model predicting anxiety was also significant, F(7, 566) = 24.16, p < 0.001, R ²  = 0.23. EF positively predicted anxiety (b = 0.60, SE = 0.05, p < 0.001), and although the direct effect of DTE on anxiety was not significant (b = 0.10, SE = 0.06, p = 0.118), the total effect of DTE on anxiety was significant, b = 0.17, SE = 0.069, p = 0.015. This pattern is therefore consistent with an indirect‐only mediation effect. The index of moderated mediation was significant, b = −0.12, SE = 0.05, 95% CI [−0.2216, −0.0293], indicating that the indirect effect of DTE on anxiety through EF was significant only when EEP was low and average, as can be seen in Table 3.

TABLE 3.

Conditional indirect effect of trauma group on anxiety through EF deficits with emotional entitlement to positive emotions as the moderator.

Outcome	Β	SE	p	Boot indirect effect	Boot SE	LLCI	ULCI
Anxiety
EF deficits	0.60	0.06	0.000			0.4957	0.7131
EF deficits
Trauma group	0.11	0.05	0.016			0.0210	0.2070
EEP	−0.19	0.03	0.000			−0.2539	−0.1297
Trauma*EEP	−0.20	0.06	0.001			−0.3170	−0.0841
Moderation: Trauma*EEP
−1 SD (−0.6752)				0.25	0.06	0.1354	0.3635
0 SD (mean)				0.11	0.05	0.0210	0.2070
+1 SD (0.3275)				0.05	0.05	−0.0565	0.1532
Conditional indirect effect of trauma group
Low EEP (−0.6752)				0.15	0.04	0.0663	0.2417
Middle EEP (mean)				0.07	0.03	0.0186	0.1238
High EEP (0.3275)				0.03	0.03	−0.0296	0.0877

Abbreviations: EEP = emotional entitlement to positive emotions, EF = executive function.

3.2.2. Moderation by EEN

In the second model, EEN was tested as the moderator. The model predicting EF was significant, F(8, 565) = 16.59, p < 0.001, R ²  = 0.19. Furthermore, the DTE × EEN interaction was significant, b = −0.11, SE = 0.04, t = −2.49, p = 0.013, 95% CI [−0.1956, −0.0231]. A conditional effects analysis showed that DTE predicted greater EFD among participants with low (b = 0.24, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [0.1139, 0.3607]), and average EEN (b = 0.12, SE = 0.05, 95% CI [0.0247, 0.2118]), but not among those with high EEN (b = 0.03, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [−0.0958, 0.1532]).

The outcome model predicting anxiety was also significant, F(7, 566) = 22.03, p < 0.001, R ² = 0.21. EFD were a significant predictor of anxiety (b = 0.60, SE = 0.06, p < 0.001), and although the direct effect of DTE on anxiety remained non‐significant (b = 0.08, SE = 0.06, p = 0.22), the total effect of DTE on anxiety was significant, b = 0.17, SE = 0.069, p = 0.015. This pattern is therefore consistent with an indirect‐only mediation effect. The index of moderated mediation was significant, b = −0.06, BootSE = 0.03, 95% CI [−0.1268, −0.0077], confirming that the indirect effect of DTE on anxiety via EF was significant only at low and average levels of EEN, as can be seen in Table 4.

TABLE 4.

Conditional indirect effect of trauma group on anxiety through EF deficits with emotional entitlement to negative emotions as the moderator.

Outcome	Β	SE	p	Boot indirect effect	Boot SE	LLCI	ULCI
Anxiety
EF deficits	0.59	0.06	0.000			0.4824	0.7079
EF deficits
Trauma group	0.12	0.04	0.013			0.0247	0.2118
EEN	0.08	0.02	0.001			0.0293	0.1066
Trauma*EEN	−0.11	0.04	0.013			−0.1956	−0.0231
Moderation: Trauma*EEN
−1 SD (−1.0884)				0.24	0.06	0.1139	0.3607
0 SD (mean)				0.12	0.05	0.0247	0.2118
+1 SD (0.8192)				0.03	0.06	−0.0958	0.1532
Conditional indirect effect of EF deficits
Low EEN (−1.0884)				0.14	0.04	0.0544	0.2293
Middle EEN (mean)				0.07	0.02	0.0185	0.1200
High EEN (0.8192)				0.02	0.03	−0.0502	0.0809

Abbreviations: EEN = emotional entitlement for negative emotions, EF = executive function.

3.2.3. Moderation by EEU

The final model included EEU as the moderator. The EF model was significant, F(8, 565) = 16.26, p < 0.001, R ² = 0.19. Furthermore, the DTE × EEU interaction was significant, b = 0.06, SE = 0.03, t = 2.00, p = 0.046, 95% CI [0.0012, 0.1251]. However, in contrast to previous models, the interaction showed a different pattern. DTE was more strongly associated with EFD at high (b = 0.25, SE = 0.07, 95% CI [0.1024, 0.3915]), and average levels of EEU (b = 0.15, SE = 0.05, 95% CI [0.0561, 0.2445]), and was not significant at low levels (b = 0.05, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [−0.0682, 0.1754]), as can be seen in Table 5.

TABLE 5.

Conditional indirect effect of trauma group on anxiety through EF deficits with uncompromised emotional entitlement as the moderator.

Outcome	Β	SE	p	Boot indirect effect	Boot SE	LLCI	ULCI
Anxiety
EF deficits	0.56	0.05	0.000			0.4564	0.6744
EF deficits
Trauma group	0.15	0.05	0.002			0.0561	0.2445
EEU	0.07	0.01	0.000			0.0469	0.0964
Trauma*EEU	0.06	0.03	0.046			0.0012	0.1251
Moderation: Trauma*EEU
−1 SD (−1.5305)				0.05	0.06	−0.0682	0.1754
0 SD (mean)				0.15	0.05	0.0561	0.2445
+1 SD (1.5305)				0.25	0.07	0.1024	0.3915
Conditional indirect effect of EF deficits
Low EEU (−1.5305)				0.03	0.03	−0.0343	0.0943
Middle EEU (mean)				0.08	0.03	0.0313	0.1424
High EEU (+1.5305)				0.14	0.05	0.0514	0.2342

Abbreviations: EEU = uncompromised emotional entitlement, EF = executive function.

The outcome model for anxiety was significant, F(7, 566) = 25.99, p < 0.001, R ² = 0.24. EF significantly predicted anxiety (b = 0.57, SE = 0.05, p < 0.001), with no significant direct effect of DTE (b = 0.089, SE = 0.06, p = 0.166) and a significant total effect of DTE on anxiety, b = 0.17, SE = 0.069, p = 0.015. However, the index of moderated mediation was not significant, b = 0.036, BootSE = 0.019, 95% CI [−0.0014, 0.0744].

4. Discussion

In the present study, we examined the complex relation between DTE and anxiety, focusing on the mediating role of EFD and the moderating role of emotional entitlement. Initial analyses revealed that participants who reported DTE exhibited higher anxiety levels and greater EFD than those who did not report such exposure. These findings are consistent with prior research, confirming several well‐established associations in the trauma literature (Aspelund et al. 2025; Storey et al. ²⁰²⁴). In addition, DTE participants reported lower scores on EEP and EEU than those without trauma exposure. A similar trend was observed for EEN, though this effect did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance. This finding suggests that DTE may undermine individuals' sense of legitimacy in experiencing or expressing emotions. One possible explanation for these findings is that DTE disrupts core assumptions about the self and threatens individuals' fundamental beliefs that they are worthy, decent and deserving of affection and support from those around them (Janoff‐Bulman ²⁰¹⁰). In addition, feelings of shame and self‐blame are also commonly associated with traumatic experiences (Lee et al. 2001). These cognitive and affective reactions to traumatic events may underlie the lower scores on emotional entitlement that were found for the trauma‐exposed participants.

Consistent with previous research, EFD were positively correlated with anxiety (Moran 2016). Anxiety was also found to be negatively associated with EEP and positively associated with EEN and EEU. Taken together, these findings not only reinforce established evidence on the cognitive and emotional sequelae of DTE and the link between EF deficits and heightened anxiety but also highlight the relevance of EF as a potential pathway linking DTE to anxiety.

Beyond the bivariate associations, the mediation analyses indicated that the association between DTE and anxiety was indirectly explained by EFD. Specifically, DTE was associated with greater EFD, which in turn were associated with higher anxiety. This pattern is consistent with an indirect‐only mediation effect, suggesting that perceived EFD may represent one pathway linking DTE to anxiety. In accordance with prior research (Zainal and Newman 2022), our findings also demonstrate the association between anxiety and EF dysfunction, in which trauma‐related EF impairments contribute to elevated anxiety. Building on this mediation effect, we next examined whether this pathway was contingent upon individual differences in emotional entitlement.

As noted, trauma‐exposed participants reported lower emotional entitlement, particularly lower EEP and EEU. The moderated mediation analyses indicated that among trauma‐exposed individuals whose EEP or EEN fell within the low‐to‐average range, DTE predicted greater EFD, which, in turn, were associated with higher anxiety, yielding a significant indirect effect via EF. In contrast, among the trauma‐exposed participants with high levels of EEP and EEN, no association was found between DTE and EFD; hence, EFD did not explain the association between DTE and anxiety among these participants (i.e., those with high EEP and EEN). Notably, EEU did not significantly moderate the DTE–EF association. Thus, our findings highlight an important differentiation within the trauma group: Individuals with low or average EEP and EEN seemed more vulnerable, as DTE predicted EFD, which, in turn, heightened anxiety. By contrast, those who maintained high EEP and EEN appeared relatively protected from this pathway, suggesting that EEP and EEN may serve as a resilience factor.

Although DTE was, on average, associated with lower levels of entitlement, individuals who managed to retain high levels of EEP appeared protected from a trauma‐related EF decline and consequently from heightened anxiety. Importantly, this finding indicates a dual implication: EEP may serve not only as a protective factor but also as a psychological resource that is itself vulnerable to erosion following DTE. In other words, DTE seems to be associated with reduced EEP, which may, in turn, increase individuals' susceptibility to anxiety. This interpretation is further supported by evidence showing the adaptive nature of EEP: As stated previously, higher EEP has been linked with better mental health, including lower levels of stress, depression, anxiety and loneliness, suggesting that EEP may indeed function as a protective factor (Huang et al. 2025; Laslo‐Roth and George‐Levi ²⁰²⁴). An alternative interpretation is that high EEP does not directly protect against DTE but instead reflects a broader capacity for resource preservation. From a clinical perspective, the fact that DTE is associated with reduced EEP underscores the potential value of interventions focused on strengthening individuals' perceived legitimacy to experience positive emotions. Longitudinal research will be needed to establish whether EEP plays a causal role in mitigating trauma‐related outcomes, and future studies should also examine additional protective resources that may operate alongside it.

The moderated mediation analyses yielded a similar pattern for EEN. DTE predicted EFD and subsequently heightened anxiety, only among participants with low and average EEN. In contrast, individuals who retained high levels of EEN did not show this DTE–EF–anxiety pathway. We interpret this finding as suggesting that the ability to grant oneself the right to experience negative emotions may function as a resilience factor. On the one hand, individuals high in EEN (the sense of being entitled to experience negative emotions) may report greater negative affect, as they allow themselves to feel and express such emotions freely. On the other hand, they may also report less negative affect, because the acceptance and legitimacy they ascribe to their emotions may reduce the intensity of their negative emotional experience. This interpretation resonates with psychotherapeutic approaches following DTE, in which legitimizing and allowing oneself to experience painful emotions is considered an essential step in recovery (Foa et al. 2006). Thus, high EEN, like high EEP, appears to protect EF from trauma‐related decline, thereby disrupting the indirect effect of DTE on anxiety. Taken together, both EEP and EEN may be adaptive (Laslo‐Roth and George‐Levi ²⁰²⁴), as both dimensions preserve cognitive control capacities and, in doing so, may mitigate the risk of heightened anxiety in the aftermath of DTE.

Interestingly, trauma‐exposed participants reported lower levels of EEU than those without trauma exposure. At the same time, EEU was positively associated with both EFD and anxiety, and it moderated the direct link between DTE and EF. Specifically, DTE predicted greater EF impairments among individuals with medium or high EEU, whereas this association did not emerge for those with low EEU. However, the index of moderated mediation was not significant, indicating that EEU did not condition the indirect pathway from DTE to anxiety via EF. Taken together, these findings portray EEU as a complex factor: Although DTE is associated with reduced EEU overall, when present at moderate or high levels, EEU may exacerbate the cognitive vulnerabilities linked to DTE without reliably altering downstream anxiety. Despite the fact that EEU moderated the link between DTE and EF, it did not yield a significant moderated mediation effect. This finding suggests that although individuals high in EEU may experience greater cognitive strain following DTE due to their persistent expectations for emotional responsiveness from others (Laslo‐Roth and George‐Levi ²⁰²⁴), their anxiety does not stem primarily from these cognitive difficulties. Instead, their emotional distress may arise from interpersonal frustration or unmet expectations, which are not captured by the indirect path through EF.

4.1. Study Limitations and Future Research

The present study makes several novel contributions. First, to our knowledge, this study is the first to demonstrate that DTE is associated with reductions in all three forms of emotional entitlement, thereby extending the trauma literature to a previously unexplored domain. Second, whereas most prior studies examining the cognitive and emotional sequelae of trauma have focused on post‐traumatic populations, the present study extends this literature by comparing individuals directly exposed to trauma with those who have not had such exposure. Third, the current study is the first to establish a moderated mediation model in which the DTE–EF association is contingent upon levels of emotional entitlement, thus integrating cognitive and emotional mechanisms of trauma within a unified framework. These innovations advance our understanding of the cognitive and emotional impacts of DTE, highlighting the role of entitlement as both a potential vulnerability and a protective resource, and situating entitlement within broader resilience processes.

Several limitations should be noted. First, the cross‐sectional design does not allow for causal inferences, and therefore, the directionality between DTE, perceived EFD, emotional entitlement and anxiety remains uncertain. Second, we did not assess the presence or severity of post‐traumatic symptoms, thus limiting the ability to determine whether the observed patterns apply equally to clinical and nonclinical trauma‐exposed groups. Additional limitations include our reliance on self‐report questionnaires rather than objective, performance‐based measures to assess perceived EFD and a relatively homogeneous cultural sample. Future studies should therefore employ longitudinal and experimental designs and replicate findings across diverse contexts to establish causal pathways. In addition, further research should explore neurobiological processes and investigate other protective psychological resources (e.g., hope and social support), which may operate alongside emotional entitlement or reflect broader resilience capacities.

4.2. Clinical and Preventive Implications

Despite these limitations, the present findings highlight potential avenues for clinical practice and prevention, though these must be considered with caution given the correlative nature of the study. If emotional entitlement indeed buffers against DTE‐related executive dysfunction and anxiety, interventions aimed at fostering adaptive forms of entitlement may prove valuable. Psychotherapeutic approaches could explicitly target survivors' sense of legitimacy in experiencing both positive and negative emotions, thereby counteracting shame, self‐blame and the erosion of entitlement commonly observed after DTE. Strengthening such perceptions may, in turn, preserve cognitive control capacities and reduce vulnerability to anxiety. Clinically, the present findings also suggest that assessing emotional entitlement may provide useful information about individual differences in vulnerability following DTE. Individuals who struggle to view their emotional experiences as legitimate may be particularly vulnerable following DTE and may therefore benefit from interventions emphasizing emotional validation and acceptance.

At a broader level, prevention and resilience‐building programmes could eventually incorporate strategies that enhance emotional entitlement as part of a wider focus on conserving psychological resources in the aftermath of DTE. Practically, this could involve community‐based psychoeducational campaigns that explicitly promote individuals' sense of emotional entitlement and reinforce their legitimate right to experience and express different feelings following DTE. By actively validating this emotional entitlement, such programmes could serve as an early buffer, helping to preserve crucial EF resources and mitigate the escalation of anxiety under prolonged conflict conditions.

Funding

The authors have nothing to report.

Ethics Statement

All participants signed informed consent, according to the rules of the authors' university's ethics committee.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting this study's findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Due to privacy and ethical considerations, raw data cannot be publicly available.