Personality Tests in Accounting Research

Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting
Personality tests in accounting research

Simon Taggar, John Parkinson,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Simon Taggar, John Parkinson, (2007) "Personality tests in accounting research", Journal of Human
Resource Costing & Accounting, Vol. 11 Issue: 2, pp.122-151, https://doi.org/10.1108/14013380710778776
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/14013380710778776
Downloaded on: 05 February 2019, At: 14:13 (PT)
Downloaded by University of Leicester At 14:13 05 February 2019 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 158 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3258 times since 2007*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(1994),"The Role of Personality Testing in Managerial Selection", Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 9 Iss 5 pp. 3-11 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/02683949410066309">https://
doi.org/10.1108/02683949410066309</a>
(2001),"Personality testing in employment settings: Problems and issues in the application of typical
selection practices", Personnel Review, Vol. 30 Iss 6 pp. 657-676 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
EUM0000000005978">https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005978</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:471881 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1401-338X.htm
JHRCA
11,2 Personality tests in accounting
research
Simon Taggar
122 School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University,
Waterloo, Canada, and
John Parkinson
School of Administrative Studies, York University, Toronto, Canada
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a discussion of the ways that personality tests
have been used in accounting research.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper is structured as a literature review of the personality
testing area, with particular emphasis on its application in accounting research.
Findings – The idea of personality impacting accounting has received some attention in recent years.
However, it is an understudied area and the research to date is somewhat inconclusive. The findings
are that over the last decade personality psychologists have made significant advances in personality
theory and measurement. This paper summarizes: the theory of personality; the two most common
personality typologies (i.e. the Jungian psychology-based Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and
the Five Factor Model (FFM); and discusses the application of personality in accounting research.
Research limitations/implications – It is somewhat problematical to draw precise boundaries
that include all relevant studies, and yet exclude appropriately distant ones, as there are a number of
constructs that may, or may not, be considered to be “personality”. Another limitation is that the
research studies published so far do not all agree one with another.
Practical implications – The conclusion reached is that, while there is a role for
personality/accounting research using both MBTI and FFM, research using the FFM is particularly
important for analytical and predictive research in this area and to triangulate previous MBTI studies.
Originality/value – As a literature review, there is little that is intrinsically new here, but the
juxtaposition of different approaches and findings will be informative to researchers in the area and, to
a lesser extent, practitioners.
Keywords Personality, Accounting research, Psychological tests
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
People are different one from another. While these differences can be important to
explaining and predicting work behaviour, the origin of these differences is probably
less important to the world of accountants and accounting than the resultant
behaviours. These behaviours, and the personality traits that predict and explain them,
are critically important to our comprehension of how accountants interact with their
environment and influence accounting outcomes. This paper aims to aid in the
understanding of personality differences and how they are measured so that the
Journal of Human Resource Costing & concepts may be applied in accounting research.
Accounting In application to the “work world” personality traits refer to relatively stable
Vol. 11 No. 2, 2007
pp. 122-151 internal states that help to explain how a job incumbent or applicant will behave at
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited work (Epstein, 1979; Furnham, 1992; Gangestad and Snyder, 1985; Hogan, 1991;
1401-338X
DOI 10.1108/14013380710778776 McCrae and Costa, 1990). Personality is a hypothetical concept or construct, being
incorrigible of direct measurement. It is, however, measurable indirectly through Personality tests
behaviours. In this respect it may be compared to gravity; everyone knows that gravity in accounting
exists (or at least accepts the scientific argument or theory that it exists), even though it
cannot be seen or its properties easily assessed. For the most part, people accept research
gravity on the indirect evidence of the behaviours it induces in objects (e.g. rotation of a
moon around a planet). Understanding gravity is crucially important to physics as
understanding personality is crucial to understanding behaviours in accounting and 123
other workplace situations.
Personality has been used in several domains of behavioural accounting research,
including:
.
impact of cognitive styles on resource allocation decisions (Chenhall and Morris,
1991), information processing (Dermer, 1973; Gul, 1984; McGhee et al., 1978), and
cognitive dissonance (Foran and DeCoster, 1974);
.
responsibility accounting (Belkaoui, 1981);
.
explaining and predicting professional career success (Choo, 1987; Frucot and
Shearon, 1991; Goetz et al., 1991; Jacoby, 1981);
.
teaching accounting students (Fortin and Amernic, 1994; Nourayi and Cherry,
1993; Nyland et al., 2000; Oswick and Barber, 1998); and
.
accounting system design (Harrison, 1993).
There are three primary objectives of this paper:

(1) in part I to summarize the theory of personality;
(2) in part II to describe the two most common personality typologies (i.e. the
Jungian psychology-based Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Five
Factor Model (FFM, also called the “Big Five”); and
(3) in part III to discuss the application of personality in accounting research.
We do this in a way that is accessible to accounting researchers.
Part I: theory of personality

Trait theory
Personality is a predisposition to behave systematically. A trait is some unique
dimension of that behaviour and reflects “stylistic consistencies in a person’s
behaviour” (Hogan, 1991). It forms the molecular structure of personality and could be
used to explain differences in behaviour between people. An example of a trait is
emotional stability (also called neuroticism). An individual measuring high on this trait
would be described as calm and relaxed in relation to situations, events, or people. An
individual measuring low on this trait would be described as agitated and tense. In an
accounting situation, such as a budget over-run, we would expect different behaviours
from accountants with extremes of emotional stability.
Traits may also be further subdivided into sub-categories (called subscales,
secondary traits, or facets). This gives rise to numerous levels of potential analysis.
The traits used in two of the more common personality typologies will be listed in more
detail below.
JHRCA Until recently, trait-theory and personality assessment were highly criticized
11,2 (Ghiselli, 1973; Guion and Gottier, 1965; Locke and Hulin, 1962; Mischel, 1968; Reilly
and Chao, 1982; Schmitt et al., 1984). Critics drew attention to the low-validity
coefficients of personality measures and concluded that because personality constructs
only explained about 9 per cent of the variance in social behaviour, situational
variables must explain the remaining variance and should therefore be the focus of
124 research. However, at the time of these publications no well-defined and well-accepted
taxonomy existed among personality psychologists for classifying personality traits.
Consequently, it was difficult to determine whether there were consistent and
meaningful relationships between personality constructs and performance criteria in
different occupations.
Trait psychologists disagreed with the critics. They believed that personality could
be reduced to a stable set of conceptual units called traits. Psychologists uncovered a
myriad of trait variables and about 60 years ago it became obvious that the main
research question facing trait psychologists was the need for an adequate taxonomic
organization of personality that recognized its hierarchical nature. It was not until the
late 1980s that personality psychologists came to a general consensus that five robust
factors of the FFM could serve as a meaningful and useful taxonomy for organizing the
confusing array of findings in the personality literature (Costa, 1996; Digman, 1990;
Salgado et al., 2001).
Meanwhile, personality measurement had remained popular amongst practitioners
for over half a century. The MBTI has historically been the inventory of choice for
practitioners and has great intuitive appeal. Although the MBTI has been widely used
by practitioners, serious issues about its reliability and validity had caused its use to be
questioned by personality psychologists. These issues are discussed later.
While the origin of an individual’s traits may be genetic or environmentally
conditioned (the nature or nurture debate), neither origin precludes change in
behaviour. For instance, training may be able to modify an individual’s predisposed
behaviour. Furthermore, once an actor has knowledge of their traits, they may be able
to exhibit behaviours that go against their natural disposition, where that behaviour
would be more appropriate. Imagine an introverted accountant who is required to
make a presentation at a management meeting. By being aware of the reasons for
his/her discomfort levels he/she may be able to overcome the anxiety through training
or through a positive attitude.
Personality types
Traits are useful in and of themselves and also for the understanding of type
(collections or patterns of traits). Set collections or patterns of traits can be used to
define personality types. For example, a person whose behaviour exhibits traits of
competitiveness, achievement, aggressiveness, haste, impatience, restlessness,
hyper-alertness, explosiveness of speech, tenseness of facial musculature, and
feelings of being under the pressure of time and under the challenge of responsibility
would be defined as having “type A” personality (Jenkins et al., 1978).
Personality types may be defined by simply noting a few distinct traits that in
combination predict the criterion of interest. However, in addition to determining
the combination of predictive traits, a more appropriate definition of a personality
profile consists of examining trait elevation (how high the person scores on the trait
relative to the appropriate normative group). Consider two hypothetical accountants Personality tests
whose performance can be predicted by agreeableness, conscientious and extraversion. in accounting
Say they are equally intelligent but perform very differently in an audit team; other
team members say that one makes a marginal contribution at best while the second research
performs very well. The reason for their performance differences may be due to
differences in personality elevations. One may have average agreeableness but high
conscientiousness and extraversion relative to the applicable norms. The more 125
successful one may perform better because (s) he has a profile that is average in
agreeableness, conscientious and extraversion. In this hypothetical example, the poor
performer may have performed this way as a consequence of his/her high
conscientiousness and extraversion. That is, being highly conscientious or
extroverted may hinder performance because it may result in too much planning
and organizing and not enough action. Average conscientiousness and extraversion
may result in a better balance between planning and action and an improved mix
between participation and listening to others’ opinions.
Situational strength and interactionist theory

For over a century, we have attempted to explain and predict human behaviour. The
two basic approaches have been:
(1) that the situation or environment determines behaviour, versus
(2) individual differences (e.g. personality) determine behaviour.
This dichotomy may be seen in arguments for redesigning jobs and modifying pay
practices versus selecting people with specific personality traits. A principal legacy of
research of the 1960s is recognition of the influence of the situation on behaviour.
More recently, psychologists have turned to an interactionist approach.
Interactionists believe that behaviour is caused and maintained not only by a
person’s trait-based predisposition but also by the perceived consequences arising
from external sources. Interactionist theory suggests that although there is a
connection between personality and behaviour, the power of personality traits to
predict behaviour may be limited to a fairly specific set of situations; Wright and
Mischel (1987) provided initial support for this proposition (Shoda et al., 1989, 1993;
Wright and Mischel, 1987). Support for Wright and Mischel’s proposition is evident in
more recent personality theories (Moskowitz, 1994; Roberts and Donahue, 1994; Schmit
et al., 1995).
It is now unanimously acknowledged that to predict employee behaviours, it is
important not only to consider personality dispositions but also to consider contextual
demands, because the association of personality with behaviours may vary across
situations (Carlo et al., 1991; Davis-Blake and Pfeffer, 1989; Mischel, 1990). Frequently,
therefore, a distinction between strong and weak situations is now made (Beaty et al.,
2001; Carlo et al., 1991; Davis-Blake and Pfeffer, 1989; Mischel, 1977, 1990; Monson
et al., 1982). Hence, behaviours can be arrayed on a continuum according to the
strength of the situational cues, ranging from behaviours performed in strong situation
to behaviours enacted under weak situational cues. Personality dimensions are
expected to be less related to social behaviours in a strong context than in one
involving weaker situational cues (Beaty et al., 2001; Clary et al., 1998; Davis-Blake and
Pfeffer, 1989; Mischel, 1990; Norman, 1963).
JHRCA In a strong environment, the situational cues that influence behaviour are so evident
11,2 that the influence of an individual’s dispositional tendencies is thought to be limited
and may be overridden by the salient situational factors (Carlo et al., 1991).
Predominantly, strong situations generate relatively uniform expectancies concerning
appropriate behaviour. In contrast, in a weak environment, the individual’s natural
response tendencies are relatively free to be expressed. For instance, in a strong
126 situation, the fact that certain behaviours are desired is conveyed by reinforcement,
normative expectations, and an environment that supports learning how to perform
desired behaviours (Beaty et al., 2001).
A weak situation is not uniformly interpreted, does not generate uniform
expectations, does not offer sufficient incentives for one type of behaviour and is one in
which a variety of skills may produce acceptable behaviour. An unstructured audit
situation (by contrast with an audit carried out in accordance with a detailed audit plan
and precisely specified audit procedures) could be classified as weak because it

provides the worker with freedom, discretion and self-determination in planning and
carrying out tasks. In this situation, therefore, traits would be expected to be an
important explanation of behaviour. Accordingly, if auditors are uncertain about
appropriate behaviour, they are expected to act in accordance with trait personality
attributes. The fewer restrictions that the workplace or professional standards place on
behaviour, the stronger the personality-behaviour association.
Empirical evidence in both psychology (Barrick and Mount, 1993; Huttcuff et al.,
1996) and accounting (Lengermann, 1971) confirms that the degree of autonomy of
action, a proxy for strength of the situation, determines the extent to which traits
influence behaviour.
Critiques of the application of personality

There are three fundamental criticisms of the application of personality. First, if
personality is an important concept, then individual differences in behaviour should be
invariant in like situations. Experience teaches us that this is not always true. The
problem is how consistent behaviour is defined. Personality theory suggests that
behaviour need not be consistent between situations; it need only be functionally
equivalent (Hogan, 1991). For example, consider an accountant who is motivated by a
lack of integrity: this may play out as the presentation of dishonest accounting
information. The dishonest accounting information may be functionally equivalent
(such as income smoothing) but manifest itself differently, such as overstatement of
revenue versus the understatement of expense.
Secondly, personality is only likely to be a useful construct if it is stable over time.
The stability of personality over time is an empirical question. Epstein (1979, 1980,
1983, 1984) shows that the correlation between behaviours at two points in time vary
between 0.75 and 0.93, which seems adequately high for most research purposes. It has
also been shown by Costa and McCrae (1993) that in adults over 25 years of age,
personality is a relatively stable trait.
The third criticism is that personality has been shown to explain only a small
percentage of the variance in human behaviour, often less than 10 per cent (Barrick and
Mount, 1991). This could be interpreted to mean that attention should be directed
toward the factors that influence the other 90 per cent: situational factors, for example.
However, so little is known about those other factors that personality is still a strong
contender for study. Additionally, more recent and well-constructed personality Personality tests
measures have been shown to explain a larger percentage of the variance in behaviour, in accounting
for instance the meta-analysis by Tett et al. (1991) found mean predictive validities as
high as 0.38 over 94 different samples. research
Summary
Personality has been researched for decades. Based on theory and empirical evidence 127
we conclude that personality is relatively identifiable, stable and measurable area of
scientific enquiry that can explain and predict part of behaviour in the workplace.
Part II: typologies and tools for personality assessment

In part II, we compare the reliability and validity of popular personality inventories
that are based on the Jungian and the FFM typologies. This assessment is important
because even if the theories on which the two typologies are based are sound, the
personality measures based on the two theories may be faulty. The reliability (or
consistency) and validity (or the does – what it – should qualities) of the measurement
instruments are essential qualities, since their absence could explain why researchers
act incorrectly in accepting or rejecting a research hypothesis. In addition, lack of
reliability and validity can leave an organization open to liability if the measure is used
to make decisions that affect an individual’s career (e.g. promotion or selection
decision).
Different personality typologies may propose different ways in which people vary
and therefore they are measuring different traits, facets, or combinations of traits or
facets. As you can imagine, this makes the verification and accumulation of scientific
knowledge difficult. To make matters even more confusing, the same name for a
personality trait has been used by different theorists to describe non-identical
personality constructs, and they have given different names to overtly similar
constructs.
A fundamental distinction that can be made is between measures of normal
personality and measures of abnormal personality. For example, the MMPI (Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory) was initially designed as a tool for studying
aspects of mental illness. It is often inappropriate to use a measure designed to assess
mental illness to study a work situation involving normal populations. This paper is
concerned only with normal personality indicators.
Another distinction can be made between objective and projective personality
measures. An objective personality measurement consists of standardized rating
scales that can be systematically scored. By contrast, projective personality measures
consist of a fixed stimulus (e.g. a picture, an abstract design, a sentence fragment, a
structured in-basket), but the response options are open-ended. There is considerable
scepticism about the validity of projective personality tests. This scepticism is based,
at least in part, on the low validity of projective tests (Hogan, 1991, p. 895). In this
paper, we are only concerned with objective personality measurement.
While, there has been much discussion regarding the best means of measuring an
individual’s personality (Hogan, 1991; McCrae and Costa, 1989), two typologies
dominate; the Jungian typology (MBTI) and the FFM. The purpose of this section will
be to compare the origin and format of inventories based on the two typologies in order
to assess their appropriateness as personality measures. In addition, a rigorous
JHRCA assessment of any personality inventory requires determination of its validity and
11,2 reliability. A measure that is not valid or reliable amounts to little more than a
horoscope.
MBTI: origin and theory

The MBTI was developed from the work of Carl Jung. Jung broadened
128 Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytical approach, interpreting mental and emotional
disturbances as an attempt to find personal and spiritual wholeness. In 1923 he
published a seminal work, Psychological Types, in which he dealt with the relationship
between the conscious and unconscious and proposed the now well-known personality
traits, extravert and introvert. Jung also claimed thinking-feeling and
sensation-intuition as dichotomies to be used in psychological typing.
Jung’s therapeutic approach aimed at reconciling the diverse states of personality;
he believed that if any personality trait became overtly dominant in the conscious
mind, its opposite would be exaggerated in the unconscious. Jung did not use
controlled studies and did not empirically test his theories. He made his discoveries
through observations of others and anecdotal evidence. McCrae and Costa (1989),
conclude that the origin of the MBTI is based on speculative theory.
After reading Jung’s (1971) Psychological Types, Myers and Briggs developed an
instrument as a means of putting Jung’s theory into practice. Over time the inventory
has gone through a number of iterations, each receiving an alphabetic identifier. As of
2003, the current version is “M” meaning there have been 13 iterations to date. In each
case the process seems to have been that the instrument was used, users found it
useful, dissatisfaction with aspects of the instrument caused a revised model to be used,
the revisions would have been judged as adding to or detracting from the usefulness
and these opinions would be used to inform later iterations. This is a classical heuristic,
trial and error approach.
A heuristic solution is defensible on the basis of positive theory: its users find it
useful in the context in which they use it. About three million copies of the MBTI are
sold each year, most of them being used by clinical psychologists. It is a logical
assumption that they find it helpful in dealing with their clients.
MBTI: format
The MBTI model is owned by Consulting Psychologists Press Inc. and their
instrument is the only accepted way of measuring the MBTI constructs and the
typology. The MBTI measures behavioural preference on four dimensions based on
126 questions: extraversion (E) and introversion (I); sensing (S) and intuition (N);
thinking (T) and feeling (F); judging (J) and perceiving (P). Pittenger (1993a) contended
that although many similarities exist between Jung’s type typology and the MBTI
inventory, clear differences also exist, e.g. Briggs and Myers embellished on Jung’s
(1971) typology by adding the judging (J) and perceiving (P) dichotomy:
(1) Introversion and extraversion. Introversion is the inward orientation of a
person’s social relationships and their interaction with their environment, while
extraversion is the outward orientation of the same criteria.
(2) Sensing and intuition. These refer to ways of knowing things. A sensing
individual relies on his/her senses for knowledge, whereas an intuitive person
relies on his/her perceptions of possibilities, meanings and relationships.
(3) Thinking and feeling. These refer to ways of making decisions. The thinker uses Personality tests
the principles of cause and effect, and has a tendency to be impersonal. The in accounting
feeling person relies more on individual values and beliefs in order to draw
conclusions. research
(4) Judging and perceiving. A person who has a judging preference is decisive,
seeks closure, and has an aptitude for planning and organising. Perceiving is
about being flexible, tolerant and being attuned to incoming information. 129
These types may be combined into 16 types each being a combination of four
psychological traits (Table I). An example would be ISTJ, which would be a type that is
serious, quiet, and earns success by concentration and thoroughness.
MBTI: reliability
The utility of a personality measure is dependent on its reliability and validity. In a

review of the literature, Gardner and Martinko (1996) found that tests for internal
consistency appeared to be satisfactory with split-half reliability scores ranging from
0.60 to over 0.75 and coefficient as from 0.72 to .78. They also found that retest
reliabilities for continuous score usually exceed 0.70; however, one study found that
only 47 per cent of subjects scored the same on four scales after five weeks. Overall,
Gardner and Martinko (1996) concluded that MBTI scores appear to be relatively
stable. However, reliability is a necessary but insufficient condition for validity.
MBTI: validity
MBTI has been extensively used in career counselling and job candidate selection.
Hence, a fundamental validity (predictive validity) question is whether the inventory
can predict future performance in an occupation. To our knowledge, there haven been
no long-term studies showing that successful or unsuccessful careers can be predicted
from MBTI profiles. In a review of the literature by Harvey (1995), evidence is provided
citing the ability of the MBTI to indicate job preference, but no support is given in
regards to the ability of the inventory to assess job performance. In a study by Bushe
and Gibbs (1990), the predictive validity of the MBTI was assessed in a consulting
environment where trainer and peer rating scores attempted to predict competence
among 64 trainees. After the scores were entered into a structural equation, none of the
scales were found to possess predictive ability. Practitioners have been cautioned
against the regular use of the MBTI due to the psychometric limitations pertaining to
the inventory’s validity (Boyle, 1995).
ES EN IS IN
TJ ESTJ ENTJ ISTJ INTJ

TP ESTP ENTP ISTP INTP
FJ ESFJ ENFJ ISFJ INFJ
FP ESFP ENFP ISFP INFP
Table I.
Notes: Personality traits: extraversion (E) vs introversion (I); sensing (S) vs intuition (N); thinking (T) The 16 MBTI
vs feeling (F); judging (J) vs perceiving (P) psychological types
JHRCA Results from the MBTI have also been measured against occupations, academic
11,2 measures and interests to further assess validity and have shown positive results
(Gardner and Martinko, 1996). However, it should also be noted that many of these
measures were self-reported and correlated with other self-report measures of the same
period, making the data susceptible to common method variance. Gardner and
Martinko (1996, p. 50) conclude that “efforts to validate the MBTI have produced
130 mixed results”.
There is debate as to the interpretation of Jungian type theory on the bimodality o
personality traits. While some researchers see this as an essential interpretation of
Jungian psychology, others see continuous variables as consistent with Jungian type
theory (Hammer, 1996; Myers et al., 1998).
Much of the research surrounding the MBTI has been in regard to the theoretical
assumption that people have a distinct preference for a personality type; inferring that
scores on each dimension will have a bimodal distribution with discontinuity at the
midpoint. In their literature review Gardner and Martinko (1996) report some empirical
evidence to support discontinuity at the midpoints of the continuous scales and for the
bipolarity of type preferences. However, there remains doubt of a dichotomous type
since other researchers have not been able to verify these results. More recently, Arnau
et al. (2003) used taxonometric procedures to address the Jungian preference debate.
They found that categorical Jungian preferences did not exist – meaning that
individuals possess varying levels of a preference along a continuum.
Another drawback to the assumption of categorical preferences is that dichotomous
scores have been shown to reduce data sets by 38-60 percent, therefore compromising
the strength of the statistical analysis (Cohen, 1983). Owing to this, Gardner and
Martinko (1996) question the validity of studies that have supported the existence of
MBTI’s four dichotomous pairs of personality types.
It is possible to transform the MBTI indices into continuous scores. After doing this,
McCrae and Costa (1989) found that the MBTI appears to measure aspects of the FFM
(extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and agreeableness). Other
studies have verified these findings (Saggino and Kline, 1995, 1996). At present, there
are unanswered questions about the factor structure of the MBTI (factorial validity)
(Saggino et al., 2001, p. 8). These and other studies (Carlson, 1985, 1989; Healy, 1989;
Pittenger, 1993a, b; Sipps and Alexander, 1987; Sipps and DiCaudo, 1989) have noted
the need for greater psychometric support of the MBTI’s constructs.
FFM origin and theory

The FFM was developed from the lexical (a priori rational) approach and the belief that
the most salient personality traits can be derived from language (see Goldberg, 1993 for
a review). That is, the FFM was developed from normative theory. A wide range of
personality attributes was measured and factor analysis was used to determine which
attributes clustered together and which clusters were different one from another. From
this the “Big Five” personality traits or factors were identified. Hence, researchers have
taken personality trait descriptors from the English language and condensed them to
arrive at five items: conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness to
experience (Mount and Barrick, 1995).
However, some, Block (1995) in particular, have questioned the use of factor
analysis to determine the five personality traits used in the model as well as the
arbitrary selection methods applied when choosing which words to include in the Personality tests
factor analysis. in accounting
Each of the FFM traits is considered a dimension on a continuum and is
multifaceted (consisting of distinct components). In a review of the literature by Mount research
and Barrick (1995), it has been found that when applied to other languages (Japanese,
German, Dutch, Filipino, French-Canadian, Finnish, Polish, Australian, Isreali and
Chinese) this methodology has produced similar outcomes. Many scholars (Barrick and 131
Mount, 1991; Costa and McCrae, 1992; Hurtz and Donovan, 2000; Mischel, 1990; Mount
and Barrick, 1998; Paunonen and Ashton, 2001) have agreed that most individual
differences in personality can best be understood in terms of these five basic traits.
In the late 1980s, personality psychologists came to a general consensus that the
FFM can serve as a meaningful and useful taxonomy for organizing the confusing
array of findings in the personality literature (Costa, 1996; Digman, 1990). According to
Hogan (1991), the FFM:

.
calls attention to general personality characteristics which are more strongly
related to job performance than are narrow specific dimensions;
.
allows for consistency among research efforts and a direct way of synthesizing
results;
.
can yield significant uncorrected validity coefficients of 0.30 or higher; and
.
provides incremental predictive validity over and above cognitive ability tests[1].
An impressive body of literature has accumulated which provides compelling evidence

for the robustness of the FFM and a great deal of these studies examined the
relationship of personality to different types of job performance (Barrick and Mount,
1991; Carlo et al., 1991; Feingold, 1994; Hurtz and Donovan, 2000; Mischel, 1990; Mount
and Barrick, 1998; Organ and Ryan, 1995; Salgado, 1997; Vinchur et al., 1998).
However, in their meta-analysis, Barrick and Mount (1991) reported that
conscientiousness, an FFM trait that has the strongest relationship with
performance, has an average corrected correlation with job performance (across
occupations) of only 0.22 (Tett et al., 1991). This has lead some researchers to conclude
that even after decades of research, the predictive validity of personality remains
modest (Adler, 1996; Schneider, 1996). There may be three potential reasons for the
weak to moderate relationships.
First, perhaps the relationships between personality and global ratings of overall
individual effectiveness are mostly weak or moderate[2] due to personality measures
not being related to the more specific criteria that they are most likely to impact. That
is, reliance on a global measure of effectiveness may mask significant relationships
between personality and specific behavioral performance criteria. The impact of
personality on performance is mediated through specific behaviour; behaviour is more
proximal to personality than is a measure of overall individual effectiveness. To
date, there has been little systematic research to clarify the path by which any one of
the personality dimensions of the FFM is linked behaviourally to performance
outcomes in accounting or in any other discipline (Adler, 1996).
Second, lower than expected personality-performance correlations may also be due
to a non-linear relationship between some personality traits and performance.
Personality researchers have generally only tested for linear relationships.
JHRCA Day and Silverman (1989) did check for non-linear associations and reported a
11,2 significant quadratic trend in their polynomial regression analysis of the
impulse-expression trait with “work within allotted time” and “working in a positive
and professional manner with co-workers” criteria. Their data demonstrated that
moderate scores were more predictive of success. They concluded that these findings
“are somewhat troublesome in that linear models are most common in predicting job
132 success” (p. 34). At the team level of analysis, Barry and Stewart (1997) reported that
extraversion related to team performance in a clear inverted-U relationship. Schneider
and Hough (1995, p. 117) note, “research in the area of personality-performance
relations should continue to investigate curvilinearity”.
Lastly, as mentioned above, the relationship between personality and performance
criteria will vary based on situational strength. To-date, few studies have considered
the moderating role of situational strength.
FFM format
Whereas the MBTI proposes:
.
a four dimension typology;
.
scores on each dimension fall possibly along a bimodal distribution; and
.
combinations of traits (i.e. types) are key descriptions of a person’s preferences.
The FFM typology proposes that:

.
personality has five dimensions;
.
scores on a dimension will fall along a normal distribution; and
.
personality is better described by individual traits rather than types, and the
strength of scores on a trait indicates preference.
The five factors referred to are (Costa and McCrae, 1992):
(1) Extraversion/introversion. Extroverts are assertive, active, sociable and talkative.
Introverts on the other hand tend to be reserved, even-paced and independent.
(2) Emotional stability (sometimes called neuroticism). Individuals who score high
on this trait tend to experience effects such as fear, sadness, embarrassment,
disgust, anger and guilt. Those who score low in this area are usually calm,
relaxed and even-tempered.
(3) Agreeableness. Those who are agreeable are sympathetic to others, cooperative
and expect others to be accommodating in return. Disagreeable individuals are
egocentric, competitive and sceptical of other’s intentions.
(4) Conscientiousness. A high score in this area denotes that the subject is
determined, strong-willed, reliable and punctual. A low score in this area
suggests that the individual is less precise in applying moral principles and less
directed when working toward goals.
(5) Openness to experience. High scores for this factor generally means the
individual has an active imagination, enjoys variety, is attentive to inner
feelings, and demonstrates intellectual curiosity. Those who score low on
openness tend to act more conventionally and have a more conservative
outlook.
Each of these factors, in turn, is more minutely described in facets. Thus, neuroticism Personality tests
may possess the facets of being: anxious; depressed; angry; embarrassed; emotional; in accounting
worried and insecure associated with it (Costa and McCrae, 1992). At this level, facets
of the larger five factors can be thought of as being both primarily and secondarily research
related to higher-level variables. For instance, a facet that is primarily related to
extraversion may be secondarily related to conscientiousness. Desire for
achievement/advancement is a good example of this type of facet because it has 133
been found to load on both the extraversion and conscientiousness factors (Hough,
1998).
According to Costa and McCrae (1985) numerous personality inventories
“demonstrated the presence of the Big Five in a multitude of personality inventories
(e.g. Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, Jackson Personal Research Form, MBTI,
California Q-Set).” There are also several personality measures that comprehensively
measure the FFM. Common ones include the Neo-Personality Inventory (Costa and
McCrae, 1985), Goldberg Five Factor Markers (Goldberg, 1992), and the Hogan
Personality Inventory (Hogan and Hogan, 1995).
FFM: reliability
In a meta-analysis by Viswesvaran and Ones (2000), internal consistency reliabilities
(n ¼ 1,359) and coefficients of stability (n ¼ 848) were calculated for the FFM. The
frequency mean observed internal consistency reliabilities were 0.78 for emotional
stability (K ¼ 370), 0.73 for openness to experience (K ¼ 251), 0.75 for agreeableness
(K ¼ 123), 0.78 for conscientiousness (K ¼ 307) and 0.78 for extraversion (K ¼ 307).
Additionally, the frequency weighted mean observed coefficients of stability for the
FFM were 0.75 for emotional stability (K ¼ 221), 0.71 for openness to experience
(K ¼ 139), 0.69 for agreeableness (K ¼ 119), 0.72 for conscientiousness (K ¼ 193) and
0.76 for extraversion (K ¼ 176). The study concluded that the FFM assessed
reasonably reliable and stable individual traits.
FFM: validity
Studies based on the FFM have shown personality traits to be a useful predictor of job
performance, with validity estimates from 0.24 to 0.45 (Day and Silverman, 1989;
Hogan, 1991; Salgado, 1997; Tett et al., 1991). Barrick and Mount (1991) in their
meta-analytic review of 35 years of personality-based prediction research, found
conscientiousness to be a valid predictor of job performance in all occupations and all
criteria (job proficiency, training proficiency and personnel data – corrected r ¼ 0.22).
Additional support was provided by Hough et al. (1990), who found that two important
facets of conscientiousness (achievement and dependability) were valid predictors of
all job-related criteria. In a follow-up study, Barrick and Mount (1993) investigated
the relationship between the FFM traits and job performance in a sample of 146
first-line managers who were participating in a training program. Their findings were
consistent with earlier meta-analysis results in that conscientiousness correlated
significantly with supervisory ratings of job performance (corrected r ¼ 0.35). They
also found that extraversion correlated significantly with job performance (corrected
r ¼ 0.20). In their meta-analysis, Barrick and Mount (1991) found that extraversion is a
valid predictor in occupations requiring frequent interactions with others (corrected
r ¼ 0.18 for management jobs and corrected r ¼ 0.15 for sales). Openness to
JHRCA experience, which correlates with cognitive ability more highly than with other
11,2 personality traits (McCrae and Costa, 1985; Holland et al., 1995; John et al., 1994), was a
valid predictor of training proficiency (corrected r ¼ 0.25) (Barrick and Mount, 1991).
Not surprisingly, it has also been found to correlate significantly with academic
performance (Dollinger and Orf, 1991; John et al., 1994; Mervielde et al., 1995). Openness
to experience has also been found to correlate highly with creativity (King et al., 1996;
134 McCrae, 1987). Barrick and Mount’s (1991) meta-analysis suggests that emotional
stability and agreeableness were generally not predictive of performance criteria, but
they correlated best with personnel data (for example salary level, turnover, status
change and tenure, corrected r ¼ .09 and corrected r ¼ 0.14, respectively).
Although the FFM has become the cornerstone in personality measurement for the
purpose of predicting on-the-job behaviour (Costa, 1996; Schneider, 1996), some
researchers have suggested that predictive validity may sometimes be lost when
the FFM is used instead of the facet level of personality. For instance, when the
criterion correlates highly with only one of the facets that defines the factor (Ashton
et al., 1995).
The factors of the FFM are of relatively high bandwidth and low fidelity. On the
other hand, facets (sub-dimensions of the FFM traits) are relatively high fidelity but
low bandwidth. Hough and Schneider (1996) suggested that measurement of
personality at the level of each of the five factors might be too broad for most personnel
selection. As evidence they showed that achievement, a facet of conscientiousness,
correlated more highly with overall job performance than did the broader FFM
construct of conscientiousness. In addition, they reported that achievement was a
better predictor of job proficiency, training success, educational success, sales
effectiveness, and effort, than was conscientiousness. Hogan et al. (1996) also provided
several examples where facets better predicted sales performance than did FFM traits.
Ashton et al. (1995, p. 440) concluded “that there exist relevant criteria that are
predicted more accurately by specific facets than by the broad factors to which those
facets congregate”.
Conversely, Barrick and Mount (1994), using meta-analytic techniques, found no
predictive value was gained by using two facets of conscientiousness – achievement
orientation and dependability – over the use of conscientiousness itself, when
predicting three job performance criteria (job proficiency, training proficiency, and
personnel data). Ones et al. (1994), taking a pragmatic approach, suggested that to
reliably measure narrow and specific personality constructs, the number of items need
to be about three to six times the number of items commonly used in personality
inventories. This statement was formulated in order to accommodate a minimum
reliability score of 0.90 and a desired standard reliability of 0.95 suggested for use in
applied work settings. Assuming that a substantial number of personality inventories
contain 200-450 items, by increasing the number of items within an inventory by five
or six times (the number of facets under each factor) would create testing problems
such as test-taker fatigue. Thus, Ones and Viswesvaran (1996, p. 614) conclude, “if we
keep the number of items to a few hundred, then only three to four narrow, specific
personality traits can be reliably assessed”.
Schneider (1996) supported a situational (matching the predictor with the criteria)
resolution to the bandwidth-fidelity dilemma, by concluding that when the criterion for
selection is narrow in scope a facet level measure would best predict performance.
That is, general, broad predictors will predict general, broad criteria better than Personality tests
specific predictors will; therefore, we would expect that facets (sub dimensions of the in accounting
FFM) better predict specific performance-relevant behavior than do FFM traits
themselves and FFM traits are better predictors of groupings of behavior tapping the research
same knowledge, skill, or ability, and a global measure of individual effectiveness than
are facet level trait measures.
Advocates for the use of broader personality trait prediction of job performance, 135
such as Ones and Viswesvaran (1996), have traditionally used criterion such as
supervisory ratings, occupational scales or overall job performance. Ones and
Viswesvaran (1996) subscribe to the notion that it would be more appropriate to use
overall job performance in validation of predictors, rather than focus on one individual
dimension. They suggest that:
Since, criteria are complex and broad, general personality traits will always have
higher predictive validity than specific traits in real world applications. The construct
of job performance is one such complex and broad criterion of utmost importance. The
nature of the construct of job performance dictates that we use broad personality traits
for prediction and classification purpose (p. 616).
Clearly it would be appropriate to investigate the relationship between the FFM and
its facets and accounting job success.
Summary
In this section, we have presented the history and evidence relating to the Jungian type
theory and the FFM typology measures of personality. As can be seen, there are
contradictions in the evidence, and there is a need for considerable future research. It is
possible that an a priori commitment to either one model or the other has clouded the
integrity of some of the findings and conclusions of the empirical research.
Part III: personality and accounting: application

There is a limited amount of research published where personality is used to address
accounting issues. In this section we review the personality/accounting research that
has been published. Wheeler (2001) reviewed 16 MBTI studies and provided
descriptions of their findings. We summarize 20 MBTI studies and a further 17
non-MBTI studies from the extant literature. We also put all the studies into an
organizing framework as suggested by Gardner and Martinko (1996).
The MBTI is by far the most widely used test instrument, of which there are 20
studies. Macintosh (1985, p. 98) and Wheeler (2001) both suggest that the MBTI is the
most appropriate instrument for measuring personality in accounting research. A
further 17 studies use some model or test instrument other than the MBTI, or are
model-free. In most cases these 17 focus on a single trait, rather than the more holistic
concept of a personality type. There are, apparently, no studies in the extant
accounting literature using any of the instruments oriented towards assessment of
personality type through the FFM. The personality model and/or personality
instrument used in each of these 37 studies is shown in Table II.
Personality-based studies can be categorized as either descriptive (19 studies) or
predictive/analytical (18 studies) (Gardner and Martinko, 1996). The descriptive
category can be further subdivided into qualitative (three studies) or quantitative (16
studies), and the predictive/analytical category can be subdivided into
JHRCA
Type of study Study Personality model/instrument used
11,2
Descriptive Qualitative Beard (1994) No personality model
Bougen (1994) No personality model
Harris (1994) MBTI
Quantitative Booth and Wiznar (1993) MBTI
136 DeCoster et al. (1971) California Personality Instrument
Descouzis (1989) MBTI
Fortin and Amernic Jackson Personality Inventory
(1994)
Jacoby (1981) MBTI
Kreiser et al. (1990) MBTI
Landry et al. (1996) MBTI
Laribee (1994) MBTI
Nourayi and Cherry MBTI

(1993)
Ott et al. (1990) MBTI
Schloemer and Schloemer MBTI
(1997)
Shackleton (1980) MBTI
Wolk and Nikolai MBTI
(1997)
Predictive/ Non-experimental Choo (1987) MBTI
analytical
Frucot and Shearon LaRosa: locus of control
(1991)
Goetz et al. (1991) Hall/Kerr: professionalism
Harrison (1993) Adorno: authoritarianism scale
Hastings and Hinings No personality model
(1970)
Lengermann (1971) No personality model
Nyland et al. (2000) MBTI
Oswick and Barber MBTI
(1998)
Satava (1996) MBTI
Scarbrough (1993) MBTI
Experimental Belkaoui (1981) Wheeless: self-disclosure style
instrument
Benbasat and Dexter Witkin: cognitive style
(1979)
Chenhall and Morris MBTI
(1991)
Dermer (1973) Budner: ambiguity intolerance
Foran and DeCoster Adorno/vroom: authoritarianism scale
(1974)
Gul (1984) Witkin: cognitive style and Budner:
tolerance for ambiguity
McGhee et al. (1978) Decision style and tolerance for
ambiguity
Table II. Mock et al. (1972) Huysmans: analytic/heuristic
Published studies of Otte (1984) MBTI
personality and Tsui and Gul (1996) Rotter: locus of control scale
accounting Vassen et al. (1993) MBTI
non-experimental (eight studies) or experimental (ten studies). Table II also Personality tests
summarizes each of the 37 studies according to these four categories. in accounting
Qualitative studies
research
Three studies were qualitative; a qualitative study reports on some facet of
personality without attempting to count or measure the variables in question. Beard
(1994) describes the personalities of accountants as depicted in the movies; Bougen 137
(1994) describes the accountant stereotype and identifies its history and Harris (1994)
describes how the MBTI can be used to support hiring decisions. This latter study is
of particular concern given the issues surrounding the reliability and validity of
measurement tools used for selection in North America (see Principles for Validation
and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures; Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 1987) and increasingly in the UK (International Test Commission’s
Guidelines on Test Use, 2002).
Quantitative studies
A total of 13 studies were quantitative, where personality or some facet of personality
is measured using a personality model and (generally) a recognized instrument. It may
also include a study where the researchers have created their own instrument. Of the
13 studies, 11 use the MBTI. The consensus is that accountants are predominantly
ISTJ or ESTJ personality type (Booth and Wiznar, 1993; Descouzis, 1989; Jacoby, 1981;
Kreiser et al., 1990; Landry et al., 1996; Laribee, 1994; Nourayi and Cherry, 1993; Otte,
1984; Schloemer and Schloemer, 1997; Shackleton, 1980; Wolk and Nikolai, 1997). In
other words, accountants rely on sensing rather than intuition to know things, thinking
rather than feeling to understand things, judging rather than perceiving to decide
things and their orientation to the outside world is split between introversion and
extraversion.
The first non-MBTI quantitative study was conducted by DeCoster et al. (1971)
using The California Personality Instrument (CPI). It measures personality in four
classes:
(1) measures poise, ascendancy, self-assurance and interpersonal adequacy;
(2) measures socialization, maturity, responsibility and interpersonal structuring
of values;
(3) measures achievement potential and intellectual efficiency; and
(4) measures intellectual and interest modes.
Not only does the CPI describe personality, but it also includes the value judgement
that higher scores on any Class are more desirable than lower scores (Gough, 1957).
DeCoster et al. (1971) used the CPI and detected statistically significant differences
between levels of employees in professional CPA firms (juniors/seniors,
managers/partners), but similarity within each of those levels. Statistically
significant differences were also detected between CPAs and other employees. To a
large extent they found that the negative stereotype of accountants (characterized by
being dull, wary, cold and aloof) was unjustified.
The second non-MBTI study used The Jackson Personality Instrument (JPI) which
measures personality on 15 scales: anxiety; breadth of interest; complexity; conformity;
JHRCA energy level; innovation; interpersonal affect; organization; responsibility; risk taking;
11,2 self-esteem; social adroitness; social participation; tolerance and value orthodoxy.
Fortin and Amernic (1994) used the JPI to measure the personality attributes of
Canadian accounting students. They are seen to score “lower on JPI scales representing
breadth of interest (particularly females), complexity, innovation, interpersonal affect,
self esteem, and social participation (again, especially females), than the average
138 student, but scores higher on organization and value orthodoxy” (Fortin and Amernic,
1994, p. 65)[3].
Predictive/analytical studies
A total of 20 studies were predictive/analytical. A predictive study would attempt to
predict outcomes, while an analytical study would seek to identify or measure
relationships between variables. Predictive/analytical studies can be non-experimental
(nine studies) or experimental (11 studies). A non-experimental study would use data
(including personality data) about a sample of individuals and their environment. An
experimental study is one where an experimental task is set for a sample, and the
experimental results are interpreted through the lens of personality (and other)
variables.
Predictive/analytical: non-experimental (nine studies)

Frucot and Shearon (1991) used locus of control (Rotter, 1966) as their personality
variable. About 83 Mexican managers were surveyed, and their locus of control,
budgetary participation, managerial performance and job satisfaction were
measured. Locus of control was not seen to have a significant impact on
managerial satisfaction.
Goetz et al. (1991) used six traits to compare levels of professionalism across the size
of CPA firms. Hall (1968) had proposed five attitudinal traits that comprised
professionalism: the profession as a major referent; desire for professional autonomy;
belief in self-regulation; sense of a calling to the field and belief in service to the public.
A sixth trait: expertise, arose from the work of Kerr et al. (1977).
Harrison (1993) used the personality variable of authoritarianism, as measured by
the California F Scale (Adorno et al., 1950), as well as the cultural variables of
power-distance and individualism in his study of 279 managers in Australia and
Singapore. Support was found for the influence of cultural variables, but not
authoritarianism.
Hastings and Hinings (1970) used measures of caution, exactitude, anti-theoretical
pragmatism, professional exclusiveness, quantification and rationality to compare
self-employed accountants with those working for an organization. Differences
between English Chartered Accountants in private practice (i.e. auditors) and those in
industry were detected on the first four variables.
Lengermann (1971) had CPAs self-define the professional autonomy of their work
situations and found that it significantly related to their position in the firm and their
type of work unit.
Four of these studies used the MBTI as their personality indicator. Choo (1987) used
the MBTI successfully to discriminate among accountants’ perceptions of job-related
stress using the judging, thinking and sensing traits, but could not find any
relationship between perceived stress and the extraversion/introversion trait.
Satava (1996) used the MBTI in a study of 439 accountants in public practice and found Personality tests
the distribution of Es to be more prevalent in national firms while “I”s were more in accounting
common in local firms. Oswick and Barber (1998) found that the MBTI was not capable
of predicting the performance of accounting students. Scarbrough (1993) used the research
MBTI and gender to successfully predict job satisfaction among accounting
professionals.
139
Predictive/analytical: experimental (11 studies)
Belkaoui (1981) investigated the relationship between the personality variable of
self-disclosure (Wheeless, 1976) and attitudes toward responsibility accounting. An
experiment was carried out using 55 government officers as subjects. All five
disclosure factors were statistically significant at the 0.005 level in explaining their
acceptance of a responsibility accounting system.
Benbasat and Dexter (1979) used high versus low analytic as their personality
measure (Witkin et al., 1971). A high analytic is an individual who is able to detect
parts of a complex field as discrete (low field dependence). Low analytics do not have
that ability, and they can only see the whole picture. It was discovered in an
experiment involving students and faculty that (amongst other things) high analytics
took less time to make better decisions.
Chenhall and Morris (1991) used the MBTI to measure cognitive style. An
experiment was carried out using 64 middle/senior level managers. Intuitive managers
tended to incorporate opportunity costs in their decisions, while sensing individuals
did so to a lesser extent. Sponsorship was identified as a moderating variable.
Dermer (1973) used intolerance of ambiguity (Budner, 1962) as a personality
measure to gauge the perceived importance of information. In an experiment involving
44 sales staff, individuals who were intolerant of ambiguity tended to find more
information important and there was a negative correlation between this group and the
sub-classes of future and behavioural information. No relationship was found with
respect to the sub-classes external and financial information.
Foran and DeCoster (1974) assessed the influence of authoritarianism (Vroom, 1960)
and the concept of cognitive dissonance on motivation. Participants were subject to an
experiment in standard setting in two different communication environments. Neither
of the two variables was seen to explain the experimental outcomes.
McGhee et al. (1978) looked at the personality variables of decision style and
tolerance for ambiguity in an experiment carried out on 24 MBA students. Decision
style was not associated with the examination of larger numbers of alternatives.
Tolerance of ambiguity was not associated with confidence in judgments.
Gul (1984) used the personality trait of tolerance for ambiguity (Budner, 1962) and
cognitive style (Witkin et al., 1971) to study decision-making behaviour. About 46 male
managers completed an experiment that included human resource accounting
information as the basis for a de-hiring decision. The interaction of tolerance for
ambiguity and cognitive style was discovered to be significant in explaining
individuals’ confidence in their decisions. It should be noted that this modifies the
findings of McGhee et al. (1978).
Mock et al. (1972) used the personality variable of analytic versus heuristic
decision-making (Huysmans, 1968). Analytics (or rational decision makers) were
shown to make better decisions, but initially to take longer to do so. The experiment
JHRCA was a business game situation and was completed by 25 businessmen (sic) and
11,2 47 students.
Ott et al. (1990) used the MBTI to determine if personality type had any bearing on
learning in two differing modalities: computer assisted and lecture. The experiment
was carried out on 89 students in elementary accounting courses. The S-N and T-F
traits were shown to explain learning differences.
140 Tsui and Gul (1996) used locus of control (Rotter, 1966) along with a measure of
ethical reasoning to study audit conflict in a case experiment executed by 80 auditors.
Both were found to be statistically significant, with ethical reasoning moderating the
effect of locus of control.
Vassen et al. (1993) used the MBTI and tolerance for ambiguity as their personality
measures. A total of 25 practicing auditors completed a case-based experiment and found
that subjects who differed on the T versus F-axis processed information differently.
Summary
For the most part research using personality in accounting is fragmented. There is a
need for replication and triangulation before formulating holistic theories and prior to
making firm predictions about relationships between personality and accounting
outcomes. The exception seems to be the consensus that accountants and accounting
students tend to be STJ types according to the MBTI.
Conclusions
Personality is a scientific area of study and as such, there have been a number of
studies that have attempted to taxonomise it. This paper has tried to address the main
issues relating to personality and accounting including outlining background research
on personality, reviewing the possible means to measure it and summarizing the
studies done in this area. Practitioners have long recognized the value of measuring
personality in the workplace and it is hoped that this knowledge can be further
extended to the accounting field. It is our hope that the lack of firm conclusions in the
extant published literature reviewed in part III inspires further research.
A personality measure should be well grounded in personality theory and the
theory of job performance. Neither the MBTI nor the FFM taxonomy is particularly
strong in this respect. Jung’s (1971) typology was based on anecdotal evidence and
therefore could be influenced by confirmation bias and self-deception. McCrae and
Costa (1989) maintain that the MBTI has serious problems in terms of construct
validity. On the other hand, the FFM typology is largely a product of sheer empirical
data. However, measures based on the FFM are more likely to be driven by rational
thought, modern theory, and previous research than is the MBTI.
In terms of predictive validity, there is little evidence that on-the-job performance is
related to MBTI scores, nor is there convincing evidence that MBTI scores can predict
career success. In addition, to our knowledge there are no meta-analyses on the MBTI.
Hence, there is a discrepancy between the MBTI’s popularity and its proven scientific
worth. With respect to research supporting MBTI validity, Gardner and Martinko
(1996, p. 52) conclude that the “low quality of much of this research has undoubtedly
undermined the MBTI’s reputation and created scepticism about its utility”. Pittenger
(1993a, b) noted that the evidence in support of the factor structure of the MBTI
remains only partial and incomplete despite strong claims about the veracity of the Personality tests
MBTI structure in the popular literature.
Although, Drummond (1992) listed the MBTI among the top ten instruments
in accounting
generating references in the tenth Mental Measurements Yearbook (Conoley and research
Kramer, 1998), after a search in three of the top management journals in which
psychologists interested in workplace behaviour publish – Journal of Applied
Psychology, Personnel Psychology, and Academy of Management Journal – we find only 141
two references to the MBTI (a book review and one citation) and over 460 articles that
either used the NEO personality inventory as a personality measure in an empirical
study or referenced it in their discussion.
Weiss et al. (1982) suggest abandoning the Jungian typology in favour of the FFM.
There is much meta-analytical evidence on the predictive validity of FFM-based
personality inventories, factorial validity, and construct validity. As a result of its
statistical origins, the FFM may be a more appropriate indicator when answering
questions of a causative or explanatory nature. Since, accounting research seeks to
establish causes, associations, etc. the FFM is a more suitable measurement
instrument. In a literature review Salgado et al. (2001) found numerous studies
supporting the robustness of the FFM using varying theoretical frameworks, samples,
cultures and instruments.
The trend among academic researchers in the social sciences in general is towards
using some version of the FFM. Barrick and Mount (1991) (who, in turn are relying on
Digman, 1990) note:
In the past 10 years, the views of many personality psychologists have converged regarding
the structure and concepts of personality. Generally, researchers agree that there are five
robust factors of personality . . . which can serve as a meaningful taxonomy for classifying
personality attributes (Barrick and Mount, 1991, p. 2).
McCrae and Costa (1997) have shown the FFM typology to fit almost all of the major
personality inventories used today. Although the MBTI does not seem to measure
anything like neuroticism, it does appear to assess other FFM traits. According to
Dachowski (1987), extraversion is similar in both the MBTI and FFM. Openness
corresponds to intuition (vs sensation); agreeableness is akin to feeling (vs thinking),
and conscientiousness resembles judging (vs perceiving). Accordingly, one need not pit
the MBTI against the FFM. The MBTI can be analysed in terms of the FFM to glean
the benefit of linking research findings in accounting back to the large amount of
research based on the FFM in other social sciences, and at the same time be analysed in
the traditional way to glean the benefit of linking research findings back to previous
MBTI accounting research. However, the cost of using the MBTI may be reduced
psychometric robustness of measurement.
An increasingly important issue is the transportability of a particular personality
measure across cultural lines. This issue is important for researchers concerned with
the ability to do cross-cultural research and comparisons of individuals. Personality
tests have typically been developed in a single country and are then transported to
other countries, an approach known as an imposed-etic strategy (Berry, 1969). The best
measures have very good psychometric evidence to support the use and interpretation
of the measures for many different applications in the home country of the original
development studies. Once a measure has proven useful in its home country, an effort
often begins to translate the measure for use in other countries. Many personality
JHRCA inventories have been developed in the USA and were then transported through
11,2 translated measures to other countries in this manner (e.g. MMPI, CPI, 16PF). There is
evidence that this approach has been relatively successful in providing measurement
instruments that demonstrate similar psychometric properties across cultures.
A good example is provided by Costa and McCrae’s (1992) NEO PI-R (an
instrument based on the FFM of personality). Recent evidence provided by these
142 researchers suggests that the NEO PI-R may be useful in differentiating individual
differences in personality across cultures (see McCrae and Costa, 1997, for a
review). The instrument has been found to show similar psychometric properties
in several countries around the world (e.g. China, Korea, Russia, Germany,
Holland, Israel, Philippines, Japan, and Portugal). Several other measures have
enjoyed similar success (e.g. California Psychological Inventory, CPI; 16 Personality
Factor Questionnaire, 16PF; Occupational Personality Questionnaire, OPQ; MMPI:
see Katigbak et al., 1996, for a review). The MBTI has been used in a range of
different cultural settings (it has been translated into at least 20 languages) and
the universality of type has been confirmed (Bayne, 1995).
In summary, when Macintosh (1985) and Wheeler (2001) propose the use of
personality in accounting research they are on the right track. When they propose that
this be done through the MBTI they are on less firm ground. There are doubts about
the reliability and validity of the MBTI for testing the constructs upon which it is
based. That having been said, the MBTI is very widely used, by both clinical
psychologists and those in employment counselling. If the accounting research that is
contemplated is consonant with that type of use (understanding, behaviour
modification, etc.), there is a role for the MBTI. Where the accounting research in
question is more focused on explanation or prediction, the FFM seems more clearly
indicated as an appropriate instrument, based as it is on a statistically derived analysis
of personality variables. As can be seen from the table of accounting/personality
research so far published, this is a path upon which no foot has yet been set.
A clear strength of the MBTI as it relates to accounting research is that there is an
established base of knowledge upon which future research can build. Building on
established knowledge can be considered good science from an incremental
perspective. Good science would include not only replication, but also triangulation.
Triangulation is achieved by subjecting research questions to investigation using
different populations/samples, theories or methods. This indicates a strong role for
research in accounting and personality using the FFM.
Notes
1. This is important because cognitive ability is recognized as one of the best predictors of job
behavior (Ree and Carretta, 1998; Harville, 1996; Hunter, 1986; Hunter and Hunter, 1984; Ree
and Earles, 1996). Personality and cognitive ability measure largely measure different
aspects of behaviour and therefore combine well to predict behavior.
2. According to Cohen (1977), a weak relationship is one with an effect size of around 0.02, a
moderate relationship is one with an effect size of 0.13, and a strong relationship is one with
an effect size of around 0.26.
3. Since, the Fortin and Amernic’s (1994) study the JPI has been revised to become the JPI-R,
and it is now a close match with the FFM.
References Personality tests
Adler, S. (1996), “Personality and work behaviour: exploring the linkages”, Applied Psychology: in accounting
an International Review. Special Issue: Work and Personality, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 207-24.
research
Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levenson, D.J. and Sanford, R.N. (1950), The Authoritarian
Personality, Harper, New York, NY.
Arnau, R.C., Green, B.A., Rosen, D.H., Gleaves, D.H. and Melancon, J.G. (2003), “Are Jungian
preferences really categorical? An empirical investigation using taxonometric analysis”, 143
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 233-51.
Ashton, M.C., Jackson, D.N., Paunonen, S.V., Helmes, E. and Rothstein, M.G. (1995), “The
criterion validity of broad factor scales versus specific facet scales”, Journal of Research in
Personality, Vol. 29, pp. 432-42.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991), “The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: a meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 1-26.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1993), “Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between
the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 111-8.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1994), “Do specific components of conscientiousness predict
better than the overall construct?”, In R. Page (Chair), Personality and Job Performance:
Big Five versus Specific Traits? Symposium conducted at the (April) 1994 Conference of
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN.
Barry, B. and Stewart, G.L. (1997), “Composition, process, and performance in self-managed
groups: the role of personality”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 62-78.
Bayne, R. (1995), The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Critical Review and Practical Guide,
Chapman & Hall, London.
Beard, V. (1994), “Popular culture and professional identity: accountants in the movies”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 303-18.
Beaty, J.C. Jr, Cleveland, J.N. and Murphy, K.R. (2001), “The relation between personality and
contextual performance in ‘strong’ versus ‘weak’ situations”, Human Performance, Vol. 14
No. 2, pp. 125-48.
Belkaoui, A. (1981), “The relationship between self-disclosure style and attitudes to
responsibility accounting”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 281-9.
Benbasat, I. and Dexter, A.S. (1979), “Value and events approaches to accounting:
an experimental evaluation”, The Accounting Review, Vol. LIV No. 4, pp. 735-49.
Berry, J.W. (1969), “On cross-cultural comparability”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 4
No. 2, pp. 119-28.
Block, J. (1995), “A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 117 No. 2, pp. 187-215.
Booth, P. and Wiznar, H. (1993), “Personality biases of accounting students: some implications
for learning style preferences”, Accounting and Finance, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 109-12.
Bougen, P.D. (1994), “Joking apart: the serious side to the accounting stereotype”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 319-35.
Boyle, G.J. (1995), “Myers-Briggs type indicator (MBTI): some psychometric limitations”,
Australian Psychologist, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 71-4.
Budner, S. (1962), “Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable”, Journal of Personality,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 29-50.
JHRCA Bushe, G.R. and Gibbs, B.W. (1990), “Predicting organization development consulting
competence from the Myers-Briggs type indicator and stage of ego development”, The
11,2 Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 337-58.
Carlo, G., Eisenberg, N., Troyer, D., Switzer, G. and Speer, A.L. (1991), “The altruistic personality:
in what contexts is it apparent?”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 61,
pp. 450-8.
144 Carlson, J.G. (1985), “Recent assessments of the Myers-Briggs type indicator”, Journal of
Personality Assessment, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 356-65.
Carlson, J.G. (1989), “Affirmative: in support of researching the Myers-Briggs type indicator”,
Journal of Counseling & Development, Vol. 67 No. 8, pp. 484-6.
Chenhall, R. and Morris, D. (1991), “The effect of cognitive style and sponsorship bias on the
treatment of opportunity costs in resource allocation decisions”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 27-46.
Choo, F. (1987), “Accountants personality typology and perceptions of job-related stress”,

Accounting and Finance, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 13-21.
Clary, E.G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R.D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A.A., Haugen, J. and Miene, P. (1998),
“Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: a functional approach”,
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 1516-30.
Cohen, J. (1977), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences, Academic Press,
New York, NY.
Cohen, J. (1983), “The cost of dichotomization”, Applied Psychological Measurements, Vol. 7,
pp. 249-53.
Conoley, J.C. and Kramer, J.J. (Eds) (1998), The Tenth Mental Measurements Yearbook,
University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE.
Costa, P.T. (1996), “Work and personality: use of the NEO-PI-R in industrial/organisational
psychology”, Applied Psychology: An International Review. Special Issue: Work and
Personality, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 225-41.
Costa, P.T. Jr and McCrae, R.R. (1985), The NEO Personality Inventory Manual, Psychological
Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.
Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1992), Revised NEP Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO
Five-Factor Inventory, 3rd ed., Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.
Costa, P.T. and McCrae, R.R. (1993), “Ego development and trait models of personality”,
Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 20-3.
Dachowski, M. (1987), “A convergence of the tender-minded and the tough-minded?”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 42, pp. 886-7.
Davis-Blake, A. and Pfeffer, J. (1989), “Just a mirage: the search for dispositional effects in
organizational research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 385-400.
Day, D.V. and Silverman, S.B. (1989), “Personality and job performance: evidence of incremental
validity”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 25-36.
DeCoster, D.T., Rhode, J.G., Gaines, M.B. and Murphy, E.H. (1971), “The accountant’s stereotype:
real or imagined, deserved or unwarranted”, The Accounting Review, Vol. XLVI No. 4,
pp. 651-64.
Dermer, J.D. (1973), “Cognitive characteristics and the perceived importance of information”, The
Accounting Review, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 511-9.
Descouzis, D. (1989), “Psychological types of tax preparers”, Journal of Psychological Type,
Vol. 17, pp. 36-8.
Digman, J.M. (1990), “Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model”, Annual Review Personality tests
of Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 25-36.
in accounting
Dollinger, S.J. and Orf, L.A. (1991), “Personality and performance in ‘personality’:
conscientiousness and openness”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 25 No. 3, research
pp. 276-84.
Drummond, R.J. (1992), Appraisal Procedures for Counselors and Helping Professionals, 2nd ed.,
Merrill, New York, NY. 145
Epstein, S. (1979), “The stability of behaviour: on predicting most of the people much of the time”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37, pp. 1097-126.
Epstein, S. (1980), “The stability of behavior: II. Implications for psychological research”,
American Psychologist, Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 790-806.
Epstein, S. (1983), “Aggregation and beyond: some basic issues on the prediction of behavior”,
Journal of Personality, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 360-92.
Epstein, S. (1984), “A procedural note on the measurement of broad dispositions”, Journal of

Personality, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 318-25.
Feingold, A. (1994), “Gender differences in personality: a meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 116 No. 3, pp. 429-56.
Foran, M.F. and DeCoster, D.T. (1974), “An experimental study of the effects of participation,
authoritarianism, and feedback on cognitive dissonance in a standard setting situation”,
The Accounting Review, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 751-63.
Fortin, A. and Amernic, J.H. (1994), “A descriptive profile of accounting students”, Contemporary
Accounting Research, Special Education Research Issue, pp. 21-73.
Frucot, V. and Shearon, W.T. (1991), “Budgetary participation, locus of control, and Mexican
managerial performance and job satisfaction”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 66 No. 1,
pp. 80-99.
Furnham, A. (1992), “Personality and learning style: a study of three instruments”, Personality &
Individual Differences, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 429-38.
Gangestad, S. and Snyder, M. (1985), “To carve nature at its joints: on the existence of discrete
classes in personality”, Psychological Review, Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 317-49.
Gardner, W.L. and Martinko, M.J. (1996), “Using the Myers-Briggs type indicator to study
managers: a literature review and research agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 45-84.
Ghiselli, E.E. (1973), “The validity of aptitude tests in personnel selection”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 461-77.
Goetz, J.F., Morrow, P.C. and McElroy, J.C. (1991), “The effect of accounting firm size and member
rank on professionalism”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 159-65.
Goldberg, L.R. (1992), “The development of markers for the big-five factor structure”,
Psychological Assessment, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 26-42.
Goldberg, L.R. (1993), “The structure of phenotypic personality traits”, American Psychologist,
Vol. 48, pp. 26-34.
Gough, H.G. (1957), Manual for the California Psychological Inventory, Consulting Psychologists
Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Guion, R.M. and Gottier, R.F. (1965), “Validity of personality measures in personnel selection”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 135-64.
Gul, F. (1984), “The joint and moderating role of personality and cognitive style on decision
making”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 264-77.
JHRCA Hall, R.H. (1968), “Professionalism and bureaucratization”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 33,
pp. 92-104.
11,2
Hammer, A.L. (1996), MBTI Applications: A Decade of Research on the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Harris, P. (1994), “Can management accountants make decisions?”, Management Accounting
(UK), Vol. 72 No. 7, p. 14.
146 Harrison, G.L. (1993), “Reliance on accounting performance measures in superior evaluation style
– the influence of national culture and personality”, Accounting, Organizations & Society,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 319-39.
Harvey, R.J. (1995), “Unresolved issues in the dimensionality of the Myers-Briggs type indicator”,
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 535-44.
Harville, D.L. (1996), “Ability test equity in predicting job performance work samples”,
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 56, pp. 344-8.
Hastings, A. and Hinings, C.R. (1970), “Role relations and value adaptation: a study of the
professional accountant in industry”, Sociology, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 353-66.
Healy, C.C. (1989), “Negative: the MBTI: not ready for routine use in counseling”, Journal of
Counseling & Development, Vol. 67 No. 8, pp. 487-8.
Hogan, R.T. (1991), “Personality & personality measurement”, in Dunette, M.D. and Hough, L.M.
(Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Psychologists Press,
Palo Alto, CA, pp. 873-919.
Hogan, R. and Hogan, J. (1995), Hogan Personality Inventory Manual, 2nd ed., Hogan Assessment
Systems, Tulsa.
Hogan, R.T., Hogan, J. and Roberts, B.W. (1996), “Personality measurements and employee
decisions: questions and answers”, American Psychologist, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 469-77.
Holland, D.C., Dollinger, S.J., Holland, C.J. and MacDonald, D.A. (1995), “The relationship
between psychometric intelligence and the five-factor model of personality in a
rehabilitation sample”, Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 79-88.
Hough, L.M. (1998), “Personality at work: issues and evidence”, in Hakel, M. (Ed.), Beyond
Multiple Choice: Evaluating Alternatives to Traditional Testing for Selection, Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 131-66.
Hough, L.M. and Schneider, R.J. (1996), “Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications in
organizations”, in Murphy, K.R. (Ed.), Individual Differences and Behavior in
Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 31-89.
Hough, L.M., Eaton, N.K., Dunnette, M.D., Kamp, J.D. and McCloy, R.A. (1990), “Criterion-related
validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those
validities”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 581-95.
Hunter, J.E. (1986), “Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge and job performance”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 29, pp. 340-62.
Hunter, J.E. and Hunter, R.F. (1984), “Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job
performance”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 96, pp. 72-98.
Hurtz, G.M. and Donovan, J.J. (2000), “Personality and job performance: the Big Five revisited”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 6, pp. 869-79.
Huttcuff, A.I., McDaniel, M.A. and Roth, P.L. (1996), “A meta-analytical investigation of cognitive
ability in employment interview evaluations: moderating characteristics and implications
for incremental validity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 459-73.
Huysmans, J.H.B.M. (1968), “The implementation of operations research: a study of some aspects Personality tests
through man-machine simulation”, unpublished PhD dissertation, Business
Administration, University of California, Berkeley, CA. in accounting
International Test Commission’s Guidelines on Test Use (2002), Psychological Testing: A User’s research
Guide, available at: www.bps.org.uk/documents/Psychuser.pdf.
Jacoby, P.F. (1981), “Psychological types and career success in the accounting profession”,
Research in Psychological Type, Vol. 4, pp. 24-37. 147
Jenkins, C.D., Zyzanski, S.J. and Rosenman, R.H. (1978), “Coronary-prone behavior: one pattern or
several?”, Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 25-43.
John, O.P., Caspi, A., Robins, R.W., Moffitt, T.E. and Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1994), “The ‘little
five’: exploring the nomological network of the five-factor model of personality in
adolescent boys”, Child Development, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 160-78.
Jung, C.G. (1971), Psychological Types, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Katigbak, M.S., Church, A.T. and Akamine, T.X. (1996), “Cross-cultural generalizability of
personality dimensions: relating indigenous and imported dimensions in two cultures”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 99-114.
Kerr, S., Von Glimow, M. and Schriesheim, J. (1977), “Issues in the study of ‘professionals’ in
organizations: the case of scientists and engineers”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, April, pp. 329-45.
King, L.A., McKee Walker, L. and Broyles, S.J. (1996), “Creativity and the five-factor model”,
Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 189-203.
Kreiser, L., McKeon, J.M. and Post, A. (1990), “A personality profile of CPAs in public practice”,
The Ohio CPA Journal, Winter, pp. 29-34.
Landry, R.M., Rogers, R.L. and Harrell, H.W. (1996), “Computer usage and psychological type
characteristics in accounting students”, Journal of Accounting and Computers, Vol. 12
No. 4, available at: www.swcollege.com/acct/jac/jac12.html.
Laribee, S. (1994), “The psychological types of college accounting students”, Research in
Psychological Type, Vol. 28, pp. 37-42.
Lengermann, J. (1971), “Supposed and actual differences in professional autonomy among CPAs
as related to type of work organization”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 665-75.
Locke, E.A. and Hulin, C.L. (1962), “A review and evaluation of the validity studies of activity
vector analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 25-42.
McCrae, R.R. (1987), “Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience”, Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 6, pp. 1258-65.
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. Jr (1985), “Openness to experience”, in Hogan, R. and Jones, W.H.
(Eds), Perspectives in Personality,Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 145-72.
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. (1989), “Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs type indicator from the
perspective of the five factor model of personality”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 57,
pp. 17-40.
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. (1990), Personality in Adulthood, Guildford Press, New York, NY.
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. (1997), “Personality trait structure as a human universal”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 509-16.
McGhee, W., Shields, M.D. and Birnberg, J.G. (1978), “The effects of personality on a subject’s
information processing”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 681-97.
Macintosh, N.B. (1985), The Social Software of Accounting and Information Systems, Wiley,
Chichester.
JHRCA Mervielde, I., Buyst, V. and De Fruyt, F. (1995), “The validity of the Big-Five as a model for
teachers’ ratings of individual differences among children aged 4-12 years”, Personality &
11,2 Individual Differences, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 525-34.
Mischel, W. (1968), Personality & Assessment, Wiley, New York, NY.
Mischel, W. (1977), “On the future of personality measurement”, American Psychologist, Vol. 32
No. 4, pp. 246-54.
148 Mischel, W. (1990), “Personality dispositions revisited and revised: a view after three decades”, in
Pervin, L.A. (Ed.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, Guilford Press,
New York, NY, pp. 111-34.
Mock, T.J., Estrin, T.L. and Vasarhelyi, M.A. (1972), “Learning patterns, decision approach, and
value of information”, The Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 681-97.
Monson, T.C., Hesley, J.W. and Chernick, L. (1982), “Specifying when personality traits can and
cannot predict behavior: an alternative to abandoning the attempt to predict single-act
criteria”, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 385-99.
Moskowitz, D.S. (1994), “Cross-situational generality and the interpersonal circumplex”, Journal
of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 5, pp. 921-33.
Mount, M.K. and Barrick, M.R. (1995), “The Big Five personality dimensions: implications for
research & practice in human resources management”, Research in Personnel & Human
Resources Management, Vol. 13, pp. 153-200.
Mount, M.K. and Barrick, M.R. (1998), “Five reasons why the “Big Five” article has been
frequently cited”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 849-57.
Myers, I.B., McCaulley, M.H., Quenk, N.L. and Hammer, A.L. (1998), A Guide to the Development
and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, 3rd ed., Consulting Psychologists Press,
Palo Alto, CA.
Norman, W.T. (1963), “Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factor
structure in peer nomination personality ratings”, Journal of Abnormal & Social
Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 6, pp. 574-83.
Nourayi, M.N. and Cherry, A.A. (1993), “Accounting students’ performance and personality
types”, Journal of Education for Business, November/December, pp. 111-5.
Nyland, J.L., Ybarra, K.M., Sammut, K.L., Rienecker, E.M. and Kameda, D.M. (2000), “Interaction
of psychological type and anxiety sensitivity on academic achievement”, Perceptual and
Motor Skills, Vol. 90 No. 3, pp. 731-9.
Ones, D.S. and Viswesvaran, C. (1996), “Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality measurement
for personnel selection”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 609-26.
Ones, D.S., Schmidt, F.L. and Viswesvaran, C. (1994), “Do broader personality variables predict
job performance with high validity?”, in R.C. Page (Chair), Personality and Job
Performance: Big Five versus Specific Traits, symposium conducted at the annual meeting
of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN.
Organ, D.W. and Ryan, K. (1995), “A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organizational citizenship behavior”, Personnel Psychology. Special Issue:
Theory and literature, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 775-802.
Oswick, C. and Barber, P. (1998), “Personality type and performance in an introductory level
accounting course: a research note”, Accounting Education, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 249-54.
Ott, R.L., Mann, M.H. and Moores, C.T. (1990), “An empirical investigation into the interactive
effects of student personality traits and method of instruction (lecture or CAI) on student
performance in elementary accounting”, Journal of Accounting Education, Vol. 8, pp. 17-35.
Otte, P. (1984), “Do CPAs have a unique personality: are certain personality ‘types’ found more Personality tests
frequently in our profession?”, The Michigan CPA, Vol. 34, pp. 29-36.
in accounting
Paunonen, S.V. and Ashton, M.C. (2001), “Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of
behavior”, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 524-39. research
Pittenger, D.J. (1993a), “The utility of the Myers-Briggs type indicator”, Review of Educational
Research, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 467-88.
Pittenger, D.J. (1993b), “Measuring the MBTI. . . and coming up short”, Journal of Career 149
Planning and Employment, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 48-52.
Ree, M.J. and Carretta, T.R. (1998), “General cognitive ability and ooccupational performance”, in
Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology,Vol. 13, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 159-84.
Ree, M.J. and Earles, J.A. (1996), “Predicting occupational criteria: not much more than g”, in
Dennis, I. and Tapsfield, P. (Eds), Human Abilities: Their Nature and Measurement,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 151-65.

Reilly, R.R. and Chao, G.R. (1982), “Validity and fairness of some alternative employee selection
procedures”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1-62.
Roberts, B.W. and Donahue, E.M. (1994), “One personality, multiple selves: integrating
personality and social roles”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 199-218.
Rotter, J.B. (1966), “Generalized expectancies for internal versus external controls of
reinforcement”, Psychological Monographs, Vol. 80 No. 609.
Saggino, A. and Kline, P. (1995), “Item factor analysis of the Italian Version of the Myers-Briggs
type indicator”, Personality & Individual Differences, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 243-9.
Saggino, A. and Kline, P. (1996), “The location of the Myers-Briggs type indicator in personality
factor space”, Personality & Individual Differences, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 591-7.
Saggino, A., Cooper, C. and Kline, P. (2001), “A confirmatory factor analysis of the Myers-Briggs
type indicator”, Personality & Individual Differences, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 3-9.
Salgado, J.F. (1997), “The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European
community”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 30-43.
Salgado, J.F., Viswesvaran, C. and Ones, D.S. (2001), “Predictors used for personnel selection:
an overview of constructs, methods and techniques”, in Anderson, N., Ones, D.S., Sinangil,
H.K. and Viswesvaran, C. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational
Psychology, Sage, Trowbridge.
Satava, D. (1996), “Personality types of CPAs”, Journal of Personality Type, Vol. 36, pp. 36-41.
Scarbrough, D.P. (1993), “Psychological types and job satisfaction of accountants”, Journal of
Psychological Type, Vol. 24, pp. 3-10.
Schloemer, P.G. and Schloemer, M.S. (1997), “The personality types and preferences of CPA firm
professionals: an analysis of changes in the profession”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 24-39.
Schmitt, N., Gooding, R.Z., Noe, R.A. and Kirsch, M. (1984), “Metaanalyses of validity studies
published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 407-22.
Schmit, M.J., Ryan, A.M., Stierwalt, S.L. and Powell, A.B. (1995), “Frame-of-reference effects on
personality scale scores and criterion-related validity”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 80 No. 5, pp. 607-20.
Schneider, B. (1996), “Whither goest personality at work?”, Applied Psychology: An International
Review, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 289-96.
JHRCA Schneider, R.J. and Hough, L.M. (1995), “Personality and industrial/organizational psychology”,
in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and
11,2 Organizational Psychology, Wiley, West Sussex, pp. 75-129.
Shackleton, V. (1980), “The accountant stereotype: myth or reality?”, Accountancy, November,
pp. 122-3.
Shoda, Y., Mischel, W. and Wright, J.C. (1989), “Intuitive interactionism in person perception:
150 effects of situation behavior relations on dispositional judgments”, Journal of Personality
& Social Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 41-53.
Shoda, Y., Mischel, W. and Wright, J.C. (1993), “The role of situational demands and cognitive
competencies in behavior organization and personality coherence”, Journal of Personality
& Social Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 5, pp. 1023-35.
Sipps, G.J. and Alexander, R.A. (1987), “The multifactorial nature of extraversion in the
Myers-Briggs type indicator and Eysenck personality inventory”, Educational &
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 543-52.

Sipps, G.J. and DiCaudo, J. (1989), “Convergent and discriminant validity of the Myers-Briggs
type indicator as a measure of sociability and impulsivity”, Educational & Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 445-51.
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (1987), The Ethical Practice of Psychology
in Organizations, Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, College Park, MD.
Tett, R.P., Jackson, D.N. and Rothstein, M. (1991), “Personality measures as predictors of job
performance: a meta-analytic review”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 703-42.
Tsui, J.S.L. and Gul, F. (1996), “Auditors’ behaviour in an audit conflict situation: a research note
on the role of locus of control and ethical reasoning”, Accounting Organizations and
Society, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 41-51.
Vassen, E.H.J., Baker, C.R. and Hayes, R.S. (1993), “Cognitive styles of experienced auditors in
The Netherlands”, British Accounting Review, Vol. 25, pp. 367-82.
Vinchur, A.J., Schippmann, J.S., Switzer, F.S. III and Roth, P.L. (1998), “A meta-analytic review of
predictors of job performance for salespeople”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 4,
pp. 586-97.
Viswesvaran, C. and Ones, D.S. (2000), “Measurement error in ‘Big Five Factors’ of personality
assessment: reliability generalization across studies and measures”, Educational and
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 60, pp. 224-35.
Vroom, V.H. (1960), “The effects of attitudes on perception of organizational goals”, Human
Relations, Vol. 13, pp. 229-40.
Weiss, D.S., Mendolsohn, G.A. and Feimer, N.R. (1982), “Reply to the comments of block and
Ozer”, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 1182-9.
Wheeler, P. (2001), “The Myers-Briggs type indicator and applications to accounting education
and research”, Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 125-50.
Wheeless, L.R. (1976), “Self-disclosure and interpersonal solidarity: measurement, validation, and
relationships”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 47-61.
Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P.K., Raskin, E. and Karp, S.A. (1971), A Manual for the Group Embedded
Figures Test, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Wolk, C. and Nikolai, L.A. (1997), “Personality types of accounting students and
faculty: comparisons and implications”, Journal of Accounting Education, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 1-17.
Wright, J.C. and Mischel, W. (1987), “A conditional approach to dispositional constructs: the local Personality tests
predictability of social behavior”, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. Special Issue:
Integrating Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 1159-77. in accounting
research
Further reading
Misumi, J. and Maiya, K. (1995), “Reality and theory of intelligence and its relation to experience”,
Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 36-9. 151
Corresponding author
John Parkinson can be contacted at: johnmp@Yorku.ca
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Ummugulsum Zor, Stefan Linder, Christoph Endenich. 2018. CEO Characteristics and Budgeting
Practices in Emerging Market SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management 17. . [Crossref]
2. Herman van Brenk. 2018. Een overzicht van drie studies naar de effecten van beloningsprikkels,
omgevingsfactoren en persoonlijkheidskenmerken op oordeels- en besluitvorming van accountants.
Maandblad Voor Accountancy en Bedrijfseconomie 92:3/4, 75-85. [Crossref]
3. PanPeipei, Peipei Pan, PatelChris, Chris Patel. 2017. Construal of self and Chinese accountants’ aggressive
financial reporting judgments. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 30:8, 1771-1795. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
4. Michael J. Turner. An Investigation of Big Five Personality and Propensity to Commit White-Collar
Crime 57-94. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
5. Philip Heinz, Chris Patel, Andreas Hellmann. 2013. Some theoretical and methodological suggestions for
studies examining accountants' professional judgments and earnings management. Advances in Accounting
29:2, 299-311. [Crossref]
6. Niels Sandalgaard, Per Nikolaj Bukh, Carsten Stig Poulsen. 2011. The interaction between motivational
disposition and participative budgeting. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting 15:1, 7-23.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Paul Andon, Kar Ming Chong, Peter Roebuck. 2010. Personality preferences of accounting and non-
accounting graduates seeking to enter the accounting profession. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21:4,
253-265. [Crossref]

Personality Tests in Accounting Research

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Personality Tests in Accounting Research

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting

Personality tests in accounting research

References: this document contains references to 158 other documents.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

There are three primary objectives of this paper:

We do this in a way that is accessible to accounting researchers.

Part I: theory of personality

Situational strength and interactionist theory

and precisely specified audit procedures) could be classified as weak because it

Critiques of the application of personality

Part II: typologies and tools for personality assessment

MBTI: origin and theory

The utility of a personality measure is dependent on its reliability and validity. In a

TJ ESTJ ENTJ ISTJ INTJ

FFM origin and theory

Hogan (1991), the FFM:

An impressive body of literature has accumulated which provides compelling evidence

The FFM typology proposes that:

Part III: personality and accounting: application

Nourayi and Cherry MBTI

Guidelines on Test Use, 2002).

Predictive/analytical: non-experimental (nine studies)

Choo, F. (1987), “Accountants personality typology and perceptions of job-related stress”,

Epstein, S. (1984), “A procedural note on the measurement of broad dispositions”, Journal of

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 151-65.

Psychological Measurement, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 543-52.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

S-ar putea să vă placă și