Psychopathy and Accounting Students’
Attitudes towards Unethical Practices
Charles D. Bailey
The University of Memphis
American Accounting Association Annual Meeting
Atlanta August 2014
Why study psychopathy?
 Business scholars have been slow to embrace the “Dark Triad”
of personality variables:
 Psychopathy
Lack of conscience and empathy for others
 Possess superficial charm
 Machiavellianism
 Manipulation of others for own purposes; opportunistic and acting
consistent with the economic theory of self-interest. Not without
conscience, not a clinical mental disorder.


Murphy, “Attitude, Machiavellianism and the rationalization of misreporting” AOS
2012
 Narcissism

Grandiosity, entitlement, dominance, superiority

Johnson et al., “Auditor perceptions of client narcissism as a fraud attitude risk
factor” Auditing Feb 2013
Potential of psychopathy for understanding and
preventing a variety of business problems
Fraud
Antisocial behaviors
Unethical behaviors
A rare but still potent factor:
 About 1% of population clinical psychopaths
 About 4% of CEOs (Babiak et al. 2010)
 Subclinical psychopathy is measurable
Characteristics of psychopathy
 Psychopaths are individuals who lack a conscience and lack
empathy for others, who therefore will use any means to satisfy
their desires (Cleckley 1941, Hare 1993).
 Many are successful in business careers (Babiak and Hare 2006;
Babiak et al. 2010).
 At least two factors:
 “Primary” psychopathy is highly conducive to ill-gotten “success.”
Reflects selfish, uncaring, and manipulative posture toward others.
 “Secondary” psychopathy predisposes one towards violence and
incarceration. Reflects impulsivity and a self-defeating lifestyle.
How would psychopathy affect
propensity to commit fraud?
Image from http://internalaudit.wayne.edu
Research Questions
 RQ1: How do accounting majors’ scores on Levenson’s Self-
Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP) compare with samples from
past studies of students, accounting faculty, the general public,
and prisoners?
 RQ2: Do Accounting majors’ scores differ across junior, senior,
and graduate students?
 RQ3: How highly do the LSRP scores correlate with
acceptance of questionable or blatantly unethical practices?
 RQ4: At the highest measured levels of nonclinical
psychopathy in this sample, what specifically are respondents
saying about their values and attitudes? I.e., in concrete terms,
what acts do they deem acceptable, and what attitudes permit
such acceptance?
Design of the study
 Participants and Procedures
 I asked faculty colleagues at several universities
throughout the US to invite their accounting majors
(junior, senior, or graduate) to respond to a webbased questionnaire. Responses were completely
anonymous and voluntary. One in every twenty
entrants received a $100 cash prize in a lottery.
Questions asked
….about [un]ethical actions:
… about [un]ethical actions
Questions about [un]ethical actions, continued…
Levenson’s self-report psychopathy scale
Levenson’s scale cont’d
Sources of responses
Note: There were 256 responses, so 34 participants did not enter the prize lottery.
Descriptive statistics: Scale variables
Age
N
249
Min
19
Max
58
Mean
22.78
SD
5.047
PSYCHOPATHY
253
16
63
28.05
6.033
Religiosity
253
1
4
2.32
1.086
DISAPPROVAL
253
2.0
5.0
4.43
.502
Work OT to maximize year-end
253
1
5
1.90
1.021
Bury scrap to avoid scrutiny
253
1
5
4.27
.930
Customer delay billing
253
2
5
4.24
.939
Postpone inventory write-down
253
1
5
4.28
.928
Keep $500 overpayment
253
1
5
4.34
.982
Skimming fraud
253
2
5
4.81
.585
Claim duplicate reimbursement
253
1
5
4.23
.988
Sell employer’s client list
253
1
5
4.85
.528
Descriptive statistics: Categorical variables
Class
n
97
109
46
252
Percent
38.3
43.1
18.2
99.6
1
.4
Total
253
100.0
Public
Private secular
Private religious
Total
Female
Male
Total valid
Missing
Total
119
133
1
253
126
125
251
2
253
47.0
52.6
.4
100.0
49.8
49.4
99.2
.8
100.0
Junior
Senior
Graduate/ earned UG
Total valid
Missing
Sponsorship
Gender
How do accounting majors’ scores compare
with samples from past studies? (RQ1)
Bailey (2014; data collected
through Spring 2014) similar
national sample of 292
accounting majors 26.9
Glenn et al. (2010) 2157 adult volunteers 26.6
Walters et al. (2008) 1972 male and female federal
prison inmates 28.70
Levenson et al. (1995) 487 univ. students 29.13
McHoskey et al. (1998) l25 univ students 33.9
Bailey (2014) accounting
academicians 22.58
Brinkley et al. (2001) 549 minimum-security state prisoners 32.99
The current paper: national
sample of 253 accounting majors
28.05
How do accounting majors’ scores compare:
Statistical tests
Source
Population
N
Mean
Bailey (2013)
Accounting professors, US and Canada
545
Glenn et al. (2010)
Adult volunteers at yourmorals.org
Current study
Accounting students
Walters et al. (2008)
Male and female federal prison inmates
Levenson et al. (1995)
SD
t
p(t)
22.58 4.54
8.58
.000
2157
26.60 7.54
2.95
.003
253
28.05 6.03
--
--
1972
28.70 7.60
1.31
.191
Students, University of Calif. Davis
487
29.13 6.86
2.12
.035
Brinkley et al. (2001)
Minimum-security state prisoners
549
32.99 8.19
4.58
.000
McHoskey et al. (1998)
Students, Clemson Univ. (psychology)
125
33.9
9.1
7.44
.000
Gummelt et al. (2012)
Students, Intro psychology, SE US Univ.
1515
35.6
4.92
.000
Notes: Samples are listed in ascending order of means. The t tests compare the current study against each of the
other samples; p-values are two-tailed.
Do accounting majors’ scores differ across
junior, senior, and graduate students? (RQ2)
Table 5: Analysis of Covariance, PSYCHOPATHY by Class, with
Gender and Age
Type III Sum
Source
of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Corrected Model
Intercept
Age [older are lower]
Gender [F are lower]
840.869
9277.031
278.781
369.505
4
1
1
1
210.217
9277.031
278.781
369.505
6.440
284.219
8.541
11.320
.000
.000
.004
.001
Class
Error
13.161
7898.985
2
242
6.580
32.640
.202
.818
Total
202052.000
247
8739.854
246
Corrected Total
[Also NS in simple ANOVA.]
How highly do psychopathy scores correlate
with acceptance of unethical practices? (RQ3)
DV = Judged Severity of the Acts.*
B
SE
Beta
t
Sig.
Partial
Toler-
Correl
ance
VIF
(Constant)
4.963
.233
.000
PSYCHOPATHY
-.032
.005
-.388
-6.450
.000
-.381
.877
1.140
Gender, 1=M 0=F
.046
.059
.046
.776
.438
.050
.911
1.097
Age
.011
.006
.106
1.720
.087
.109
.838
1.193
Religiosity
.015
.027
.032
.553
.581
.035
.935
1.070
Graduate
.100
.084
.077
1.193
.234
.076
.757
1.321
Senior
.014
.065
.014
.214
.831
.014
.764
1.309
Public University
.108
.060
.108
1.787
.075
.113
.877
1.140
*The hypothesis says “acceptance,” but the scores here increase with
condemnation (are lower if more accepting). I need to clarify in next draft!
PSYCHOPATHY vs. DISAPPROVAL
This relationship of mean data
points appears linear, and a
simple regression analysis is of
all 253 observations is
significant (p < .001), with
PSYCHOPATHY explaining
about 17.8% of the variance in
DISAPPROVAL.
At the highest measured psychopathy levels, what are respondents
saying? (RQ4)
Male junior, age 19, PSYCHOPATHY score 63.

I agree strongly that …












I disagree strongly that…





Even if I were trying very hard to sell something, I wouldn’t lie about it.
Acts I consider completely acceptable include…


I would be upset if my success came at someone else’s expense.
I make a point of trying not to hurt others in pursuit of my goals.
I feel bad if my words or actions cause someone else to feel emotional pain.
Cheating is not justified because it is unfair to others.
I disagree somewhat that…


Success is based on survival of the fittest; I am not concerned about the losers.
For me, what’s right is whatever I can get away with.
In today’s world, I feel justified in doing anything I can get away with to succeed.
My main purpose in life is getting as many goodies as I can.
Making a lot of money is my most important goal.
I let others worry about higher values; my main concern is with the bottom line.
People who are stupid enough to get ripped off usually deserve it.
Looking out for myself is my top priority.
I tell other people what they want to hear so that they will do what I want them to do.
I often admire a really clever scam.
I enjoy manipulating other people’s feelings.
Keeping $500 erroneously included in my paycheck.
Acts I consider moderately acceptable include…


Claiming duplicate travel reimbursement.
Selling the company’s client list to a competitor.
Views based on
responses to
questionnaire items.
Male senior, age 22, PSYCHOPATHY score 46:
 I agree strongly that…




My main purpose in life is getting as many goodies as I can.
Making a lot of money is my most important goal.
Looking out for myself is my top priority.
I agree somewhat that …





Success is based on survival of the fittest; I am not concerned about the losers.
For me, what’s right is whatever I can get away with.
In today’s world, I feel justified in doing anything I can get away with to succeed.
I let others worry about higher values; my main concern is with the bottom line.
I tell other people what they want to hear so that they will do what I want them to do.
 I disagree somewhat that …



I would be upset if my success came at someone else’s expense.
I make a point of trying not to hurt others in pursuit of my goals.
I feel bad if my words or actions cause someone else to feel emotional pain.
 Acts I consider moderately acceptable include…


Burying scrap expense to avoid scrutiny.
Having a supplier delay billing for a large amount of completed work.
 Acts I consider [only] moderately unacceptable include…

Keeping $500 erroneously included in my paycheck.
 I am unsure about the acceptability of postponing the write-down of worthless inventory.
Female junior, age 19, PSYCHOPATHY score 42
 I agree somewhat that …
 Success is based on survival of the fittest; I am not concerned about the losers.
 Making a lot of money is my most important goal.
 I let others worry about higher values; my main concern is with the bottom line.
 People who are stupid enough to get ripped off usually deserve it.
 Looking out for myself is my top priority.
 I tell other people what they want to hear so that they will do what I want them to do.
 I disagree somewhat that…
 I would be upset if my success came at someone else’s expense.
 Acts I consider [only] moderately unacceptable include…
 Burying scrap expense to avoid scrutiny.
 Having a supplier delay billing for a large amount of completed work.
 Postponing the write-down of worthless inventory.
 Keeping $500 erroneously included in my paycheck
 I am unclear about the acceptability of keeping $500 erroneously included in my
paycheck.
Conclusions
 The mean PSYCHOPATHY of accounting students is
lower than past samples of students.
 As expected, psychopathy, with its known antisocial
nature, is related to acceptance of unethical practices.
 The scores are consistent across class levels, indicating no
selection or winnowing-out during school, so that the
characteristics may persist into the professional arena.
 Examples of the attitudes that higher-scoring students
express in the survey are offered to aid in understanding
the relationship and some of its concrete implications.
Thanks!
 Comments will be appreciated!