Relationship Between Machiavellianism and Type A Personality and Ethical-Orientation

ABSTRACT. Results of a study investigating the relation between personality traits and ethical-orientation indicate sex is not an good predictor for differences in Machiavellian-, Type A personality- or ethical-orientation. Intelligence is found to be

John Michael Rayburn is Professor of Marketing, The University of Tennessee at Martin. He earned his DBA and has extensive experience in the health care industry as administrator of a 1,000 bed hospital; a 174 bed state psychiatric hospital; and President and CEO of a 200 bed hospital system. He has numerous articles and presentations and is a member of several professional organizations. He has recently received two outstanding teaching awards [student and faculty vote[, the outstanding service award [/:acuity vote], and excellence in research awards [outside peer review]. He has recently implemented a business ethics course in the school of business administration. Letricia Gayle Rayburn, is Professor of Accountancy, Southeast Missouri State University College of Business Administration. She is also a Certified Cost Estimator/ Analyst. She earned a Ph.D. in Accountancy and has had both public and industrial accounting experience. She is the author of over 120 published professional articles. Her book Cost Accounting: Cost Management Concepts, is published by Richard D. Irwin. She is also the author of another book entitled Financial Tools for Effective Marketing and co-author of a book entitled Financial Accounting. She is currently past president of the Management Accounting Section, American Accounting Association. She has served a three-year term as a member of the Board of Regents of the Institute of Certified Management Accountants of IMA, as a member of the Committee on Research of IMA and on various other A A A Management Accounting Sections, IMA, and AICPA Committees. Dr. Rayburn is a member of AICPA, Institute of Management Accountants, American Accounting Association, Beta Alpha Psi, and Beta Gamma Sigma.

Journal of Business Ethics 15: 1209-1219, 1996. © 1996 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

j. Michael Rayburn L. Gayle Rayburn

positively associated with Machiavellian- and Type A personality-orientation but negatively associated with ethical-orientation. Machiavellians tend to have Type A personalities, but tend to be less ethically-oriented than Nonmachiavellians. Type A personalities are more ethically-orientated than Type B personalities.

There is lack o f agreement as to what constitutes ethical behavior and w h e t h e r there is a relation b e t w e e n personality traits and ethical orientation. In addition, conflict exists between what the public expects o f accountants and what they can ethically present without overextending themselves. Bowie (1988) believes the investing public's expectations o f the extent o f information the accountant should supply far exceeds what was traditionally expected. He agrees with accountants that argue that the investing public is unrealistic in expecting full disclosure on an audited firm's financial health. These issues require attention because they impact accounting educators in designing accounting program curriculum and training programs for practicing accountants.

Machiavellianism and Type A personality Machiavellianism describes an individual that has an immoral reputation for dealing with others to accomplish his/her own objectives, and for manipulating others for his/her own purpose (Christie and Geis, 1970, p. 1). A Machiavellianorientation is an individual's general strategy for dealing with other people and the degree to which individuals feel they can manipulate others in interpersonal situations (Robinson and Shaver,

1210

J. M. Rayburn and L. G. Rayburn

1973, p. 590). A modern-day Machiavellian employs aggressive, manipulative, exploiting, and devious moves to achieve personal or organization objectives (Calhoon, 1969, p. 211). The needs, feelings or rights of others in the organization are secondary. Another personality-orientation that has been studied is the Type A or B personality designation. Personality traits that are linked to higher rate of heart disease have been identified (The Wall Street Journal, 1992). These personality traits include aggressiveness, impatience, involvement in mastering tasks and workplace loyalty. Typically, Type A individuals are "often society's achievers, winning school and sports honors and going on to successful careers" (The Wall Street Journal, March 5, 1992, p. B1). The relationship between Machiavellian-orientation and Type A personality-orientation has not been investigated; this study will provide evidence on this relationship. A significant reason for studying personality orientation in today's organizations concerns the question of loyalty discussed by Calhoon (1969, p. 211). Loyalty here refers to the dedication or commitment to a person, a task, or the organization where the loyalty to one results in being at odds with the others. An investigation of these two types of aggressive personality and leadership styles can help in understanding organizational behavior and in implementing organizational controls. Proper identification of the tendency towards unethical behavior and effective internal controls against this behavior could prevent damage to the organization. Johnson et al. (1993) used a cognitive science approach to study fraud detention and hypothesized that reasoning about a deceiver's goals is one of the main strategies for detecting deception. They developed a theory of the knowledge that the deceiver and the target use for expectively constructing and detecting deceptions. They argued that since the frequency of fraud occurrence is low, agents cannot rely on their past experience for solutions to this problem. Rather, they must recognize the intentions of the deceiving agent and then use strategies that have been developed for solving the deception created by such an agent.

Theoretical foundation and prior literature Most theoretical models incorporate an individual's personality as a major influence on ethical standards and the ethical decision making process. For example, the Bartels Model (1967) explains the determination of ethical standards and the ethical decision making process by incorporating a series of four matrices and sets of variables. Hunt and Vitell's positive model (1986) is based on their general theory that an individual's personality is a major category in the background factors in ethical decision making and directly influences the perception of the ethical problem. The Bommer et al., Model (1987) identifies and discusses various factors that affect both ethical and unethical behavior in an organization. Ferrell and Gresham (1985, p. 88) developed a general contingency framework approach to individual decision making. The contingency framework indicates that multifaceted factors affect the ethical actions of decision makers. Robin and Reidenback (1988) propose a framework for analyzing ethical issues that can test alternative business strategies. They compare the current models of ethical decision making; their integrated model combines both cognitive-affect and social-!earning theory. Theoretical models have shown that personality traits and the socialization process can be a major influence on the ethical-orientation of individuals in organizations. Ponemon (1992) explored the influence of accounting firm socialization upon the individual CPA's level of ethical reasoning. Findings from the studies corroborated the existence of ethical socialization whereby those progressing to manager and partner positions within the firm tend to possess lower and more homogeneous levels of ethical reasoning. The empirical studies on ethicalorientation, and the relation between ethicalorientation and personality traits are discussed next.

Empirical ethical studies The existence and enforcement of a corporate ethical policy influence employees' beliefs about

Ethics and the Type A Personality ethical behaviors (Weaver and Ferrell, 1977). This research finds that a corporate code of ethics enhances ethical beliefs, but enforcement is necessary to change ethical behavior. Additionhlly, Metzger et al. found that existing ethical codes of an organization surveillance procedures, and statements about the code's importance were not enough to assure that a firm follows ethical standards (1993, pp. 34-35). The Hite et al. study (1988) analyzed the code of ethics of most large companies in the United States. They found that the following topics were covered most frequently: misuse of funds, conflicts of interest, political contributions, and confidential information. Based on these findings, it is important to determine the tendency towards unethical behavior of employees and develop internal standards accordingly. Grant and Broom (1988) investigated the relation between familial characteristics and ethical-orientation. The variables they examined were family income, father's occupation, and university type. In general, they found that individuals with a low family income are strictly ethical or unethical and do not compromise. In contrast, individuals with a medium level of family income are more likely to compromise their ethics. Individuals with a high family income tend to interpret ethics in terms of immediate monetary return. The Davis and Welton study (1991, pp. 460-463) found that lower and upper division business students have different perceptions of ethical behavior and that formal ethics training is not a significant factor for these differences. Thus, it does appear that individual characteristics are associated with ethical-orientation. This current study examines the association of Machiavellian-orientation, Type A personality-orientation, intelligence, and sex with ethical-orientation. While individuals may believe that highly educated or intelligent individuals act unethically, Merritt (1991) found that professionals with master's degrees and higher are similar to their less educated counterparts in their ethical standards and intended ethical behavior. This current study will examine the association between intelligence and ethical-orientation. The Whipple and Wolf (1991) research indi-

1211

cates that students showed greater sensitivity to social responsibility issues than practitioners. They also found that male students were less critical than the female students of questionable business practices. Thus, it is predicted that females are more ethically-oriented than males in this current study. Armstrong (1987, p. 33) used the Defining Issues Test to measure moral reasoning and found CPA respondents to have reached the moral maturation level of adults in general, instead of maturing to the level of college students or college graduates. This suggests that their college education may not have fostered continued moral growth. The studies outlined above indicate that individual characteristics can be an important determinant of ethical-orientation. The next two sections discuss the relation between two types of personalities, Machiavellian and Type A, and ethical-orientation. The hypotheses tested and methodology used are next presented, followed by the results of the tests. The conclusions are in the final section.

Empirical Machiavellian studies The Gemmill and Heisler (1972) study discusses the relationship between a Machiavellian-orientation and several job related correlates. Their study found that a Machiavellian-orientation associates positively with more job strain, less job satisfaction, and less perceived opportunity for formal control. Siege (1973) examined the extent to which managers, MBA students, and faculty members exhibit the Machiavellian, manipulative interpersonal behavior and leadership using the M A C H scale and the Theory X / T h e o r y Y leadership scale. The study found the following ranking of Machiavellian-orientation: managers (lowest), students, faculty (highest). They found Machiavellianism relates negatively to participative leadership attitudes for both students and managers. Heisler and Gemmill (1977) found that a Machiavellian-orientation consistently relates to job satisfaction and job strain across a variety of organizational settings. They also found that

1212

J. M. Rayburn and L. G. Rayburn

Machiavellianism demonstrates a consistent directional trend related to organizational success and satisfaction and associates significantly with a manager's upward mobility as determined by their current salary. Hegarty and Sims (1978) identified Machiavellianism as one of the personality variables that was a significant covariate in graduate business students ethics studies. Their findings indicate that individuals identified as Machiavellianoriented had less ethical behavior than other study participants (see also Singhapakdi, 1993; Singhapakdi and Vitell, 1990, 1991). It is predicted that this finding will hold in this study. This research also investigates the relation between sex and Machiavellian-orientation; it is hypothesized that males are more Machiavellianoriented than females. Touhey (1973) found that the most intergenerational mobility in occupational status was by individuals who made the highest scores on both IQ measures and the Machiavellian scale. The study concludes that intelligence aids the deployment and concealment of Machiavellian tactics (1973, p. 36). Thus, it is hypothesized that individuals o f lower intelligence are less Machiavellian-oriented and more ethically-oriented than individuals of high intelligence.

Empirical Type A personality studies Given the findings from pervious studies, it is predicted that Machiavellian-orientation is also positively related to Type A personality-orientation. Type A behavior is a life-style or general orientation to life, characterized by a high degree of ambition. These individuals are constantly striving to attain material things or achievements in the shortest period of time. Type A individuals continually feel the need to prove themselves and often channel their ambitions into an area that is important to them at the moment. Society often glamorizes Type A individuals because of the corresponding success attributed to this behavior. This behavior fits the desired male stereotype with rugged masculinity and need to control. Thus, it is predicted that males in the

current study are more type A oriented than females. Type A individuals set increasingly more difficult goals; ambitions are pushed higher and higher, always beyond their reach. Type A individuals believe they are struggling against others in a fight to the top. Type A individuals will compete even with themselves when there is no one else in the immediate environment with w h o m to compete. The more difficult the job, the harder Type A individuals work to meet the challenges. These individuals have trouble leaving their tasks at the office as work has a high priority in their value structure and they engage in overtime. They often gauge their success by the number of achievements to their credit. Speed is another dominant characteristic of Type A individuals, who move quickly or may appear tense and energetic. They tend to be chronic hurriers; to wait in line becomes an intolerable task. A predominant feeling among these individuals is that they should use each m o m e n t to its fullest advantage and not waste any time. The primary characteristics of the Type A behavior pattern are a chronic sense of urgency, free-floating or easily aroused hostility, ambitiousness, and immoderation. Secondary behaviors implied by this description include impatience, competitiveness, and aggressiveness, all of which appear to represent interaction among the primary behavior components. While a cause-and-effect relationship between Type A behavior and coronary artery disease is controversial, some effects of Type A stress are definitely known. Stress causes an increase in blood pressure; if the stress is constant, the heart and arteries begin to show signs of damage (O'FlynnComiskey, 1979, pp. 1956-1957). Nahavandi et al. (1992) studied executives to test the link between a leader's Type A behavior pattern, the perception of environmental uncertainty, and an organization's strategy. Their results indicate a person's Type A characteristics were related to both how the environment was perceived and a firm's strategic direction. Type A executives with Type A personalities perceived the environment as more dynamic and were more likely to seek external diversification than were executives with Type B personalities. Thus,

Ethics and the Type A Personality it is hypothesized that individuals of lower intelligence are less Type A oriented than individuals of higher intelligence. The need for control is the driving element in Type A's decision making and in their behavior (Strube and Werner, 1985) Thus, Type A executives, with their high need for control, their high competitiveness, their challenge seeking, and their focus on immediate actions and outcomes, are likely to select strategies that increase their control over the situation. Since Type A individuals perceive the business environment as unstable and dynamic, there appears a link between Type A behavior and strategic choices. Thus, it is hypothesized that individuals with Type A personalities are more ethically oriented than individuals with Type B personalities.

Hypotheses and methodology Formally, the hypotheses tested in this study are:

Hal: Males are more machiavellian-oriented than females. Haz: Males are more Type A personalityoriented than females. Ha3: Individuals of lower intelligence are less Machiavellian-oriented than individuals of higher intelligence. Ha4: Individuals of lower intelligence are less Type A personality-oriented than individuals o f higher intelligence. Has: Machiavellians are more Type A personality-oriented than Nonmachiavellians. Ha6: Females are more ethically-oriented than males. Ha7: Individuals of low intelligence are more ethically-oriented than individuals of high intelligence. Ha8: Nonmachiavellians are more ethicallyoriented than Machiavellians. Hag: Individuals with Type A personalities are more ethically-oriented than individuals with Type B personalities. T h e null hypothesis is there is no difference in the Machiavellian-, personality- or ethicalorientation between the groups.

1213

These hypotheses are tested using the MannWhitney U-Test. This nonparametric test is used to determine whether two samples come from populations having the same distribution function and is appropriate to test hypotheses for location or mean of the sample. The normal approximation for the distribution for the U-statistic is used since the number of observations in each sample is greater than 20. The tables described below present the normal score for the U-statistic with one-tailed probability levels. Undergraduate business majors attending two m e d i u m size mid-south universities serve as the data source. The students were enrolled in a managerial accounting course offered during the Fall 1993 semester. The 67-item confidential questionnaire was administered to 123 students) The questionnaire contains 20 Machiavellian questions, 20 personality questions, and 27 ethical questions. The subjects responded to each of the Machiavellian and ethical questions using a Likert format that ranged from 1 = strongly agree to 7 = strong disagree. The hypotheses measure the degree of Machiavellianism using the M A C H IV scale developed by Christie and Gels (1970, pp. 17-18; H u n t and Chonko, 1984, pp. 41-42). The respondents' Machiavellian (MACH) score is determined by summing the answers on the 20 Machiavellian questions. Students having a M A C H score of 80 or more (less than 80), are coded as a (non)Machiavellian. The respondents' self-reported grade point average is used as a proxy for the level of intelligence. Respondents with a grade point average of 2.7 or higher on a 4.0 scale (equivalent to a B-average or better) are coded as being of high intelligence in this study and those respondents with a grade point average of less than 2.7 are coded as being of low intelligence. The hypotheses measure the personality orientation using the Jenkins Activity Survey, Job Involvement Scale (The Wall Street Journal, March 5, 1992, p. B1). The sum of the responses to these 20 statements serves as the personality score. If the personality score exceeds (less than or equal to) 252, the individual is coded as having a Type A (B) personality. Measurement of a respondent's ethical-orientation uses the responses to a 27 ethical statements

J. M. Rayburn and L. G. Rayburn

1214

that were adapted and expanded from the Whipple and Wolf study (1991).

Results Table I provides descriptive statistics for various subcategories o f the sample o f 123 undergraduate students. It is evident from Table I that females report a higher average G. P. A. than males; Table II indicates that this difference is statistically significant at p < 0.05. Females also tend to have a higher Machiavellian and personality score than males; however, this difference is not statistically significant at conventional levels (Table II). Thus, the hypotheses that males are more likely to have higher M A C H and personality scores are not supported by the data in this study. Table I also shows that individuals o f high intelligence have approximately the same average

M A C H score but a wider range in scores as individuals o f low intelligence. This difference is statistically significant p < 0.0001 (Table III). Thus, the null hypothesis o f no difference in M A C H scores can be rejected in favor o f the alternative hypothesis that individuals o f high intelligence have higher M A C H scores in this study. Individuals o f high intelligence also have a higher average and median personality score; Table III reports that this difference is statistically significant at p < 0.0001. Thus, individuals o f high intelligence are more likely to have Type A personalities than individuals o f low intelligence. T h e average personality score for Machiavellians is higher than that o f Nonmachiavellians; Table IV indicates that this difference is statistically significant at p < 0.05. Thus, the null hypothesis o f no difference in personality scores for Machiavellians and Nonmachiavellians can be rejected in this study. T h e findings are consistent with Machiavellians being more

TABLE I Descriptive statistics of the sample" Sample

Average

Median

Minimum

Maximum

Std. dev

N

Females: G. 'E A. MACH Score Personality Score

2.97 79.74 262.40

2.98 79.00 265.00

2.00 61.00 126.00

3.90 106.00 348.00

0.50 9.84 45.22

59 65 65

Males: G. E A. MACH Score Personality Score

2.66 77.62 246.28

2.60 77.00 251.00

1.90 48.00 156.00

3.60 99.00 343.00

0.38 10.06 43.77

53 58 58

High Intelligence: MACH Score Personality Score

78.93 257.79

78.00 258.00

48.00 126.00

106.00 348.00

10.34 43.68

72 72

Low Intelligence: MACH Score Personality Score

78.10 247.58

79.00 252.50

59.00 156.00

97.00 343.00

9.95 46.08

40 40

Machiavellians : Personality Score

257.52

256.00

176.00

348.00

39.81

56

Nonmachiavellians : Personality Score

252.52

255.00

126.00

343.00

49.26

67

This table provides descriptive statistics of the sample of 123 undergraduate students participating in the survey. The sample is broken down into subcategories, and the descriptive statistics are provided for these subcategories. For example, the average G. P. A. for the female subjects is 2.97. a

Ethics and the Type A Personality TABLE II Nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test test of difference in Machiavellian score, personality score and intelligence between males and females a Normal score for U-statistic G. P.A. Machiavellian Score Personality Score

-1.9100" -0.0981 -0.7284

* one-tailed probability < 0.05 This table provides the nonparametric test for the difference in distribution functions between males and females for G. P. A., Machiavellian score and personality score.

1215

likely to have' Type A personalities than N o n machiavellians. Table V through VIII provide the tests for differences in ethical-orientation between males and females, high and low intelligence individuals, Machiavellians and Nonmachiavellians, and Type A and B individuals. Table V indicates that the null hypothesis o f no statistical difference in the ethical-orientation o f males and females cannot be rejected in this study. Thus, the males are not more likely to be less ethical than females.

a

TABLE III Nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test test of difference in Machiavellian and personality scores between individuals of high and low intelligenceb Normal score for U-statistic Machiavellian Score Personality Score

-4.3747**** -3.9939****

**** one-tailed probability < 0.0001 b This table provides the nonparametric test for the difference in distribution functions between individuals of high and low intelligence for Machiavellian score and personality score.

TABLE IV Nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test test of difference in personality score between Machiavellians and nonmachiavelliansc Normal score for U-statistic Personality Score

-1.8490"

* one-tailed probability < 0.05 c This table provides the nonparametric test for the difference in distribution functions between Machiavellians and Nonmachiavellians for personality SCOre.

TABLE V Nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test test of difference in ethical-orientation' between males and females a Question 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Normal score for U-statistic -0.5138 -0.0876 -1.2673 -1.2945 -0.4049 -0.2139 -1.1005 -0.9838 -0.9462 -0.3904 -0.6418 -0.6947 -0.3390 -0.7822 -0.1120 -0.0780 -0.8460 -0.2625 -0.9803 -1.0862 -0.9916 -0.6279 -0.0331 -1.6094 -0.7652 -0.6916 -0.5227

:~

This table provides the nonparametric test for the difference in distribution functions between males and females for the 27 ethic questions contained in the survey.

1216

J. M. Rayburn and L. G. Rayburn

Table VI presents statistics that reject the null hypothesis o f the same ethical-orientation between individuals o f high and low intelligence. T h e results are consistent with the alternative hypothesis that individuals o f high intelligence are less ethically-oriented than individuals o f low intelligence. For example, individuals o f high intelligence are more likely to agree with the statement "I would assign an excellent sales-

TABLE VI Nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test test of difference in ethical-orientation between high and low intelligence individualsa Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Normal score for U-statistic -4.0904**** -5.5271"*** -4.9187"*** -4.6108"*** -3.8259**** -4.0584**** -4.3521"*** -3.6488**** -3.3601"** -5.5319"*** -3.3231"** -5.3335**** -4.1952"*** -4.2371"*** -5.4114"*** -4.0180"*** -3.8279**** -4.6406**** -3.3949*** -3.7391"*** -4.2984**** -4.9274**** -4.2864**** -5.0053**** -4.4978**** -4.9248**** -4.3532****

*** one-tailed probability < 0.001 **** one-tailed probability < 0.0001 a This table provides the nonparametric test for the difference in distribution functions between individuals of high and low intelligence for the 27 ethic questions contained in the survey.

person, w h o m I personally dislike, to a bad territory" and disagree with the statement "I will be loyal to the firm as long as the firm is loyal to me." Thus, the individuals o f high intelligence tend to indicate that they would behave less ethically than individuals o f low intelligence, which is consistent with Hypothesis 7a. Table VII indicates that the null hypothesis o f no statistical difference in ethical-orientation between Machiavellians and Nonmachiavellians can be rejected. Overall, Machiavellians tend to indicate that they would behave less ethically than Nonmachiavellians. For example, Machiavellians are more likely to agree with the statement "Any legal product is O K to sell, such as tobacco, even if its l o n g - t e r m effects are harmful to society". The alternative hypothesis that Machiavellians are less ethically-oriented than Nonmachiavellians is supported in this study. T h e test o f the final hypothesis is presented in Table VIII. As evident in this table, the hypothesis o f no significant difference in the ethical-orientation o f individuals with Type A and B personalities can be rejected. Individuals with Type B personalities are more likely to behave less ethically than individuals with Type A personalities. For example, Type B individuals are more likely to agree with the statements "If a friend o f mine has a c o m p u t e r software program that I want, it's O K for me to copy and use it", "I would record a research interview without the interviewee knowing that I am ", and "I would continue to advertise one o f the items I sell as defective free even if several had been returned defective". Thus, the data support the alternative hypothesis that individuals with Type A personalities are more ethically-oriented than individuals with Type B personalities.

Conclusions

T h e study investigate the relationship between personality traits and ethical-orientation o f undergraduate accounting students. The results indicate that there is no difference in Machiavellian-, Type A personality- or ethical-orientation between males and females. Individuals o f high

Ethics and the Type A Personality TABLE VII Nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test test o f difference in ethical-orientation between Machiavellians and nonmachiavellians ~ Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Normal score for U-statistic -2.4205** -2.6651"* -2.7886** -1.6333 -2.1408" -1.6105 -4.2139"*** -3.0906*** -2.8053** -4.3341"*** -1.8216" -2.1657" -3.6129"** -3.9639**** -4.4334**** -3.8831"*** -0.7329 -3.9128"*** -3.6171"** -4.4432**** -5.1419"*** -4.4649**** -3.9160"*** -3.6432**** -3.3290*** -3.7634**** -3.3643***

1217

TABLE VIII Nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test test o f difference in ethical-orientation between Type A and B personalities ~ Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Normal score for U-statistic -7.2139"*** -1.7511" -3.5123"** -1.7885" -4.9601"*** -1.3915 -3.9970**** -3.6264**** -0.5900 -3.4779*** -7.3899**** -2.5352** -2.2177" -0.8940 -0.3549 -2.3601"* -2.6109"* -1.4921 -1.5568 -0.4187 -0.6658 -1.2539 -0.1246 -0.4196 -0.9901 -0.9339 -0.2158

* one-tailed probability < 0.05 ** one-tailed probability < 0.01 *** one-tailed probability < 0.001 **** one-tailed probability < 0.0001 This table provides the nonparametric test for the difference in distribution functions between Machiavellians and Nonmachiavellians for the 27 ethic questions contained in the survey.

* one-tailed probability < 0.05 ** one-tailed probability < 0.01 *** one-tailed probability < 0.001 **** one-tailed probability < 0.0001 a This table provides the nonparametric test for the difference in distribution functions between Type A and Type B individuals for the 27 ethic questions contained in the survey.

intelligence are f o u n d to b e m o r e Machiavellianand T y p e A p e r s o n a l i t y - o r i e n t e d b u t less e t h i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d than individuals o f l o w intelligence. Machiavellians t e n d to have T y p e A personalities, b u t t e n d to be less ethicallyo r i e n t e d than Nonmachiavellians. H o w e v e r , individuals w i t h T y p e A personalities are m o r e

ethically o r i e n t e d than individuals w i t h Type B personalities.

Note 1 The data described and a copy o f the questionnaire can be obtained from: L. Gayle Rayburn, Department

1218

J. M. Rayburn and L. G. Rayburn

of Accounting and Finance, Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau, Mo. 63701-4799.

References American Accounting Association, Committee on the Future Structure, Content, and Scope of Accounting Education (The Bedford Committee), Future Accounting Education: Preparing for the Expanding Profession, Issues in Accounting Education (Spring, 1986) pp. 168-195. Armstrong, M.: 1987, 'Moral Development and Accounting Education', Journal of Accounting Education, 27-43. Bartels, R.: 1967, 'A Model for Ethics in Marketing', Journal of Marketing 31, 20-26. Bommer, M., C. Gratto, J. Gravander and M. Tuttle: 1987, 'A Behavioral Model of Ethical and Unethical Decision Making', Journal of Business Ethics 4, 265-280. Bowie, N.: 1988, 'Accountants, Full Disclosure, and Conflicts of Interest', Business & Professional Ethics Journal 5, 60-73. Calhoon, R. P.: 1969, 'Niccolo Machiavelli and the Twentieth Century Administrator', Academy of Management Journal 2, 205-212. Christie, R. and F. L. Geis: 1970, Studies in Machiavellianism (Academic Press, New York). Davis, J. R. and R. E. Welton: 1991, 'Professional Ethics: Business Students' Perceptions', Journal of Business Ethics 6(10), 451-463. Ferrell, O. C. and L. Gresham: 1985, 'A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing', Journal of Marketing 3(49), 87"96. Fulmer, W. E. and B. R. Cargile: 1987, 'Ethical Perceptions of Accounting Students: Does Exposure to a Code of Professional Ethics Help?', Issues in Accounting Education 2(2), 207-219. Gemmill, G. R. and W. J. Heisler: 1972, 'Machiavellianism as a Factor in Managerial Job Strain, Job Satisfaction, and Upward Mobility', Academy of Management Journal 1(15), 51-62. Grant, E. W., Jr. and L. S. Broom: 1988, 'Attitudes Toward Ethics: A View of the College Student', Journal of Business Ethics 8, 617-619. Hegarty, W. H. and H. P. Sims: 1978, 'Some Determinants of Unethical Decision Behavior: An Experiment', Journal of Applied Psychology 63(4), 451-457. Heisler, W. J. and G. Gemmell: 1977, 'Machiavellianism, Job Satisfaction, Job Strain, and Upward

Mobility: Some Cross-Organizational Evidence', Psychological Reports 2(41), 592-594. Hite, R.E., J. A. Bellizzi and C. Fraser: 1988, 'A Content Analysis of Ethical Policy Statements Regarding Marketing Activities', Journal of Business Ethics 10(7), 771-776. Hunt, S. D. and L. B. Chonko: 1984, 'Marketing and Machiavellianism', Journal of Marketing 48, 30-42. Hunt, S. D. and S. A. Vitell: 1986, 'General Theory of Marketing Ethics', Journal of Macromarketing 1(6), 5-16. Jeffrey, C.: 1993, 'Ethical Development of Accounting Students, Non-Accounting Business Students and Liberal Arts Students', Issues in Accounting Education 8(1), 86-96. Johnson, P. E., S. Grazioli and K. Jamal: 1993, 'Fraud Detection: Intentionality and Deception in Cognition', Accounting, Organizations and Society 18(5), 467-488. Merritt, S.: 1991, 'Marketing Ethics and Education: Some Empirical Findings', Journal of Business Ethics 8(10), 625-632. Metzger, M. D., R. Dalton and J. W. Hill: 1993, 'The Organization of Ethics and the Ethics of Organizations: The Case for Expanded Organizational Ethics Audits', Business Ethics Quarterly 3, 27-43. Nahavandi, A., P. J. Mizzi and A. R. Malekzadeh: 1992, 'Executives' Type A Personality as a Determinant of Environmental Perception and Firm Strategy', The Journal of Social Psychology 132, 59-67. O'Flynn-Comiskey, A. I.: 1979, 'The Type A Individual', AmericanJournal of Nursing, 1956-1959. Ponemon, L. and A. Glazer: 1990, 'Accounting Education and Ethical Development: The Influence of Liberal Learning on Students and Alumni in Accounting and Practice', Issues in Accounting Education 5(2), 195-208. Ponemon, L. A.: 1992, 'Ethical Reasoning and Selection-Socialization in Accounting', Accounting, Organizations and Society 17(3/4), 239-258. Robin, D. P. and R. E. Reidenback: 1988, 'A Framework for Analyzing Ethical Issues in Marketing', Business and Professional Ethics Journal 2(5), 4-25. Robinson, J. P. and R. Shaver: 1973, Measurement of Social Psychological Attitudes (Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI). Siegel, J. P.: 1973, 'Machiavellianism, MBA's and Managers: Leadership Correlates and Socialization Effects', Academy of Management Journal 3(16), 404-412.

Ethics and the Type A Personality Singhapakdi, A.: 1993, 'Ethical Perceptions of Marketers: The Interaction Effects of Machiavellianism and Organizational Ethical Culture',Journal of Business Ethics 5(12), 407-418. Singhapakdi, A. and S. J. Vitell: 1990, 'Marketing Ethics: Factors Influencing Perceptions of Ethical Problems and Alternatives', Journal of Macromarketing 1(10), 4-17. Strube, M. J. and C. Werner: 1985, 'Relinquishment of Control and the Type A Behavior Pattern', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48, 688-701. Touhey, J. C.: 1993, 'Intelligence, Machiavellianism and Social Mobility', BritishJournal of the Society of Clinical Psychologist1(12), 34-37. The Wall StreetJournal: 1992, 'Type A Mothers Are More Likely to Have Children With Their Personality Traits', 72 N. 100 (March 5), p. B1.

1219

Weaver, K. M. and 02 C/Ferrell: 1977, 'The Impact of Corporate Policy on Reported Ethical Beliefs and Behavior of Marketing Practitioners', in B. A. Greenberg and D. N. Bellenger (eds.), Contemporary Marketing Thought (American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL), pp. 477-481. Whipple, T. W. and D. D. Wolf: 1991, 'Judgements of Marketing Students about Ethical Issues in Marketing Research: A Comparison to Marketing Practitioners', Journal of Marketing Education, pp. 56-63.

University of Tennessee, School of Business Administration, Martin, T N 38238-5015, U.S.A.