Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Ethical perceptions: a Spanish adaptation of the PRESOR
questionnaire
F. D. Bretones I. Tamayo
J. M. Gonzalez (University of Granada. Spain)
2012 EBEN Research Conference. Newcastle, 7-9 June 2012
Background
Organizations are manage for people
Perceptions precedes behaviour
Assess ethical perception
Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility (Singhapakdi et al., 1996)
Other (Aupperle, 1984; Maignan, 2000)
Most widely used in sereval countries (Vitell, 2004; Park, 2005; Yaman, 2006; Valentine, 2008; Burnaz, 2009; Turker, 2009; Kolodinski,
2010).
Factorial structure Singhapakdi et al. (1996):
Social Responsibility and Profitability
Long-term Gains
Short-term Gains
Etheredge (1999):
Importance of Ethics and SR
Subordination of Ethics and SR
Cultural component Culture explains difference in ethical perception
Different scores in different countries
Lack of consistent across different studies
Not validation studies
Methodology
329 valid surveys collected
40.8% men 58.2% women
Average age: 20 yrs.
SPSS © 15.0, PRELIS © 2.12, LISREL © 8.12
Questionnaires
PRESOR (Singhapakdi et al.,1996)
Ethic Position Questionnaire (Forysth, 1980)
Social Responsible Attitude (Hunt et al.,1990)
Reverse translated
Ethic Position Questionnaire Developed by Forysth (1980)
Realitivism: High rejects universal absolute norms; low implies the acceptation of absolute norms.
Idealism: High idealism implies high commitment, while low idealism implies lower commitment, therefore acceptation of harm to others as part of ethical decision.
Reliability
PRESOR α: 0.74
Ethic Position Questionnaire α: 0.78
Social Responsible Attitude α: 0.44
Factor analysis Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Item 13 .67 .70** -.09 .26
Item 1 .64 .62** .21 .02
Item 12 .61 .64** .09 .20
Item 4 .58 .62** .26 .13
Item 11 .54 .56** .34 -.16
Item 8 .48 .58** -.03 .16
Item 7 .16 .73 .77** .22
Item 6 .05 .72 .80** .38
Item 15 .21 .61 .69** .17
Item 2 .18 .19 .71 .61**
Item 3 .02 -.01 .69 .75**
Item 5 .29 .09 .64 .78**
Item 14 .09 .18 .53 .62** Items excluded: 9, 10, 16 **p<0.01
Confirmatory factor analysis Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Item 13 .94
Item 1 .92
Item 12 .84
Item 4 .95
Item 11 .83
Item 8 .95
Item 7 .93
Item 6 .84
Item 15 .90
Item 2 .88
Item 3 .91
Item 5 .79
Item 14 .93
3-dimensional model
The importance of ethics (1,4,8,11,12, 13)
Benefits of social responsibility (6, 7, 15)
Subordination of social responsibility (2, 3, 5, 14)
Fit Index GFI = 0.99
AGFI = 0.99
NFI = 0.99
NNFI = 1.00
PNFI = .79
PGI = .99
>0.50
Validity β R²
Importance of ethics
Idealism .46** .21
Relativism -.21** .05
Benefits of SR
Idealism .26** .26
Relativism .02 .00
Subordination of SR
Idealism .19** .03
Relativism -.24** .06
Some conclusions
New 3-dimensional structure
Cultural influences
Good instrument to mesure SR perceptions
Strenghts with idealism
