Entitlement, exploitativeness, and reasoning about everyday transgressions: A social domain analysis

Social domain theory was used to examine the role of entitlement and exploitativeness in reasoning about everyday transgressions in two studies. Exploitativeness was positively associated with believing that transgressing was acceptable, whereas entitlement was negatively associated. Exploitive participants justified these judgments using personal (e.g., appeal to choice) and less moral (e.g., appeal to welfare of others) reasoning, whereas highly entitled people used more prudential but less personal reasoning. Exploitive participants were less likely to acknowledge the relevance of non-personal concerns (i.e., morality, conventions, and prudence) when considering transgressions. The association between exploitativeness and acceptability of transgressing was mediated by the degree to which issues were believed to involve a concern for others. Implications for narcissistic behavior and decision-making are discussed. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.