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

Thank you for your attention

fdiazb@ugr.es