• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Ethical perceptions
 

Ethical perceptions

on

  • 967 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
967
Views on SlideShare
966
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

https://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Ethical perceptions Ethical perceptions Presentation Transcript

    • 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
    • BackgroundOrganizations are manage for peoplePerceptions precedes behaviour
    • Assess ethical perceptionPerceived 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 structureSinghapakdi et al. (1996): Social Responsibility and Profitability Long-term Gains Short-term GainsEtheredge (1999): Importance of Ethics and SR Subordination of Ethics and SR
    • Cultural componentCulture explains difference in ethical perceptionDifferent scores in different countriesLack of consistent across different studiesNot validation studies
    • Methodology329 valid surveys collected40.8% men 58.2% womenAverage age: 20 yrs.SPSS © 15.0, PRELIS © 2.12, LISREL © 8.12
    • QuestionnairesPRESOR (Singhapakdi et al.,1996)Ethic Position Questionnaire (Forysth, 1980)Social Responsible Attitude (Hunt et al.,1990)Reverse translated
    • Ethic Position QuestionnaireDeveloped 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.
    • ReliabilityPRESOR α: 0.74Ethic Position Questionnaire α: 0.78Social Responsible Attitude α: 0.44
    • Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3Factor analysisItem 13Item 1 .67 .64 .70** .62** -.09 .21 .26 .02Item 12 .61 .64** .09 .20Item 4 .58 .62** .26 .13Item 11 .54 .56** .34 -.16Item 8 .48 .58** -.03 .16Item 7 .16 .73 .77** .22Item 6 .05 .72 .80** .38Item 15 .21 .61 .69** .17Item 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
    • Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Confirmatory factor analysisItem 13 .94Item 1 .92Item 12 .84Item 4 .95Item 11 .83Item 8 .95Item 7 .93Item 6 .84Item 15 .90Item 2 .88Item 3 .91Item 5 .79Item 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 R²Importance of ethics Idealism .46** .21 Relativism -.21** .05Benefits of SR Idealism .26** .26 Relativism .02 .00Subordination 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