DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.29293838
title: <b>Supporting Information</b>

description: <i>Inducing Entitlement Through Feedback in Post-Graduation Students: Impact on Cooperative Decision-Making and the Moderating Role of Agreeableness</i><b>Research Description:</b> This study investigated the impact of induced entitlement on cooperative decision-making among post-graduation students and how this impact is moderated by the personality trait of agreeableness. The research aimed to bridge existing gaps in economic and personality psychology by experimentally inducing a sense of entitlement and analyzing its behavioral consequences in controlled cooperative decision-making scenarios using the Ultimatum bargaining game.<b>Context and Objectives:</b> Drawing from the literature suggesting a negative association between entitlement and cooperative behavior and a positive association between agreeableness and cooperation, this study focused on three specific objectives:To examine if there is any difference in cooperative decision-making between the neutral feedback group and the inflated feedback group.To study the relationship between cooperative decision-making and agreeableness.To investigate if there is a moderating effect of agreeableness on the relationship between induced entitlement and cooperative decision-making in the inflated feedback group.<b>Methodology:</b><b>Design:</b> Stratified Randomized Controlled Experimental Design with double-blind procedures.<b>Sample:</b> 80 post-graduate students (40 male, 40 female) aged 21–26 from the Central University of Punjab, India, recruited via quota sampling.<b>Experimental Manipulation:</b> Participants performed a reasoning task and received either inflated feedback (to induce entitlement) or neutral feedback (control). This feedback was fabricated and unrelated to actual performance.<b>Measures:</b><i>Personal and socio-demographic data sheet</i><i>Psychological Entitlement Scale (PES)</i> to screen baseline entitlement.<i>Big Five Inventory (BFI-44)</i> to assess Agreeableness.<i>Entitlement Induction Task</i> (Inflated Vs Neutral Feedback following a reasoning task)<i>Manipulation Check Survey</i> tailored for the Pilot Test only) <i>Ultimatum Game</i> to measure Cooperative Decision-Making via offer amount.<b>Tools:</b> OpenSesame for task design and Jamovi for statistical analysis.<b>Analysis Techniques:</b> Independent sample t-test, Pearson correlation, and moderation analysis.<b>Ethical Considerations:</b>Approval was obtained from the university’s ethics review board.Informed consent was collected from all participants.Deception was used to conceal the feedback manipulation; however, participants were debriefed afterward.Data anonymity, participant rights, and data integrity were maintained throughout.<b>Findings:</b><b>Entitlement Manipulation Effect:</b> Participants in the neutral feedback group demonstrated significantly higher cooperation (larger offers in the Ultimatum Game) than those in the inflated feedback group.<b>Trait Influence:</b> Higher agreeableness scores were positively correlated with cooperative behavior.<b>Moderation Effect:</b> In the inflated feedback group, individuals high in agreeableness were less negatively affected by induced entitlement—demonstrating agreeableness as a buffering moderator.<b>Significance:</b> This study contributes novel evidence to the growing body of literature on Person × Situation interactions, providing empirical support for Trait Activation Theory. It highlights that cooperative behavior results from both dispositional and contextual factors. Practically, the findings caution against inflated feedback practices in academic and organizational settings, which may inadvertently undermine collaboration.<b>Keywords:</b> Induced Entitlement, Cooperative Decision-Making, Agreeableness, Ultimatum Game, Experimental Psychology, Feedback Manipulation, Trait Activation Theory, Behavioral Economics.