The Psychology of Entitlement

[Cognisant]

What is entitlement and what causes it?

For example some years back my uncle's now ex-wife's cousin won a few million dollars so they went to go visit him, he took them out to dinner, showed them his new house, new car, etc, and when they left they were angry (my uncle's at-the-time wife especially) because he didn't share any of the money with them, although he did offer to pay off the loan on their car, but that wasn't enough?

Likewise a friend of mine is upset that his father has remarried because he's worried it will affect his inheritance, which it probably will because his father is quite wealthy and this woman (according to my friend) has a history of getting divorced and remarried, for obvious reasons. But as I've tried to explain to him its not his money, it's his father's and he'll get whatever his father gives him, no sense burning bridges out of spite because he might get less than what he thinks he could have.

Is the entitlement in both cases the same phenomenon and if so what's the trigger mechanism, what conditions are required to trigger it, indeed from an evolutionary psychology perspective what's actually happening here, why are (some?) people like this?

 

[Hadoblado]

I think with family, it can be complicated. People literally plan their life around what they expect to inherit, so having the carpet pulled out from under you at the last moment could certainly be rough. Also, from an outside perspective, you see only the dollars, and not the time and investment that goes into supporting a person through their retirement etc.

This stuff is also going to be exacerbated by the economy we inherited. The economic anxiety is going to be upfront and center, and people are going to feel more pressure to squeeze out whatever drop they can get. It's pretty damn difficult to buy a house, so for many, inheriting is their golden ticket. If you squint your eyes a bit, you could maybe make the case you're owed the opportunity to own land.

But all that aside, individuals certainly have different levels of entitlement that is divorced from their material circumstance. I believe it's to do with self-sufficiency and the strategies you get taught work for you by your environment.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I would start with just the knowledge that we all have different standards. Some people are very touchy about the amount of control they have, some people don't care too much, though perhaps that's a choice they made to feel control.

If you don't like the word control, we can use autonomy.

Then I'd probably go into our notion of what common sense is. Everyone likes to think they have it. I would describe common sense as awareness of everyday things.

To be fair common sense doesn't work in many situations.

Lots of people lack awareness. Lots of people feel like they lack autonomy. Thus they lash out or feel it is their right to do something they might not do if they were under more scrutiny.

That part about scrutiny is probably important. If you are used to getting your way, say you don't really know why, but maybe you look intimidating, so people don't pick fights with you usually and back down when confronted. The day someone doesn't step down, you may feel like they are doing something wrong or escalate, or you may back down.

Probably important to not just see people who obviously act selfish as entitled. * We all feel entitled to things and selfishness isn't always irrational/imorral.

 

[scorpiomover]

What is entitlement

People thinking they are "entitled" to things without following the legal or social procedures that they can rely upon to claim them.

and what causes it?

False impressions. E.G. being told that you ARE "entitled" to claim certain benefits from the government, but without being told HOW to claim those things from the government.

So you get frustrated, because you've been promised things that you cannot get, but for no good reason that you can think of.

Then other people see you not getting those things, and then assume that since you're not getting them, it's probably because you weren't entitled to claim those benefits in the first place.

Sometimes, you ARE entitled to those benefits, but don't know how. Then you are rightly frustrated. But others wrongly assume you are in the wrong.

Sometimes, you are NOT entitled to those benefits, but you don't know that, because you don't know the procedures, and so don't actually know exactly what you are entitled to. Then you are wrongly frustrated, but don't realise that.

Is the entitlement in both cases the same phenomenon and if so what's the trigger mechanism, what conditions are required to trigger it, indeed from an evolutionary psychology perspective what's actually happening here, why are (some?) people like this?

Usually, it occurs more often in people who as children who never hear "no". They get used to getting what they want, and learn how to manipulate their parents to get what they want. Then they get into the real world, where they deal with adults who are NOT their parents, and see no reason to be overly nice to them.

This sort of thing started happening a lot, after governments banned smacking in an absolutist way.

Children quickly found out that if they wanted something and their parents refused, they could keep screaming until their parents would agree to buy it for them, as their parents could no longer shut them up by smacking them.

Physical punishment isn't great. But you can't just take it all away without giving a valid replacement, without destablising the interpersonal systems that existed within families.

 

[birdsnestfern]

Well, I side with the son because the son likely gave his love, loyalty, pain, time and bonding to make his Fathers life fuller. That should be priceless in the Fathers eyes, it wasn't nothing.
Offspring s/b entitled to most of the inheritance and Father is being a big jerk if not. So, the entitlement should be automatic, lol. Daddys duty.
What should happen is, parents should discuss this openly so there are no secrets at the very beginning about what to expect when they pass on.
They should divide it equally at the very least.

IDK, jealousy is my response when they don't consider immediate kin first.

My parents did not plan well, Mom lost half a million when she bought an apartment complex in a different state, the tenants and prior owner colluded not to pay her their rents so into foreclosure it went and the prior sleazeball owner got her money, and property back and she lost it all including the home she bought.

Dad gave when he was alive. We don't know if there will be anything left to split of the house after his wife passes and her health costs are taken out of it. I expressed how important it was WHO the executor will be, as that is a sensitive point. I hope it is equal is all I ask because generations of your family worked lifetimes and lifetimes to earn what they had and just throwing it away on spouses is a betrayal to your blood and stupid planning.

Your family that have passed on spent their entire lives saving and trying to get ahead, it belongs to the actual offspring! Now, imagine what their spirits feel and think when it is given away to some temporary comfort not in the picture very long. Terrible. Important to let money and love go to the family ancestral line first. This stuff will be in the akashic records forever, deep feelings that may cause deep regrets. Better think twice, as once you pass on, you will have to face your family feelings on the other side ten fold. You will feel everything you did unto others ten fold.

Family bond is the most important thing on earth and in heaven. Don't screw with it.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I don't care about inheriting money.
If its not mine, it might as well burn.
But don't touch my stash if I need it.

 

[ruminator]

I think it has to do with differing values. The son might believe that family members have a duty to each other with regard to money - keeping it in the family, etc - or a duty to one's offspring to provide for them. He would probably do the same if he had a son, and expects the father to act that way toward him. It's like when people use the reasoning of how "I would do that for her, and she wouldn't even do this for me" when they are upset at someone.

 

[Old Things]

Two completely different scenarios.

In the case of the gambler (I assume it is gambling) the guy who got the money might end up spending it all on... wait for it... gambling. What he does with that money is all up to him. "Oh, you won free money so I feel entitled to your free money." That's literally the thought process in the first instance.

As far as the second, that's a lot more complex. The son should get something, for sure. How much? IDK. What I do know is that it would suck to be the son if they got divorced because she will just walk away with half of what he has without question (likely). Also, it seems stupid, quite frankly, to marry someone who has been divorced several times.