Is Ethical Judgement Influenced By Social Desirability In Responding? An Analyse On Turkish Accountants

Yıl 2006, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1, 393 - 409, 01.03.2006

Assist. Prof. Dr.tülin Ural Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Özbirecikli

Öz

This study has two main purposes: 1) to produce the short-form of Marlowe-Crowne
Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS) developed by Marlowe and Crowne (1960, 1964)
based on Turkish culture; and 2) to assess the relationship between the ethical judgment
and the socially desirable responding. The 33-item MCSDS was translated from English
to Turkish and presented to 73 accountants. Then, using factor and reliability analyses, a
7-item Turkish short-form of MCSDS was produced. MCSDS consists of three
constructs: management of social relations, violations of social norms and control of
behaviors, ambition and personal achievement. Findings of the study also show that
ethical judgement of accountants is independent of social desirability effects. However,
accountants who have higher personal achievement and ambition tendency make more
unethical judgement than counterparts.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ethical judgement of accountants, Turkish short-form of MarloweCrowne Scale

IS ETHICAL JUDGEMENT INFLUENCED BY SOCIAL DESIRABILITY IN RESPONDING? AN ANALYSE ON TURKISH ACCOUNTANTS

Öz

Bu çalışmanın iki temel amacı vardır: 1) Marlowe ve Crowne (1960, 1964) tarafından
geliştirilen Marlowe-Crowne Sosyal Arzuedilebilirlik Ölçeği (MCSAÖ)’nin, Türk
kültürünü temel alarak, kısa şeklini oluşturmak, ve 2) Etiksel yargılama ile toplum
tarafından kabul gören cevabın verilmesi eğilimi arasındaki ilişkiyi değerlendirmek.
Bunun için, öncelikle, 33 maddeden oluşan MCSAÖ İngilizce’den Türkçe’ye çevrilmiş
ve 73 muhasebeciye uygulanmıştır. Daha sonra, faktör ve güvenilirlilik analizleri
kullanılarak MCSAÖ’nün 7 maddeden oluşan Türkçe kısa şekli elde edilmiştir.
MCSAÖ üç yapıdan oluşmaktadır: sosyal ilişkilerin yönetimi, sosyal normların ihlali ve
davranışların kontrolü, hırs ve kişisel başarı. Çalışmanın bulguları, muhasebecilerin
etiksel yargılamalarının, toplum tarafından kabul gören cevaplama etkisinden bağımsız
olduğunu göstermektedir. Ancak, kişisel başarı ve hırs eğilimi yüksek olan
muhasebeciler, meslektaşlarına oranla daha etikdışı yargılamalarda bulunmaktadırlar.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Muhasebecilerin etiksel yargılamaları, Marlowe-Crowne ölçeğinin Türkçe kısa şekli

Kaynakça

• Anastasi, A. (1976). Psychological Testing (4th.ed.). New York: Mcmillan, p.3.
• Barnett, T. And Valentine S. (2002). “Issue Contingencies and Marketers’ recognition of Ethical Issues, Ethical Judgments and Behavioral Intentions”, Journal of Business Research, www.elsevierscience Inc., p.1-15.
• Bekkers R. (2001). “The Social Desirability of Social Value Orientations”, Research Note, www.yahoo.com., p.1-9.
• Churchill, G.A. (1979) “A Paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs” Journal of Marketing Research, 16, (February) pp.64-73.
• Crowne D.P. and Marlowe D. (1960). “A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology”, Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, p.349-354.
• Crowne, D. And Marlowe, D. (1964). “The Approval Motive: Studies in Evaluative Dependence, New York (etc.): Wiley, www.yahoo.com., p.1-2.
• Deutsch, F.M. & Lamberti, D.M. (1986). “Does Social Approval Increase Helping?”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, p.149-157.
• Fisher, D.G and C.Fick (1998). “Measuring Social Desirability: Short Forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, p.417-424.
• Fraboni, M. And Cooper, D. (1989). “Further validation of Three Short Forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale”, Psychological Reports, 65 (2), p.595-600.
• Furnham, A. (1986). “Response bias, social desirability, and Dissimulation”, Personality and Individual Differences, 7, p.385-400.
• Ganster, D.C., Hennessey, H.W., & Luthans, F. (1983). “Social Desirability Response Effects: Three Alternative Models”, Academy of Management Journal, 26, p.321-331.
• Holden, R.R. (1994). Social Desirability. In R.J. Corsini (ed.). Encyclopedia of Psychology 2 ed., Vol.3, New York, John Wiley, p.429-430.
• nd ed., Vol.3, New York, John Wiley, p.429-430.
• Hosmer, L.T. (1985). ”Moral Standards for Strategic Decisions The Philosophical Tool”, In W.D. Guth (ed.). Handbook of Business Strategy (1985/1986 Yearbook) (Warren, Gorham, & Lamont, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts), p.3.
• Hough, L. M. (1998). “Effects of International Distortion in Personality Measurement and Evaluation of Suggested Palliatives”, Human Performance, 11, p.209-244.
• Hunt, S.D. and Vitell S. (1986). “A General Theory of Marketing Ethics”, Journal of Macromarketing, 6, p.5- 16.
• Kinnear, T.C. and Taylor J.R. (1996). Marketing Research, Mc Graw-Hill, 5th edition, p.249.
• Loo R. (2002). “Tackling Ethical Dilemmas in Project Management Using Vignettes”, International Journal of Project Management, 21, p.489-495.
• Loo R. (2004). “Support for Reidenbach and Robin’s(1990) Eight-item Multidimensional Ethics Scale”, The Social Science Journal, www.sciencedirect.com., 41, p.289-294.
• Jones, T., (1991). “Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organization: An Issue Contingent Model”, Academy Management Review, 16, p.366-395.
• Mandell, R., (2005). “Evaluating Shorter Versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale”, www.yahoo.com., p.1.
• McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T. Jr. (1983). “Social Desirability Scale: More Substance than Style”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, p.882-888.
• Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory, McGraw -Hill Book Company, NY., P.3.
• Paulhaus, D.L. (1984). “Two Component Models of Social Desirability Responding”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, p.598-609.
• Paulhus, D.L. (1991). “Measurement and Control of Response Bias”, In J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver and L.S. Wrightsman (eds.), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. Vol 1, P.17-59. Toronto Academic Press.
• Paulhus, D.L. & Reid D.B.(1991). “Enhancement and Denial in Social Desirable Responding”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, p.307-317.
• Paulhus, D.L.(1994). Reference Manuel for BIDR Version 6, Vancouver, Canada: University of British Colombia, P.3.
• Reidenbach, R.E. and Robin, D.P. (1990). “Toward the Development of a Multidimensional Scale for Improving Evaluations in Business Ethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, 9, p.639-653.
• Reynolds, W.M. (1982). “Development of Reliable and Valid Short Forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Scale of Social Desirability”, Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(1), p.119-125.
• Rokeach, M.J. (1968). “The Role of Values in Public Opinion Research”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 32, p.547-559.
• Özbirecikli, M. and Ural, T.(2006).“Muhasebe Mesleğinde Yaşanan Etikdışı Davranışların Tespiti ve Etiksel Değerlendirmesi: Türkiye Örneği”, Forthcoming, p.1-16.
• Rudmin F.W. (1999). “Norwegian Short-Form of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale”, Scandinavian Psychological Associations, 40, p.229-233.
• Schwepker C.H.Jr.(1999). ”Understanding Salespeople’s Intention to Behave Unethically: The Effects of Perceived Competitive Intensity, Cognitive Moral Development and Moral Judgment”, Journal of Business Ethics, Oct, 21,4, ABI/INFORM Global, p.303.
• Strahan, R. and Gerbasi, K.C. (1972). “Short, Homogenous Versions of the Marlowe- Crowne Social Desirability Scale”, Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, p.191- 193.
• Vinston, D.E. and J.M. Munson (1976). “Personal Values: An Approach Market Segmentation” in K.L. Bernhard (ed.). Marketing 1176-1976 and Beyond (American Marketing Association, Chicago II), p.313-317.
• Zook, A. And Sipps, G.J. (1985). “Cross-validation of a short form of the Marlowe- Crowne Social Desirability Scale”, Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41 (2), p.236-238.