120 likes | 241 Views
AN EMPIRICAL REANALYSIS OF THE SELECTION-SOCIALIZATION HYPOTHESIS. Stephen B. Scofield (deceased) Texas A&M University - Kingsville Thomas J. Phillips, Jr. Louisiana Tech University Charles D. Bailey. Background. Lawrence D. Ponemon
E N D
AN EMPIRICAL REANALYSISOF THE SELECTION-SOCIALIZATION HYPOTHESIS Stephen B. Scofield(deceased) Texas A&M University - Kingsville Thomas J. Phillips, Jr. Louisiana Tech University Charles D. Bailey
Background • Lawrence D. Ponemon “Ethical reasoning and selection socialization in accounting.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 17 (1992), 239–258. Based on his 1988 dissertation at Union College of Union University
Poneman's Socialization-Selection Hypothesis • Partners of larger CPA firms have lower levels of moral judgment than incoming auditors. • Through the promotion process, these ensconced partners weed out candidates with high ethical judgments, selecting “less ethical” persons like themselves.
Wide Acceptance of Ponemon’s Findings • Cited 22 times as of October 2001 [98 times per Google Scholar 02/07] • “passed into the accepted wisdom” • Anon. reviewer of our paper, 2001 • Ponemon achieved career success • hired as partner by two Big-5 firms • Now president of a privacy/security consulting firm
P-Scores do not differ across rank or Big-5 experience • Similar nonsignificant results looking just at Big 5, Table 6 • Those who left Big 5 did not have higher ethical reasoning, Table 7 • Power is sufficient to give confidence in nonsignificance (no large or medium difference likely exists).
Critique of Ponemon 1988/1992 • Selection–socialization hypothesis is instinctively appealing. • Many professionals have felt pressures to conform, to compromise one’s ethical code. • To place high value on conformance to society is to move toward Kohlberg’s (1969) ‘‘conventional’’ reasoning, below the level of principled reasoning. • In his dissertation, Ponemon (dissertation, 1988) recounts his personal experience • his ‘‘tension level to paranoiac proportions’’ in interview
Two discrepancies undermine Ponemon’s Results: • Demographics of his data differ greatly from the population from which the sample was drawn • What’s wrong?! • No effective control exists for the possible effects of firm size.
Fig. 1. AICPA membership in public practice, by firm size.“Firms with fewer than50 professionals constitute 78% of the populationbut only 17% of the recordsin Ponemon …. Firms with more than 50professionals constitute only 22% of the populationbut make up 83% of Ponemon’s respondents…. [not] a random departure from the… AICPAmembership (Chi2=74.10, p<0.001).” (p. 547)
Ponemon’s DIT stage scores are weird!Extreme drops in Stages 4 & 5 reasoning, big increase in Stage 3. Our data are consistent between samples and reflect normal developmental expectations.
Epilogue • http://seclists.org/politech/2001/Jun/0081.html • http://www.ponemon.org/index.html