Journal 1

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the
text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment
can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and
there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright
material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning

the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to
right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9" black and white photographic
prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for
an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning

300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
UMI 800- 521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
NOTE TO USERS
Page(s) not included in the original manuscript

are unavailable from the author or university. The
manuscript was microfilmed as received.
• •
n
This reproduction is the best copy available.
UMI
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY AND
UNIVERSITY AND PROGRAM SATISFACTION
OF ACCOUNTING STUDENTS
by
DEBORAH PRENTICE
A DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the
Program of Educational Research
in the Graduate School of
The University of Alabama
TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA
1999
UMI Number 9949395
UMI*
UMI Microform9949395
Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
NOTE TO USERS
Page(s) not included in the original manuscript

are unavailable from the author or university. The
manuscript was microfilmed as received.
■■
ii
This reproduction is the best copy available.
UMI
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First, giving thanks to God who is the Head of tny life, I would then like to
thank the numerous individuals who deserve a great deal of credit for assisting me in
conducting and writing this dissertation. There is no way I can enumerate them all. I
want to thank them all here and now.
A special thanks goes to Dr. Bernard Milano for making it possible for me to
use the New Professionals of KPMG; Drs. Neal Mero and Timothy Church of
Washington State University, who provided needed encouragement and advice; all the
899 participants who completed my survey; Jon Acker for his patient help on SPSS;
Anita and Sue at the University of Alabama Testing Service for transforming the
survey instrument into a computerized form to relieve me of tedious data entry; my
committee members Drs. Judy Giesen, Barney Cargile, Carl Williams, William
Woodall; and all the professors who volunteered to administer the instrument,
without whom I could not have procured a sufficient sample.
I will be forever grarteful to my dissertation chairman, Dr. Richard Lomax,
whose tender guidance, encouragement, and repetitive reading and revising of versions
o f each chapter made this dissertation document possible.
Finally I would like to acknowledge and gratefully thank my husband, Al, who
put up with my grumbling, encouraged my spirit, and wiped my tears of anguish with
great patience, enduring my groaning in the midst of writing his own dissertation,
which may now be in jeopardy of being finished since I, his wife, could not be there to
do the same for him. Thank you.
iii
ABSTRACT
Student satisfaction is an important educational outcome. Unfortunately, this variable is

often overlooked for educational evaluation purposes. Higher education in general, and
accounting education in particular, can demonstrate the earnestness of the academic

enterprise by appreciating the need for and monitoring of the satisfaction of students.
High student satisfaction can increase the support of graduates as they become alumni
and practicing professionals, helping to maintain the vitality of institutions.

This study concerned itself with accounting education. Undergraduate and
master’s accounting students and newly hired CPA firm accounting professionals were
its subjects. There were three research questions: first, what are the levels of program
and university satisfaction of the participants; second, what is the participants’

composite personality profile; and third, what is the relationship between satisfaction
and personality for the participants. Two instruments were utilized to answer these
questions;: a modified College Student Satisfaction Questionnaire for student
satisfaction, and the BFI-44, a Big Five trait model instrument, for personality.
Mean satisfaction scores were compared by class level and by institution. Mean
plots of the personality subscales demonstrated the personality profile. Correlational
analyses revealed relationships between satisfaction and personality. Regression

analysis disclosed which personality subscales contributed most as predictors of
satisfaction.
The new accounting professionals had higher mean satisfaction scores than all
other groups in the study. The personality profile revealed the accounting students as
low on Neuroticism, average on Extraversion and Openness, and moderately high on
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. This contradicts the traditional stereotype of
accountants as introverted, pedantic, unsociable, and boring (Shackleton, 1980). There
was a .242 correlation between the two instruments. With satisfaction as the dependent
iv
variable and personality as the independent variable there was an Rz of .107, indicating
that about 11% of the variance was explained.
The study grouped the participants as juniors, seniors, master’s students, and
new professionals. All groups shared basically the same personality profile. This
supports Holland’s theory, which holds that vocational choice is an indicator of

personality (Costa, McCrae, & Holland, 1984). Longitudinal studies of student
satisfaction and personality are suggested for further research.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xii
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 3

Significance of the Study 4
Purpose of the Study 6
Research Questions 7
Anticipated Findings g
Definition of Terms 9
Assumptions 10
Delimitations of the Study 10
Limitations of the Study 11
Summary 11
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 13
Introduction 13
Satisfaction 14
Consumer Satisfaction 15
Academic Department or Program Satisfaction 20
Accounting education program changes 22
Student Satisfaction 24
Satisfaction Instruments 26
Theory of the Construction of Satisfaction Instruments 26
Instruments With Stated Psychometric Properties 27
Student Opinion Survey (SOS) 28
College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) 30
College Descriptive Index (CDI) 31
Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) 33
College Student Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSSQ) 34
Personality 38
Brief History 38
vi
Personality Description Categorization 39
Popular Personality Measurements 40
Personality Typology Instruments 41
Overview 41
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) 41
Self-Directed Search (SDS) 43
Theoretical SDS Examples 46
The realistic type (e.g., the Mechanic) 46
The investigative type (e.g., the Physicist) 47
The artistic type (e.g., the Writer) 48
The social type (e.g., the Counselor) 48
The enterprising type (e.g., the Salesman) 49
The conventional type (e.g., the Accountant) 50
Distinctions Between Typology and Trait Instruments 51
Personality Trait Instruments (Five-Factor Model) 52
Overview 53
The Big Five Dimensions 53
An Expanded Explanation Of Each Of The Big
Five Dimensions 54
Neuroticism (N) 54
Extraversion (E) 55
Openness to Experience (O) 55
Agreeableness (A) 56
Conscientiousness (C) 56
Neuroticism, Extraversion and Openness Personality
Inventory (NEO-PI) 57
NEO-PI-R Facet Scales 57
NEO-PI-R Items and Reliabilities 58
Big Five Inventory (BFI-44) 59
BF1-44 Items and Reliabilities 59
Illustrative Accounting Student Profile 60
Personality Research in the Accounting Literature 62
Personality And Satisfaction 64
Anticipated Findings Matrix Support 67
Social Life as Related to Extraversion &
Social Life as Related to Agreeableness 68
Working Conditions as Related to Openness 69
Recognition as Related to Extraversion 70
Working Conditions as Related to Conscientiousness &
Compensation as Related to Conscientiousness 71
Neuroticism as Related to Satisfaction 72
Neuroticism as Related to Working Conditions &
Extraversion as Related to Social Life 73
vii
Quality of Education as Related to Openness &
Quality of Education as Related to Conscientiousness 74
Summary 75
3 METHODOLOGY 76
Introduction 76
Subjects 76
Description Of Instruments 77
Satisfaction Instrument 77
Calculation of Scale Scores 79
Personality Instrument 80
The Big Five Inventory-44 (BFI-44) 80
Materials 82
Data collection 83
Pilot Sample 83
Primary Sample 84
M.Acc. And M.T.A. Sample 85
CPA Firm Sample 85
Data Analysis 85
Summary 87
4 RESULTS 88
Introduction 88
Data Preparation 88
Description of Sample 89
Reliability Analysis of Instruments Used by Subscales 92
Preparation of Constructs and New Variables 93
New Variables and Constructs 94
Analysis o f Research Questions 96
Research Question I 97
Procedure for Answering Part (a) 97
Results for Part (a) on University Satisfaction 97
Results for Part (b) of Research Question 1
Program Satisfaction 101
Results of Part (c) of Research Question 1 104
Research Question 2 105
Procedures for Answering Research Question 2 105
Results for Research Question 2 106
Research Question 3 119
Procedure for Answering Research Question 3 119
Results for Research Question 3 119
Comparison of Study to John 1998 BFI-44 Study 125

Summary 128
5 IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 130

Introduction 130
Satisfaction 131
Personality 134
Satisfaction and Personality 135
Implications 136
Conclusion of Comparison of Study to John(1998) BFI-44 Study 141
Suggestions for Further Research 142
Suggestions for Further Research in Accounting Area 145
Conclusion 145
REFERENCES 148
APPENDIX 162
ix
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
1 Anticipated Satisfaction and Personality Scales Relationship 10
2 NEO-PI-R Facet Scales 61
3 Demographics 96
4 Satisfaction Subscale Reliabilities of CSSQ

Program and University Satisfaction 98
5 Personality Subscale Reliabilities of BFI-44

Personality Instrument 98
6 Descriptives of Individual University Satisfaction byInstitution 104
7 Descriptives of University Satisfaction by Class Level 105
8 Descriptives o f Program Satisfaction by Institution 107
9 Descriptives of Program Satisfaction by Class Level 108
10 Personality Subscale Descriptives 112
11 Item Means of Personality Subscales by Class Level 112
12 Personality and Program Satisfaction Projected vs. Actual Results 126
13 Personality and Program Satisfaction-Correlations 128
14 Personality and University Satisfaction-Correlations 128
15 Beta Weights of the Personality Subscales on

Program Satisfaction 129
16 Beta Weights of the Personality Subscales on

University Satisfaction 130
17 Comparison of BFI-44 Personality Means 131
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1 Mean plots descriptives of university
satisfaction by institution 104
2 Mean plot of university satisfaction
by class level 105
3 Mean plots of program satisfaction
by institution 108
4 Mean plot of program satisfaction by
class level 109
5 BFI-44 subscale item means
by class level 114
6 Aggregate means for accounting
students personality profile of sample 116
7 Personality profile of Extraversion
by class level 117
8 Profile of Agreeableness
by class level 118
9 Personality profile of Conscientiouness

by class level 119
10 Personality profile of Neuroticism
by class level 120
11 Personality profile Openness

by class level 121
12 BFI-44 subscale item means - juniors 122
13 BFI-44 subscale item means - seniors 122
14 BFI-44 subscale item means - master’s 123
15 BFI-44 subscale item means - new
professionals 123
16 Aggregate means of the two

bfi-44 Studies 132
xi
List of Abbreviations
AECC : Accounting Education Change Commission
AGREE : Agreeableness - subscale of BFI-44 Personality Instrument

AGJTMN : Agreeableness item mean
CLSLVL : Class Level Group and KPMG
CONSTI : Conscientiousness - subscale of BFI-44 Personality Instrument
CONJTMN : Conscientiousness item mean
EXTRV : Extraversion - subscale of BFI-44 Personality Instrument

EX_ITMN : Extraversion item mean
HRSSTDY : Hours Studied per Week Category
HRSWK : Hours Worked per Week Category

IND_PSAT : Program Satisfaction- accumulated of all subjects in sample
INDJJSAT : University Satisfaction-accumulated of all subjects in sample
MARST : Marital Status Category
NEUROT : Neuroticism - subscale of BFI-44 Personality Instrument
NEUJTMN : Neuroticism item mean
OPEN : Openness - subscale of BFI-44 Personality Instrument
OJTMN : Openness item mean
PST/CMP : Program Satisfaction Subscale Compensation
PST/QE : Program Satisfaction Subscale Quality of Education
PST/REG : Program Satisfaction Subscale Recognition
PST/SL : Program Satisfaction Subscale Social Life
PST/WC : Program Satisfaction Subscale Working Conditions

SCH_ID : Institutions Group Category
xii
List of Abbreviations
TAS : Typical accounting student personality profile as illustrated by
the researcher
UST/CMP :University Satisfaction Subscale Compensation
UST/QE :University Satisfaction Subscale Quality of Education

UST/REG :University Satisfaction Subscale Recognition
UST/SL :University Satisfaction Subscale Social Life
UST/WC :University Satisfaction Subscale Working Conditions
xiii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The stakeholders of higher education are currently requiring higher education
to undergo several major structural changes (Shim and Morgan, 1990). Some of these
are the redesign or elimination of departments, requirements to graduate a minimum
percentage of students, the need to keep educational costs down for parents and
students, suggestions to provide job-relevant skills by the formation of educational
partnerships, the need to provide adequate placement for students, the need to
provide relevant majors for the job market, the need for research to become better
disseminated, elimination of program duplication within a state, institutional interest
in attracting students, and other changes (Glover, Blankley & Oliver, 1995; Smigla,
1996a). One of the major reasons for these changes is the stipulation that institutions
of higher education must be more accountable as well as more responsive to their
stakeholders.
There are a number of stakeholders in higher education. They include local,
state, and Federal governments, which pay for many of its costs; for-profit and non
profit organizations, which select most of its graduates for careers (Drews-Bryan &
Davis, 1994); parents, who place both their money and their offspring into the hands
of higher education institutions; educators themselves, some of whom are calling for
2
greater accountability to students (Hallenbeck, 1978); local communities, much of
whose vitality relies on its more highly educated citizens; and students, whose college
experiences help to shape the remainder of their lives. Being accountable is a step
toward addressing the concerns of these stakeholders.
Among these educational stakeholders, the student has been one of the most
historically neglected (Hazier and Camey, 1993). Less than a generation ago, students
lived in fear of their professors. They rarely questioned practices of teachers,
departments, or colleges. Their opinions were seldom sought; when they were given,
they were sometimes penalized. Since the status of students is temporary and
relatively transitory, institutions and their permanent occupants (faculty and staff)
have considered students’ woes and complaints to be secondary in nature. Many
students became discouraged and left because they felt that there was no comfortable
place for them in the institutions of higher education (Astin, 1978).
Several factors have led to a greater interest in the welfare of students. One is
the return to school of older students. Another is the fact that our educational system
is mature and not growing much anymore. Therefore, the educational system overall
must compete for students. Also, some state governments now require institutions of
higher learning to graduate certain percentages of their students and hold these
institutions accountable for meeting students’ general needs. In addition, we live in a
more vocal culture where students as well as other individuals are encouraged to stand
up for their rights and voice their opinions.
Students invest in an education to gain long-term benefits. Higher education
needs to facilitate the provision of these desired benefits, while also creating a high-
satisfaction environment for students during the short period of their college years.
The success of higher education’s efforts to provide a highly satisfactory student
environment in the short-term may have a large effect on the quality of students' long
term investments in themselves. In other words, an environment of high student
satisfaction may well increase the sum total of long-term investments that students
make while in college.
This chapter of the study gives the statement of the problem, significance and
purpose of the study, research questions, anticipated findings, definition of terms,
assumptions, delimitations, limitations, and summary of study.
Statement of the Problem
This study investigated the relationship between accounting student
personality and student satisfaction with accounting program, using samples of
accounting students from several universities and a sample of recent accounting
graduates.
A modified College Student Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSSQ) was used to
capture students’ accounting program and university satisfaction responses.
Responses to a concurrently administered Big Five personality instrument, the BFI-
44, formed a description of accounting student personality. Comparing the results of
the two instruments revealed the relationship of their personality and their various
satisfaction levels.
Surveys were sent to seven schools and one major CPA firm to collect data on
accounting students. The satisfaction levels of the different schools were compared,
an aggregate personality profile of the current and recent accounting students was
obtained, and the relationships of personality and satisfaction were investigated. The
accounting groups are juniors, seniors, master’s students, and new professionals.
Significance of the Study
This researcher has noted the lack of even a single study in the accounting
literature using a comprehensive personality instrument such as the BFI-44 to
evaluate accounting students in relationship to program satisfaction. This void exists
despite the need to investigate important relationships that may affect the success of
accounting students. To fill this void in the literature, this study used a Big Five
personality instrument, the BFI-44, to investigate the relationship between
personality and accounting students’ satisfaction with their accounting program.
For higher education to be effective, its goals and objectives must be well
defined. Excellent quality education for students should be one of these goals.
Investigating student satisfaction can aid higher education in meeting that goal. It has
been stated that “Student satisfaction ratings may be used to locate problems and
implement decision-oriented solutions with a college” (Meredith, 198S, p. 597).
5
Few trait theories of personality play as great a role in today’s research world
on personality as the Big Five trait theory (Benet-Martinez and John, 1998). This
theory has been used to investigate the relationships between personality and
variables such as life satisfaction (Brasil, 1994), leisure satisfaction (Beard, & Ragheb,
1980), job satisfaction (Tokar and Subich, 1997), job performance (Barrick, & Mount,
1991; Salgado, 1997), academic performance (Rothstein, Paunonen, Rush and King,
1994), and employee absence (Judge, Martocchio and Thoresen, 1997). However, this
researcher has found no studies that investigated the relationship between the Big Five
personality traits and accounting students’ satisfaction.
There are several reasons why accounting student satisfaction and its
relationship to Big Five personality traits needs to be investigated. Accounting
student personalities are often thought to be unusual or stereotyped as pedantic and
unsociable (Shackleton, 1980). Big Five personality theory, although a leading trait
personality framework, has been used with various kinds of satisfaction but very little
with student satisfaction. Satisfied students, presumably including accounting
students, are the best alumni givers and the best advertisers (Stutler & Calvario,
1996).
The accounting profession-in government, corporate, and public

practice-currently is in a state of flux, reflecting massive changes taking
place in technology and social values and in social, government, and
business institutions. A substantial reorientation of institutional programs
becomes necessary to assure that professional education meets the
changing needs of professional practice, just as practice evolves to meet
the changing needs of the society it serves. (Bedford et al., 1986)
Given the large amount of recent discussion in the field of accounting
education on how the structure of accounting education itself needs to be changed
(with a particular focus on introductory accounting courses), it is important at this
time to measure the satisfaction of accounting students. This will help to ascertain
how students feel about their accounting education experiences (Cameron, 1994;
Steadman and Green, 1995; Smigla, 1996b; Wagner and Brown, 1995).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was threefold. First, it sought to investigate the
levels of university and program satisfaction of accounting students. Second, an
endeavor was made to obtain a personality profile of current and recent accounting
students. Third, it attempted to describe the relationships between accounting student
satisfaction and accounting student personality.
Students, corporations that hire accounting students, and accounting academics
have voiced opinions about the adequacy of accounting education (Alston & Harris,
1995; Cameron, 1994; Glover, Blankley & Oliver, 1995; Smigla, 1996; Steadman &
Green, 1995). This study additionally provided an opportunity for accounting
students to demonstrate their level of satisfaction with their accounting programs.
There is a strong and continuing interest on the part of accounting departments to
select sufficient numbers of students with maximum suitability for their programs.
The final test of maximum suitability is the meaningful performance of accounting
7
program graduates in the professional setting. To work toward achieving this end,
accounting academics demonstrated action by enacting the following initiatives. “In
1984 the American Accounting Association’s Executive Committee appointed a
committee of individuals from various backgrounds with an interest in the future
structure, content, and scope of accounting education” (Bedford et al., 1986, p. 126).
In 1986 a derivative of this committee, known as the Accounting Education Change
Commission (AECC), was formed. The purpose of the AECC was to provide
guidelines with the aim of increasing the ability of academic accounting departments to
attract sufficient numbers of students, ensuring the relevance of the accounting
curriculum, and developing the skills and attributes of accounting students (Williams,
1991). “The AECC was formed to help bring accounting education into the twenty-
first century” (Williams, 1991 p. 169). The AECC will be discussed futher throughout
this study.
Research Questions
1. What levels of satisfaction exist among accounting students, where do they differ
between university and program satisfaction, and does the level of satisfaction differ
among the four accounting program groups in this study? The accounting groups are
juniors, seniors, master’s students, and accounting graduates who are working.
2. What patterns o f personality traits do accounting students exhibit? Are there
differences among the groups represented in this study?
8
3. What relationships are there, if any, of accounting student personality and
university and program satisfaction?
Anticipated Findings
This study is largely exploratory in nature because these questions have not
been addressed in previous research with accounting students. Based on personal
experience and related literature, these are my anticipated findings:
1. Satisfaction scores should be higher for students who have completed their
accounting programs than for students in school. These statements are based on the
findings of a meta-analysis of satisfaction studies. Satisfaction scales were skewed to
the left (Peterson and Wilson, 1992). Differences in accounting program satisfaction
should appear as the accounting student progresses from undergraduate to master’s or
newly hired accounting employee.
2. The patterns of personality for juniors, seniors, newly hired graduates and
master’s students should be similar.
3. Table 1 is an anticipated correlation matrix for the scales of the satisfaction
and personality instruments to be used.
9
TABLE 1
Anticipated Satisfaction and Personality Scales Relationship
Satisfaction Personality Scales
Scales
openness conscientiousness extraversion agreeableness neuroticism
working conditions + + NS NS NS
compensation NS + + + -
recognition NS + NS - -
social life + + + + -
quality of education + + NS NS NS
Definition of Terms
Student Satisfaction: The well-being attitude of a student when the student’s
expectations of the school/program are met by the school’s services and/or course
curriculum (Hampton, 1993). “Theoretically, student satisfaction is the outcome of
the congruency between a student’s personality type and his college environment and
of the consistency and differentiation of his personality pattern” (Natfziger, Holland,
& Gottfredson, 1975).
Traits: The unit of personality measurement, that is the actions, thoughts,
feelings, perceptions, and motives that reliably distinguish individuals from one
another (Briggs, 1989).
Types: Patterns of traits that tend to “.. .integrate the qualities and
tendencies that are central to our human or species-typical characteristics” (Briggs,
1989).
Assumptions
The self-reported results of personality and satisfaction questionnaires are
assumed to be accurate.
It is assumed that the Big Five personality model is appropriate to be used
with student satisfaction.
It is assumed that the Big Five model is accurately represented by the BFI-44
survey used in this study.
Delimitations of the Study
Only individuals in the accounting field at the post-high school level were used
as subjects for final analysis. These individuals ranged from upperclass
undergraduates in accounting programs to relatively new professionals in an
accounting firm.
11
Limitations of the Study
1. The study does not provide a comprehensive model of student satisfaction.
A comprehensive model would contain at a minimum general descriptive, personality
and environmental components as independent variables that may differentiate
between students. This study contains only the general descriptive and personality
components of the independent variable.
2. The study does not explain which mechanisms a college or program should
use to achieve high student satisfaction.
3. Since behaviors are determined by more than one Big Five dimension, the
largest correlation that one might expect is .30 (Chaplin, 1997).
4. The study is limited to the institutions and firms that provided samples.
5. Only two of the schools surveyed received grant monies to make curriculum
accounting changes, but certainly all have been confronted with change, given the
climate of the accounting profession and higher education.
Summary
Higher education is currently being required to be more accountable and
responsive to stakeholders. Strategic and structural changes to education programs and
curricula are needed to meet accountability requirements. Students are among the most
historically neglected educational stakeholders, in terms of the degree to which many
of their concerns are addressed (Hazier and Camey, 1993). Investigating student
satisfaction may not only address some of the concerns of students, but it may also
12
aid higher education to delineate its goals and objectives regarding students. “Student
satisfaction ratings may be used to locate problems and implement decision-oriented
solutions within a college” (Meredith, 1985, p. 597).
In general, there is a need for higher education to address the satisfaction of its
students and, in specific, accounting education has a need to address the concerns and
satisfaction of the accounting students. The accounting profession is particularly
aware of the many deficiencies of accounting education (Bedford et al., 1986). This
profession has made great strides in order to make these changes. One example of this
was the formation of the AECC, which was created to formulate guidelines and
promote changes in the pedagogical approaches of accounting education.
This study measures the satisfaction level of accounting students with their
respective accounting programs. It used a Big Five personality instrument to describe
their personalities.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter will present literature that discusses satisfaction, personality,
and the relationship between different subtypes of satisfaction and personality. There
will initially be a discussion of literature relating to different kinds of satisfaction.
Then life satisfaction, consumer satisfaction, academic program satisfaction, and
student satisfaction will be reviewed. Finally, satisfaction instruments will be
described.
The presentation of personality literature will lead with an overall contrast of
the two major approaches to the description of personality. These are the usage of
traits and types to explain the descriptions of personality. Examples of both
approaches as well as illustrative instruments will be presented. Next, consideration
of some studies which use the Big Five model of personality to measure personality
traits will be emphasized. A critique of the Big Five model will follow.
Since the quantity of literature relating personality to student satisfaction is
limited, study of the relationship between personality and satisfaction will require
that a broader range of literature be used. Therefore, the literature that is comprises of
studies combining general personality and satisfaction will be used as a basis for
13
14
study. To begin, studies that look at the relationship between a number of personality
characteristics and different types of satisfaction will be considered. Next, literature
that uses the Big Five model of personality traits with different types of satisfaction
will be explored.
Satisfaction
Satisfaction is an attitude with a tendency to be situation-specific (Shim and
Morgan, 1990). Total life satisfaction may be viewed as a composite of the various
satisfaction-sensitive situations that impact upon a person’s life. The following
sections discuss life, consumer, program, and student satisfaction.
Satisfaction is a relatively subjective, personal state of affairs that is an
indicator of an individual’s perceived well-being. In this regard, it is important to
investigate perceptual or subjective indicators, such as satisfaction, as well as
objective indicators of the quality of life, such as socioeconomic status (Okun,
Kardash, Stock, Sandler, & Baumann, 1986). Globally speaking, general or life
satisfaction can be denoted by the term, happiness. Happiness is a measure of
personal feelings about the life circumstances in which people find themselves. When
people discuss their general states of affairs by saying that they have good feelings
that are largely stable and well-founded, they are in large part stating that they are
happy. This would be virtually the same as stating that they have high life
satisfaction (Michalos, 1991).
15
Since both one’s life and the quality of one’s life are composed of many
aspects (Metzelaars, 1994), the term “satisfaction” is often used by people to
describe their happiness with various parts of their lives. As common examples,
people are able to discuss their satisfaction with jobs, marriages, finances, health,
friendships, leisure, religion, consumer purchases, and education just as readily as
they can discuss their total life satisfaction (Michalos, 1991). Each of the areas above
may be regarded as a facet of life satisfaction, and each adds an element to total life
satisfaction.
The life satisfaction of an individual is often found to be positively related
with the satisfaction of that individual in any one area. One study found, for example,
that a student’s satisfaction with life is one predictor of that student’s satisfaction in
college (Miller, 1987). For most undergraduates, college satisfaction is a facet of life
satisfaction. Studies have shown that meaningful facets composing one’s general or
life satisfaction do vary between individuals. In addition, the relative importance of
each facet, as ranked by a respondent, is subject to individual variation. Furthermore,
between different stages of life an individual’s life satisfaction facets may often change
(Metzelaars, 1994).
Consumer Satisfaction
Businesses often attempt to increase consumer satisfaction in order to obtain
greater sales of their product. Just as firms try for more consumer satisfaction,
16
institutions of higher learning may strive for higher levels of student satisfaction.
Following this analogy, since students pay money to take courses and are viewed by
all stakeholders as the main priority of educational institutions, the student might be
viewed as a consumer of education (Snare, 1997). The following paragraphs will
further discuss aspects of this viewpoint.
Total Quality Management (TQM), a term coined by W. Edwards Deming, is
a management process that higher education has adopted to help improve education
quality (Schwartzman, 1995). One of the key concepts of educational TQM involves
encouraging institutions of higher learning to view students as customers and use a
marketing orientation that is tailored to student satisfaction.
TQM, with its focus on student satisfaction, is one response to increased
constraints imposed on educational institutions. Several of these constraints include
increased institutional program and service demands, decreased funding, and greater
competition. Increased institutional demands force institutions to use mechanisms
such as early retirement incentives to limit growth in total salaries. Program demands
increase when a state government requires that a specified number of students
graduate in each program major for that program to continue to exist. A new mission
statement that is adopted by a business college shows increased service demands
(Hampton, 1993). Decreased funding occurs when a state legislature cuts budgets for
its constituent institutions of higher education. The need to employ a recruitment
staff to attract students is an example of greater competition.
17
The TQM point of view holds that it is logical for academic institutions to
implement a marketing orientation for students. Under this orientation, faculty and
administrators would begin to view students as customers, or consumers of
educational services, with specific needs, wants, and corresponding satisfactions
(Shim & Morgan, 1990). Students would then be the “targeted” market to whom the
desired satisfaction is effectively and efficiently delivered (Shim and Morgan, 1990).
This student-satisfaction-centered concept can be carried further by using an
additional TQM concept, that of internal and external customers, and defining this
concept in terms of educational constituencies. Internal customers can be described as
members of four categories of educational constituents: future customers (prospective
students); current customers (enrolled students); past customers (alumni); and
dissatisfied customers (students who withdrew due to dissatisfaction). Future
customers need to be the recipients of formal marketing and recruiting efforts, as well
as favorable word-of-mouth communication about the institution. Current customers
need an equitable process, sufficient attention to problems they encounter, and a real
time explanation of the efforts that are being made on their behalf. Updates on
institutional changes, ease of contact with former classmates and attractive
opportunities to revisit campus are desired by alumni. Withdrawn students need
administrative services that provide, for example, reasonable ease of institutional re
entry or transfer and access to academic records.
18
The external customers contain groups that matriculate students such as
graduate and professional schools, private industry, government, and nonprofit
organizations (Shim and Morgan, 1990). Higher education requires students to retain
and intensify their academic focus. Students with the required background and the
outlooks needed by a profitmaking environment are needed by private industry.
Government needs qualified students who are willing to serve in a beneficial capacity.
Nonprofit organizations often require dedicated students who wish to hone
preexisting skills.
The above viewpoint of the student as an educational consumer or customer,
however, provides only a limited basis for comparison. If the adoption of TQM
improves the educational process by diminishing wasted resources, enlarging the focus
of departments, and erasing contemptuous thinking toward students, then it is
definitely worthwhile (Schwartzman, 1995). But as with medicine, the side effects can
be worse than the ailment.
Viewing students as customers who need to be satisfied may result in passive
learning (students expecting to be entertained), a short-sighted vision of educational
quality, the assumption that students themselves know fully which materials they
ought to leam, the substitution of immediate satisfaction of students at the expense of
their long-term best interests, and the undermining of civic and social values due to
advancement of the idea that degrees can be bought rather than earned (Schwartzman,
1995; Snare, 1997). Each of these potential intermediate outcomes may be construed
19
as leading to a final outcome of a less well-educated “student consumer” base. A
possible major problem is that if these intermediate outcomes were to occur, they
would lead to negative effects on society and on the higher educational system.
Overall, the TQM-model comparison between students and business
customers is not necessarily a perfect one, for several reasons. First, education retains
a paternalistic aspect that is not found in the marketplace. Colleges and universities
are expected to play a parental role that is generally absent in the marketplace. This is
exemplified by rules, largely societally imposed, regarding campus drinking and
dormitory access. Second, the student, unlike the customer, is forced to accept most
decisions regarding the educational process without input (Shim & Morgan, 1990).
This is largely because students possess less knowledge of what they will require than
do consumers. However, the students’ power is also limited due to the fact that, as
opposed to most customers, they pay for only part of the entire cost of the product
they receive. Third, education and the market place have very different goals.
Education is not focused on thinking of or producing students as though they were
consumable products or services, nor is it primarily focused on meeting students’
immediate perceived needs as if they were steady customers. The major purposes of
education are helping the student to develop, leam, and think.
With justification, education does sometimes borrow techniques from
management. However, core values of educating should be left to the educators and
not to customer-focused entities. In this study, students will not be viewed as
20
consumers of education because student satisfaction is different from consumer
satisfaction.
Academic Department or Program Satisfaction
Departmental satisfaction is important due to the fact that most upperclass
students have a specific major that is associated with a specific department. This is
usually associated with a lengthy and relatively intense involvement within the
departmental setting for each student. During this time, students typically become
familiar with the department head and most of the faculty and staff in their
department; they leam the departmental standards, easy and difficult courses and
instructors, and good and bad points of textbooks. They also come to know the ups
and downs of classrooms and other physical facilities and resources of the
department; they become acquainted with many of their fellow students; and they
leam to compare the student point of view regarding what is necessary for success
with information on the same topic which is provided by the department. In fact,
students possess a unique view of their department. As a result, how students feel
about their department is important, both during (Stumpf, 1979) and after (Stutler &
Calvario, 1996) their academic careers.
Student satisfaction has been listed as a major departmental outcome (Bare,
1980). It has also been linked to departmental orientation (Heiss, 1967) and
departmental excellence (Braskamp, Wise, & Hengstler, 1979). Studying the
satisfaction of students within a given departmental unit, such as accounting, can help
to provide knowledge about student perceptions of program characteristics.
The academic department is a fundamental building block within the
university. Each department represents a concentration of resources that is tied to a
given academic field. Often students find that their major programs provide their most
satisfying experiences while also posing the greatest obstacle to their graduation.
Circumstances within a department that relate to students, such as satisfaction with
departmental social activities, faculty availability for general interaction, satisfaction
with faculty competence, and perceived faculty willingness to help with learning
experiences, all affect student experiences within a major program setting (Hearn,
1985; Pascarella, 1980).
Student evaluations of their courses, as opposed to evaluations of their
faculty, have been used to appraise students’ departments and academic programs
(Stumpf, 1979). Course content evaluations are a means to gauge student satisfaction
with a departmental component in a way that is relatively faculty-free. The primary
assumption behind them is that students can differentiate between what they enjoyed
in a course and what was beneficial for them in a course, where the two fail to overlap.
The rationale for using student course content evaluations is that institutions of higher
learning are competing for students and financial resources. These institutions believe
that student evaluation-driven curriculum improvements can enhance their
22
competitiveness. These appraisals are done course-by-course and, after the results are
analyzed, sometimes lead to changes in different course aspects (Stumpf, 1979).
Accounting students are used for this satisfaction study. Many students have
been singled out by accounting firms as not being prepared by college for their career
entry-level jobs (Alston & Harris, 1995; Larkin, 1994). Critiques such as these helped
to motivate the profession to establish the Accounting Education Change Commission
(AECC) in 1986 to investigate how accounting education can be changed to be taught
more effectively. One question the AECC sought to answer was whether accounting
students are themselves fully aware of what will be expected of them as accountants
(Cameron, 1994; Smigla, 1996). This question may have a bearing on their program
satisfaction as well as on their career satisfaction. Whether accounting students know
what will be expected of them as accountants may have a bearing on whether they
should really be in the accounting field.
Accounting Education Program Changes
No other profession has recently gone to greater lengths than accounting to
change the way its students are educated. In 1984 a committee was formed to
investigate accounting education. It was revealed that many changes needed to be
enacted. The accounting curriculum had not changed in the last half century (Bedford
et al., 1986). The committee made statements such as the following:
A growing gap exists between what accountants do and what

accounting educators teach. This gap will not be closed by efforts to
update random aspects of accounting education. Rather, a complete
23
reorientation of accounting education is needed, though the direction of

this reorientation is difficult to specify clearly.
A corollary development, which will greatly influence the
emergence of a restructured accounting education, is the nationwide
interest in the improvement of higher education in all areas. (Bedford et
al., 1986)
The committee felt that accounting should be taught as a process of information
development and disclosure. The committee knew that there was no absolute way to
determine the amount and nature of the education the university should provide
society when it formed the AECC ( Bedford et al., 1986). However, the AECC
formed five goals: 1. Identify the objectives of education for accounting; 2. Foster an
environment for improvement in accounting education; 3. Promote the implementation
of accounting education improvements; 4. Reduce impediments to improvements in
accounting education; and S. Measure improvements in accounting education. To
disseminate knowledge of these goals the AECC published recommendations as
position statements in the journal “Issues in Accounting Education” describing areas
in accounting that needed improvements and change. These statments are as follows:
1. Objectives of education for accountants; 2. The first course in accounting; 3. The
importance of two year colleges for accounting education; 4. Improving the early
employent experience of accountants; 5. Evaluating and rewarding effective teaching.
The AECC initially received $4 million as seed money towards its becoming a
catalyst in making accounting education changes. The AECC initially issued grants to
six institutions: BYU, Kansas State, University of Massachusetts, University of
North Texas, Rutgers, and the University of South Carolina. Two o f the six schools
24
participated in this present study. The American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of
Business (AACSB), now the International Academy for Management Education
(IAME), was used by the AECC to encourage innovation and improvement (Bedford
etal., 1986).
Student Satisfaction
There is wide agreement that high student satisfaction is a desirable outcome
of college students’ educational experiences (Astin, 1978). The production of satisfied
students is considered beneficial by many constituencies (Franklin, 1996). Learning
institutions often view student satisfaction as a primary outcome of the educational
process (Stumpf, 1979). Students themselves find high satisfaction to be an indicator
that their college expectations were met in terms of both personal growth and the
transference of marketable skills. Governmental agencies find student satisfaction to
be an indicator of whether universities are being responsive to the needs of
undergraduate students as members of society. In a study, groups of students who
interacted with faculty in non-classroom settings showed significantly more
satisfaction than students without such interactions (Newcomb, Brown, Kulik,
Reimer, & Revelle, 1970). Satisfied students also provide faculty members with
much-needed positive feedback. Siblings of satisfied students are more likely to attend
the same school (Kotler, 1976). Student satisfaction is seen to be important as an
indicator of academic accomplishments as well as evaluation of academic programs
(Hearn, 1985). In addition, it can be considered a primary indicator of institutional
25
vitality (Hallenbeck, 1978) and institutional effectiveness (Franklin, 1996). In general,
it has been stated that deeper insight into the elements of educational quality and
process requires first a stronger set of insights into student satisfaction (Hearn, 1985).
College and universities are currently under pressure to justify their missions
and agendas (Cognetta, 1993; Okun, Kardash, Stock, Sandler, & Baumann, 1986).
Alumni who give financially to their alma mater, firms that hire students and finance
named academic chairs, state governments that provide funds for operations, and
parents whose children may attend, all seek evidence that universities are able to
attract, keep, and prepare students while providing an environment that students find
acceptable. Schools that provide such evidence are rewarded with continued support
(Stutler & Calvario, 1996). Overall, student satisfaction can be conceptualized as a
major end result of the educational process, as stated by Astin (1978):
Current discussion of the accountability or the “outputs” of higher

education frequently overlooks student satisfaction. This area covers the
student’s subjective experiences during the college years and perceptions
of the value of the educational experience. Given the considerable
investment of time and energy that most students make in attending
college, the students’ perception of value should be given substantial
weight. Indeed, it is difficult to argue that student satisfaction can be
legitimately subordinated to any other educational outcome, (p. 164)
Some studies emphasize the influence of the college setting in helping
determine student satisfaction (Lengnick-Hall & Sanders, 1997). Others focus on
student characteristics and their relationship to student satisfaction (Gregg, 1972;
Meredith, 1985; Metzelaars, 1994; Okun et al., 1986; Pennington, Zvonokovic and
Wilson, 1989). Heam (1985) gave three reasons for focusing attention on student
26
satisfaction. They were the increase of interest in whether course (actually instructor)
evaluations by students and student satisfaction may be related, the greater attention
that is paid to students’ interpretations of current experiences, and research findings
from a number of studies that indicate a relationship between student satisfaction,
academic performance, and student retention.
Satisfaction Instruments
Theory Of The Construction Of Satisfaction Instruments
Student satisfaction has been measured in a number of ways. Different
instruments have been based on varying definitions of student satisfaction, as well as
different uses for the satisfaction instrument. The assessment of student satisfaction
has involved different levels of sophistication. Some measures have used a single item,
others a few items, and still others have used statistically valid instruments together
to measure it. Yet all the research claims to be measuring the same construct.
Student satisfaction instruments have been constructed with various numbers
of items. Okun (1991) used only one item to investigate the effects of self-esteem on
college satisfaction. Chadwick and Ward (1987) also used one question to assess
whether students were satisfied enough to recommend their business schools. Other
researchers such as Bean and Bradley (1986) and Pervin and Rubin (1967) used three
items in their assessment. However, they did not give a rationale for number of items
or statistical validity evidence.
27
Student satisfaction has been measured by using the modifications of related
instruments (such as done in this research) to assess student satisfaction.
Abrahamowicz (1988) and Berdie (1944) both used portions of instruments, the
CSSQ and a job satisfaction scale respectively. Holland and Huba (1991) eliminated
items in a 90 item scale to reduce the scale to 55 items when assessing college
environment satisfaction and a college-based service project. Holland and Huba
reported a coefficient alpha of .90.
Still other researchers used information from other research endeavors to select
what is needful to be investigated for student satisfaction. Examples of this
measurement strategy are the works of Knox, Lindsay, and Kolb (1992), who used
items from the National Longitudinal Study of High School Class 1972, and Astin,
Korn, and Green (1987) who used the ACE-UCLA Cooperative Institutional
Research Program (CIRP) study, a 2- and 4-year followup survey on college students
( Dey, Astin, & Korn, 1991).
Finally there are scales specifically constructed to measure student satisfaction
that are discussed in detail below.
Instruments With Stated Psychometric Properties
A number of instruments with reliability and validity stated are used to collect
data on student satisfaction. These include the Student Opinion Survey (SOS), the
College Student Experience Questionnaire (CSEQ), the College Descriptive Index
(CDI), the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI), and the College Student Satisfaction
Questionnaire (CSSQ), which is used for this study. These instruments have in
28
common the objective of investigating the opinions and feelings of students. There is
currently no consensus on the exact nature of the major components that explain
student satisfaction (Juillerat, 1995). Therefore the above instruments will differ in
underlying philosophy of what constitutes student satisfaction, as well as in format,
content, number of questions asked, and psychometric properties.
Student Opinion Survey (SOS)
The SOS was developed by the Evaluation Survey Service Branch of the
American College Testing Corporation (ACT). It is used annually by several schools
to assess the opinions of their students regarding overall needs of the campus as well
as campus services (Huggins, 1987). This survey contains five sections: background
information, college services, college environment, locally developed items, and
comments and suggestions. All data is nationally normed except for the locally
developed items. This survey has the objective of formally determining what a group
of students think about their university. From the survey, student needs can be
prioritized and action can be taken on those needs if deemed appropriate.
In the Huggins study of 1987, the SOS was used because its questions were
deemed consistent with the goal of their study, which was to evaluate a mentor
program of the college. Previous analyses of the instrument gave scale reliabilities of
.90 to .98. Using discriminant analysis, previous studies have reported the SOS to
discriminate accurately between different schools, providing some evidence of validity
(Valiga, 1983).
29
Upon evaluation of the mentor program by the SOS, Huggins suggested the
dismantling of the program. In this study the SOS revealed a definite negative effect
on the academic performance of black students, showing a lowering of their GPA’s by
.307 after mentoring, and only a marginal positive effect on the white students
(Huggins, 1987). The results also seem to indicate that there was a bias toward
enhancing the academic performance of males more than females. Since most results
of the study were negative, it was suggested that the mentor program be altered,
abandoned, or that further research be conducted that would either support or fail to
support the study’s findings (Huggins, 1987). Had the study not been conducted, the
potentially harmful effects of the mentor program may not have ever been known.
The University of Oklahoma has annually, since 1993, used the SOS to survey
students perceptions and needs on campus. The survey complies with North Central
accreditation team recommendations. Its student satisfaction component is used by
the Oklahoma State Regents for assessment of higher education policy. The
University of Oklahoma uses data from each previous year to compare to current year
responses, in order to measure the increase or decrease in satisfaction of their
students. From an analysis of these comparisons it has been shown that in 1996 there
was a 10% increase in university school satisfaction from the previous year. Also,
satisfaction with services and satisfaction with the environment each had an inverse
relationship with the amount of time spent on campus for this analysis. In addition,
the item showing the highest correlation to university satisfaction was concern for the
student.
30
College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ)
The CSEQ was created by Indiana University’s Center of Postsecondary Research
and Planning and was reported to have scale reliabilities ranging from .79 to .90
(Bauer, 1992). It was developed to leam more about how students spend their time in
course work, in the library, in contacts with faculty, in extracurricular activities, in
various social and cultural activities, and in using other facilities and opportunities
that exist on the college campus. The questionnaire was intended to provide
information to improve the conditions that contribute to students’ learning and
development during college.
With the CSEQ, norms were developed for four types of institutions:
doctoral-granting universities, comprehensive colleges, general liberal arts colleges, and
selective liberal arts colleges (Bauer, 1992). The CSEQ is used by colleges as an
assessment of their achievements and weaknesses in areas of students’ needs, and to
determine how the school meets those needs. It has four dimensions of environment,
student involvement, student gains, and student satisfaction. This instrument may be
given every year as a record of how the school is doing in the eyes of the student
(Haggerty, 1998).
One school that uses the CSEQ annually to survey its students is Washington
State University (WSU) in Pullman, WA. The school randomly administers this late
in the spring of the year to a stratified sample of freshman students. An aggregate of
31
the mean score or a percentage score on the questionnaire’s four dimensions is
reported for comparison of WSU’s seven colleges (Haggerty, 1998).
Following is a summary of the study of the 1995-96 freshman students on
each of the four dimensions in the evaluation. On the Environment dimension,
respondents felt that WSU places a strong emphasis on academics, but the college of
engineering students felt especially strong about this. For Student Involvement,
overall the students reported their highest levels of involvement in course work,
writing skills, and with student acquaintances (i.e., meeting and interacting with varied
and diverse people). With the Student Gains dimension, engineering and architecture
students were most likely to report acquisition of the background and specialization
for further education in some professional or scholarly field. Students within the
college of business and economics were least likely to report acquiring the background
and specialization for further education. Regarding Student Satisfaction, students
from all seven colleges reported they liked college and would attend WSU again if they
had to start over. There were no significant differences between students in the seven
colleges on the Student Satisfaction dimension (Haggerty, 1998).
College Descriptive Index (CPI)
The CDI is a satisfaction instrument that was developed to be used by
researchers and practitioners in a variety of educational sittings and for a variety of
purposes. It therefore is a multipurpose measure of student satisfaction (Reed, Lahey,
and Downey, 1984).
32
The eight scales of the CDI are I) teacher/instructor (articulate, impractical),
31 items; 2) administrators (credible, inflexible), 30 items; 3) Your Self (moody,
helpful), 30 items; 4) Courses/Coursework (creative, frustrating), 23 items; 5) Parents
(realistic, self-centered), 21 items; 6) Other students (lazy, stimulating), 41 items; 7)
Noncourse Activities (tiring/exciting), 24 items; and 8) Financial Situations (broke,
secure), 11 items.
Specific emphasis was taken to develop an instrument that was reliable, valid,
and representative of the multiple dimensions of college life. The most complete
technical report information regarding a college student satisfaction instrument’s
development and psychometric properties was found on the CDI. This report gave
similar psychometric results of two studies completed two years apart (Reed et al.,
1984). After several revisions of criteria for items, the final version of the CDI has
129 items and was factor analyzed into eight scale dimensions. Alpha measures of
scale internal consistency for these scale dimensions were moderately high, ranging
from .77 to .91 in both the Reed et al. (1984) studies.
Some general conclusions from its findings were discussed in the technical
report. These conclusions were that a checklist approach can be used to measure
college student satisfaction and that satisfaction scales can have moderately high
internal consistency and may be used for research and diagnostic purposes. Also,
from analyzing a large sample it was confirmed that the CDI scales actually do
measure different aspects of student satisfaction. Although the CDI seems suitable for
measuring the level of student satisfaction, it is not designed to be helpful in providing
33
information concerning the nature or source of the feeling. Why a student is unhappy
and what to do about it cannot be directly determined from the CDI (Reed et al,
1984). Therefore the CDI cannot be used for such diagnosis.
Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI)
Schreiner and Juillerat developed the SSI instrument in 1993. The SSI assesses
the level of expectation of the student and the level of current satisfaction. The
difference between these two levels for a student is then called a “performance gap
score.” This performance gap score is a type of application of consumer satisfaction
principles to achieve data on student satisfaction (Hampton, 1993). The SSI also
collects an importance score to assess the strength of the student’s expectation and a
satisfaction score to assess the level of student satisfaction (Juillerat, 199S).
The SSI was used in a study of three groups by Stephanie Juillerat in 1995, in
which Cronbach alpha reliability estimates of .97 were obtained for the importance
score and .98 for the satisfaction score. A test-retest reliability of .85 was obtained. In
this study, more than one instrument was used to capture the satisfaction of the
students. Therefore a convergent validity for the SSI was obtained by correlating the
mean satisfaction score of the SSI with the mean satisfaction score of the CSSQ,
obtaining a moderately high correlation of .71. Construct validity of the SSI was
obtained through factor analysis, revealing 12 factors that explained 60% of the overall
variance, with the first factor accounting for 32% of the variance. Using additional
34
statistical analysis such as ANOVA and discriminant analyses, the SSI’s classification
rates of the three groups in the study ranged from fair to good.
The conclusions about student satisfaction from the Juillerat study, based on
the factor analysis of the SSI, indicated that the SSI reveals two major elements. The
first element is that the SSI indicates the level of perception of a welcoming climate by
the student. The second element is that student satisfaction occurs along campus areas
rather than along similarity of themes or social contexts. These elements suggest that
students expect an atmosphere that makes them feel important as well as competency
and efficiency in the various campus functions. The present study concentrates on
personality relationships to student satisfaction, and the additional 82 items of the
SSI were not feasible with voluntary commitments and the students’ time constraints.
College Student Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSSQ)
The present study uses the CSSQ to measure university and program
satisfaction. This instrument was constructed by Betz, Betz, and Menne in 1971 and
revised in 1989. The revised version, Form D, is the current version. This instrument
was used in many studies (e.g., Evans, 1972; Hallenbeck, 1974; Hatcher, 1975; Minor,
1972; Netusil & Hallenbeck, 1975; Sturtz, 1971; Walizer, 1973) during the first few
years of its construction. Recently, however, this instrument has been less frequently
used. It is of note that “ the CSSQ appears to be the one of the few reliable and
comprehensive measures of student satisfaction reported in the research literature
today” (Juillerat, 1995).
35
The CSSQ has as the basis of its construction the premise that student
satisfaction may be viewed as an analogue to employee satisfaction. This assumes
that employee research on job satisfaction can aid educators in their research on
students’ satisfaction. Job satisfaction has been shown to be negatively corrrelated to
job turnover (Mueller, Boyer, Price, and Iverson, 1994; Sawyer, 1992; Spector, 1991).
Starr, Betz, and Menne (1972) found similar correlations between college student
satisfaction and student withdrawal.
The creators of the CSSQ stated in Betz et al., (1989),
The development of the CSSQ was based on the premise that the
study of college student satisfaction can draw upon principles and
methods which have derived from years of research on the satisfaction
of employees in business and industry (e.g., Herzberg, Mausner,
Peterson and Copwell, 1957; Hoppock, 1935; Vroom, 1964). Job
satisfaction research has provided meaningful information for
employers seeking to understand and satisfy the needs of their
employees, in order to bring about work adjustment and greater
productivity. In the same way, a better understanding of the
satisfactions and dissatisfactions of students can lead to reasoned
change in the college environment which in turn should help students
move toward improved adjustments and a higher level of performance
in the student’s “job,” i. e. learning, (p. 5)
One researcher did provide a negative argument in regard to the construction of
the CSSQ. It was never established by Betz et al. (1971) exactly why there should be
similarities between the employer-employee and the college-student relationships
(Juillerat, 1995). Juillerat emphasized the dissimilarity between the two relationships
by stating that students pay the colleges in the college-student relationship, whereas
36
the reverse occurs in the employer-employee relationship. Despite this criticism,
Juillerat relied on the CSSQ as one of the instruments in her study.
Many studies have been done using the CSSQ that assume its validity. In
contrast to the above, most of these studies have indicated it to be an instrument that
measures what it purports to measure, or have used it with confidence. The following
are a few such studies that have been conducted using the CSSQ.
1. Staff, Betz, and Menne conducted a survey using the CSSQ on 1,968 Iowa
State University students in the school year of 1968-69. As predicted, the “non
dropouts” (i.e., formerly at-risk students whose grade point average for the previous
year had climbed to above the 2.5 level) were the most satisfied of all categories. The
“academic dropouts” (i.e., those students who were still registered but whose
cumulative grade point average for the previous year was less than 2.0) were the least
satisfied (Staff, Betz, and Menne, 1972).
2. In a study investigating how effectively student satisfaction would be
estimated by administrators versus faculty, it was found that faculty perceived
student satisfaction to be higher than that reported by students. However,
administrators estimated student satisfaction very accurately (J. A. Robertson, 1980).
This indicates that CSSQ scores may mirror accurate intuitive predictions of student
satisfaction.
3. Numerous dissertations have used the CSSQ to validate their studies such
as Juillerat, 1995; Stalnaker, 1994; Oribhabor, 1993; Segura, 1993; Evans, 1972;
37
Hallenbeck, 1974; Hatcher, 1975; Minor, 1972; Netusil & Hallenbeck, 1975; Sturtz,
1971; and Walizer, 1973.
4. Following factor analyses, the CSSQ’s factor scales supported the original
five developed scales of the instrument (Betz, Menne, Starr, and Klingensmith, 1971).
The CSSQ (Form D) that was used in the present study is a 70-item, 5-point
Likert response-type instrument that is composed of five scales with 14 items each.
The possible responses are (1) very dissatisfied; (2) somewhat dissatisfied;
(3) neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; (4) somewhat satisfied; and (5) very satisfied.
The items are item-stems in that the respondent compares the item to the appropriate
response of choice. The five scales of the CSSQ are (1) working conditions, (2)
compensation, (3) quality of education, (4) social life, and (5) recognition. These will
be discussed in depth in Chapter Three.
With regard to the reliability of the instrument, the authors report internal
reliabilities of scale estimates ranging from .78 to .84 (Betz et al., 1972). The DeVore
and Handel (1981) study reported test-retest reliabilities of the subscales ranging from
.84 to .90. The retest was performed after a seven-day lapse. The CSSQ (Form D)
was normed using a total sample of over 3000 students from public and private
universities and colleges (Betz, Betz, and Menne, 1971).
In light of the many studies that have used the CSSQ and its psychometric
properties, the CSSQ was chosen for the present study with a slight modification so
that the instrument would collect the specific program satisfaction data needed for
this study.
38
Personality
This section is divided in two parts. The first section will briefly discuss the
history of the study of personality as a field of scientific inquiry, and the types of
personality description categorization. The second section examines several of the
most common adult personality description instruments used today.
Brief History
In 1924 Dr. Gordon Allport’s course, “Personality: Its Psychological and
Social Aspects” , was perhaps the first personality course taught in the United States
(Craik, 1993). Dr. Allport needed a textbook from which to teach, and therefore
decided to write a textbook on personality. While Dr. Allport was preparing his
textbook, Dr. Ross Stagner had also sensed the absence of and need for a personality
textbook. Consequently, both Dr. Allport and Dr. Stagner independently wrote texts
on personality. In 1936 Dr. Allport completed his textbook, Personality: A
Psychological Interpretation. In 1937 Dr. Stagner’s textbook on personality was
published by McGraw-Hill. Together the two textbooks established a foundation for
the study of personality as a field of scientific inquiry in psychology (Craik, 1993).
In 1937 the study of personality could have drawn from many fields, ranging
from anthropology, biology, history, and literature to philosophy, psychoanalysis,
psychiatry, religion, and sociology (Craik, 1993). It was reasonable, then, that
Allport named his textbook as “a psychological interpretation.” Dr. Allport was also
39
struggling to establish which unit of personality should actually be studied. He
strongly contended, against the arguments of his colleagues, that individual differences
as “traits” should be studied rather than lower level or basic habits (Pervin, 1993).
Allport (1961) defined a trait as “a neural disposition that leads to motivational
aspects of behavior and guides meaningfully consistent forms of adaptive and
expressive behavior” (p. 13). Buss defined traits as “classes of single responses that
involve differences among persons” (Buss, 1989, p. 1383). Drs. Allport and Odbert
formulated a word list of human attributes to summarize and facilitate the systematic
and scientific exploration of the domain of personality traits. Utilizing their work, in
1945 Cattel began the first taxonomy of personality traits (Cattel, R. B., 1945; John,
1990). Cattel first eliminated the archaic terms from the word list. He then used
statistical factor and cluster analysis techniques to bring about the foundation for the
system of personality description that is used today (John, 1990).
Personality Description Categorization
Fundamentally, the regular and consistent behavior patterns that an individual
exhibits can collectively be called that individual’s personality (Poole, 1998). There
tend to be two approaches to personality description, traits (lexical) and type
(theoretical). The system of personality description, described above, that Cattel
brought about was an inherently lexical approach ( John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf,
1988). This view assumes that the description of personality has been encoded in the
40
natural language during the evolving of language and socialization of a people (Cattell,
1957; Goldberg, 1981; Goldberg, 1993; McCrae, Costa, & Piedmont, 1993).
The lexical approach, using traits as the fundamental personality unit,
attempts to identify dimensions of personality that are comparable across
individuals. On the other hand, the theoretical approach to personality description
uses a typology for personality description. These typologies come from
psychological theorists such as Freud, Alder, Jung, Rogers, Holland, and the
existentialists. They attempt to summarize human behavior in a theoretical
framework. By theorizing human behavior, the typology approach attempts to
examine how groups of individuals demonstrate similar configurations of traits
(Poole, 1998).
Popular Personality Measurements
Catell’s taxonomy of traits may be viewed as the beginning of the “Big Five”
model of personality trait description. Catell’s taxonomy has been utilized and
extended by many others in their investigations of personality description and is still
used today. The “Big Five” model of five dimensions of personality description,
derived from analyses of the natural language that people use to describe themselves,
is a descriptive taxonomy and is an example of the trait approach (John, 1990).
Theoretical personality categories, from the type approach, are not neatly
defined in the literature. They tend to be differences that are best represented as
discrete rather than continuous categories (Gangestad & Snyder, 1985). For instance,
41
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) uses Jungian theory. Holland’s Self-
Directed Search (SDS) uses Holland’s own theory. These are both examples of the
typology approach.
Personality Typology Instruments
Overview
Some personality instruments are based on a specific theory of personality.
There are several such personality instruments such as the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory (MMPI); 16 Personality Factors (16PF); Eyesnick Personality
Inventory; and California Psychological Inventory (CPI). This review will discuss the
development of two instruments for each descriptive approach .
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
The psychological theory of personality types of Dr. Carl Jung was
employed by Katharine C. Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers (Buros, 1974) in the
1940’s with some slight modifications in the construction and the evaluation of the
MBTI as an instrument (4th Mental Measurement Yearbook). Jung’s theory gives the
MBTI its bases of validity and must be appraised within the context of this theory.
Jungian theory deals with the basic behavior patterns of a psychologically healthy
human being. To Jung there are only two basic psychological functions: (1) the
perceptions of events and (2) the process of decision making. All mental activity is
composed of taking in information and then using that information in some way. Each
42
o f these basic functions has two ways of being manifested. The perception process is
manifested as sensing and intuition (S and N). The judgment process is manifested as
thinking and feeling (T and F). Each person uses all four of these processes but has an
innate preference for one or the other according to the attitude they have toward the
world, whether as an extrovert or introvert. Taken together the combination of a
person’s preferences in Jungian theory is the person’s pattern or type (Jackson,
1989). Myers and Briggs added another dimension to the Jungian theory: whether the
person’s preferred attitude toward the outside word is toward judgment (J) or
perception (P).
The MBTI forces the respondent to make a definite response on the
discontinuous types, revealing the person’s discrete types. The four sets of types are
thought to be bipolar with true zero points and produce 16 different types by using
the four dichotomous sets of (extrovert/introvert) El, (sensing/intuition) SN,
(thinking/feeling)TF, and (judgement/perception)JP. These letters each represent a
type that is characterized by a particular set of behaviors, skills, values, and interests
(Jackson, 1989). The respondent numerically weights one type versus the other as the
instrument is being completed. The types are then summed. The type with the most
points of two scales is the respondent’s preference as well as strength of preference.
The MBTI emphasizes the polar contrasts of attitudes and functions, the most
developed personality aspect of an individual, and the least developed, or the one not
openly expressed, which is called “the shadow” (Haygood, 1995).
43
An example of the preferences found for a fictitious person is given in the
scenario below taken from Haygood (1995).
The scenario at the college level for a particular type, say for
example, an INTJ named Marcia, might run as follows: Marcia is an
introverted (I) intuitive (N). She used T (thinking) to run her outer
life, i.e., T is what she extraverts. However, introverts extravert their
secondary auxiliary function; therefore Marcia’s best
/primary/main/strongest preference (i.e., what she feels more
comfortable doing and being) is intuition. Introverts keep their best
function for themselves; therefore Marcia’s strength is intuition.
Marcia’s energy for life (including academia) comes from quiet
reflection, long periods of solitude, thinking through things for
herself. Yet Marcia’s tertiary preference is F (feeling), and therefore
she would not be insensitive to personal relationships. She might
enjoy human contact (group activities), and she can discern human
needs and problems. But Marcia’s shadow (her fourth and last
preference) is S (sensing). That would mean that Marcia is not
always aware of what is going on around her (she’s wrapped up in
her own inner intuitive world), and that she is relatively impatient
with mere facts and information. Because Marcia is also a judging
type (J), she likes her world to be relatively organized, complete, and
planned, (p. 43)
The 4th Mental Measurements Yearbook states that evidence of the bimodal
preferences would appear to be nonexistent, and the stability of the four variable
types remaining the same, seldom exceeds 50% (Buros, 1953). This unreliable test-
retest problem was one of the reasons the MBTI was not chosen for this study.
Self-Directed Search (SDS)
John Holland developed the SDS as a vocational guidance device as well as to
determine a person’s resemblances ( Holland, 1973; Holland, 1958). The Self-Directed
Search (SDS) typology approach to a description of personality, as with the MBTI
instrument explained in the above section, has its basis rooted in a theory. The SDS
44
operationalizes John Holland’s theory of behavior, just as the MBTI expanded and
operationalized the Jungian theory of human behavior. The SDS is used by many
schools and organizations for vocational and career planning.
The Holland theory explains behavior, specifically vocational behavior, on the
premise of three major ideas. The first idea states that all people can be characterized
by six personality types: realistic (R), investigative (I), artistic (A), social (S),
enterprising (E), and conventional (C). The second idea states that the living
environments of all people can be characterized in terms of six models: realistic (R),
investigative (I), artistic (A), social (S), enterprising (E), and conventional (C). The
third idea states that the pairing of persons and environments can aid in the
understanding and prediction of personality types and environmental models
(Holland, 1973).
The Holland theory has four key working assumptions that permit the
functioning of the three main ideas. The four assumptions are as follows:
(1) In our culture, most persons can be categorized as one of six types: realistic,
investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, or conventional.
(2) There are six kinds of environments: realistic, investigative, artistic, social,
enterprising, and conventional.
(3) People search for environments that will let them exercise their skills and
abilities, express their attitudes and values, and take on agreeable problems and
roles.
45
(4) A person's behavior is determined by an interaction between his
personality and the characteristics of his environment.
There are also secondary assumptions that help explain the interactions of the main
ideas and key assumptions (Holland, 1973). The four secondary assumptions are as
follows::
(1) Consistency - Within a person or an environment, some pairs of types are
more related than others. For example the realistic-investigative are more similar to
conventional-artistic. Similarity affects preferences. For instance, the realistic-
investigative tend to be more predictable than the realistic-social.
(2) Differentiation - The definition of one person or environment may be more
clearly defined than others.
(3) Congruence - Each type prefers to be in its environment of preference.
Realistics would not prefer a social environment.
(4) Calculus - A hexagonal model of the relationships can be obtained in which
the distances between the types or environments is inversely proportional to the
theoretical relationships between them.
Each personality type is the product of interactions between a variety of
cultural and personal forces and the physical environment. Each environment model
mostly contains a particular personality type. Each environment poses its own
special problems and stresses. It is possible for a personality pattern to be consistent
or inconsistent, depending on whether the related elements have characteristics in
common or not. Therefore a number of combinations of the coded letter types may be
46
obtained or defined from a Vocational Preference Inventory, the SDS or the person's
current occupation's letter code found in the occupational guide book.
The SDS is self-scored and scores are compared to the guide. The Holland
types, after the summing of the scores of the administered instrument, are the letters
with the largest sums and become the person’s personality pattern or profile. The
coded three letters of C-R-S are for the accounting occupation. This person tends to
be conventional, realistic, and sociable (Holland, 1973).
Theoretical SDS Examples
An occupational example and description of behaviors for each of Holland’s
six personality types follow in order to exemplify the pairing and workings of
Holland’s behavioral types. All individuals are a mixture of these theoretical
combinations.
The realistic type (e.g.. the mechanic).
The heredity and experiences of this person’s type tend to make him or her
prefer activities that are ordered and explicit, with the need to manipulate objects such
as tools, machines, and animals while avoiding educational or therapeutic activities. In
turn, exercising these preferred activities causes one to be more proficient in manual,
mechanical, agricultural, electrical, and technical competencies to the detriment of not
increasing the social and educational competencies. Developing this realistic pattern
with its particular competencies and interests causes a person to be predisposed to
demonstrate behaviors preferable to a craftsperson and avoid social type situations or
47
occupations, to use realistic competencies to solve problems, to perceive oneself to
possess mechanical/athletic abilities rather than human skills, and to value concrete
things or tangible personal characteristics such as status, money, or power (Holland,
1973). Holland states that given the person possesses these preferences and
competencies he or she will demonstrate himself or herself as
Asocial (shy), Conforming, Frank, Genuine, Masculine, Materialistic,

Natural, Normal, Persistent, Practical, Self-effacing, Stable, Thrifty,
Uninsightful, Uninvolved. (Holland, 1973, p. 14)
The investigative type (e.g., the physicist).
The heredity and experiences of this person’s type tend to make him or her
prefer activities that demand systematic, observational, and creative investigation of
physical, biological, and cultural phenomena in order to understand and control these
phenomena. This type tends to avoid social, persuasive, and repetitive activities.
Exercising these preferred activities tends to cause a person to be knowledgeable in
scientific and mathematical competencies to the detriment of persuasive
competencies. Developing this investigative pattern with its particular competencies
and interests causes a person to be predisposed to demonstrate behaviors that show a
preference to investigative occupations and showing tendencies to avoid enterprising
occupations or situations, use investigative competencies to solve problems, perceive
oneself to be a scholar, be intellectually self-confident but lacking in leadership ability,
and value science (Holland, 1973). Holland states that given that the person possesses
these preferences and competencies, he or she will demonstrate himself or herself as
48
Analytical, Cautious, Critical, Curious, Independent, Intellectual,

Introspective, Introverted, Methodical, Passive, Pessimistic, Precise,
Rational, Reserved, Unassuming, Unpopular. (Holland, 1973, p. IS)
The artistic type (e.g.. the writer).
The heredity and experiences of this person’s type tend to make this person
prefer activities that are ambiguous, free, and unsystematized, and that demand the
manipulation of the physical, verbal, or human material for the creation of art forms or
products. This type tends to avoid systematic, explicit, ordered activities. Exercising
these preferred activities causes him to acquire artistic competencies in language, art,
and music to the detriment of clerical or business system competencies. Developing
this artistic pattern with its particular competencies and interests causes a person to
be predisposed to demonstrate behaviors preferable to artistic occupations or
situations, to use artistic competencies to solve problems, to perceive oneself as
expressive, original, intuitive, feminine, nonconforming, introspective, independent,
disorderly, and having artistic and musical ability, and to value esthetic qualities
(Holland, 1973). Holland states that given that the person possesses these preferences
and competencies he or she will demonstrate himself or herself as
Complicated, Disorderly, Emotional, Feminine, Idealistic, Imaginative,

Impractical, Impulsive, Independent, Introspective, Intuitive,
Noncomforming and Original. (Holland, 1973, p. 16)
The social type (e.g., the counselor).
The heredity and experiences of this person’s type tend to make this person
prefer activities that attempt to manipulate others by informing, training, developing,
curing, or enlightening them. This type tends to avoid systematic, ordered, or explicit
49
activities involving materials, tools, or machines. The exercising of these preferred
activities develops human relations competencies, to the detriment of technical and
manual competencies. Developing this social pattern with its particular competencies
and interests causes a person to prefer social situations and occupations, avoid
realistic situations or occupations, use social competencies to solve problems,
perceive himself or herself to understand others, have teaching abilities, enjoy helping
others and to value social and ethical activities (Holland, 1973). Holland states that
given that the person possesses these preferences and competencies he or she will
demonstrate himself as:
Ascendant, Cooperative, Feminine, Friendly, Generous, Helpful,

Idealistic, Insightful, Kind, Persuasive, Responsible, Sociable, Tactful,
and Understanding. (Holland, 1973, p. 16)
The enterprising type (e.g.. the salesman).
The heredity and experiences of this person’s type tend to make him prefer to
manipulate others for economic gains or to attain organizational goals. This type
avoids systematic or symbolic activities. Exercising these preferred activities causes
the person to develop interpersonal, persuasive, and leadership competencies to the
detriment of scientific competencies. Developing this enterprising pattern with its
particular competencies and interests causes a person to prefer enterprising situations
and occupations, avoid investigative situations or occupations, use enterprising
competencies to solve problems, and perceive oneself to be aggressive, popular, self-
confident, sociable, possessing leadership and speaking abilities rather than scientific
abilities, and to value economic and political achievement (Holland, 1973). Holland
50
states that given the person possesses these preferences and competencies he or she
will demonstrate himself or herself as
Acquisitive, Adventurous, Ambitious, Argumentative, Dependent, Domineering,

Energetic, Exhibitionistic, Flirtatious, Impulsive, Optimistic, Pleasure-seeking, Self-
confident, Social, and Talkative. (Holland, 1973, p. 17)
The conventional type (e.g., the accountant).
The heredity and experiences of this person's type tend to make this person
prefer ordered and explicit activities. These involve manipulation of data and keeping
records. However, ambiguous, exploratory, free or unsystematic activities are avoided
by this person’s type. Exercising these preferred activities causes such individuals to
acquire clerical and business system competencies, to the detriment of gaining artistic
competencies. Developing this conventional pattern with its particular competencies
and interests causes a person to prefer conventional situations and occupations and
avoid artistic type situations or occupations, to use conventional competencies to
solve problems, and to perceive himself or herself as orderly, conforming, having
numerical and clerical abilities and valuing economic and business achievement
(Holland, 1973). Holland states that if the person possesses these preferences and
competencies, he or she will demonstrate himself or herself as
Conforming, Conscientious, Defensive, Efficient, Inflexible, Inhibited,

Obedient, Persistent, Practical, Prudish, Self-controlled (calm), and
Unimaginative. (Holland, 1973, p. 18)
The instructions for administration and the actual scoring of the SDS takes
about one hour per individual, including self-scoring. Given practical limitations, the
SDS was too time consuming to be selected for this study.
51
Distinctions Between Typology and Trait Instruments
The two approaches to the description of personality behavior may be
viewed analogously to the two ways of explaining the same phenomena (McCrae,
1989). For example, one might explain a glass as being half empty vs. a glass being
half full of its contents, or express an internal vs. an external view of a phenomenon.
The typology approach tends to endeavor to explain the description of personality as
an expression of the psychological, or inside/out, workings of the individual
(Haygood, 1995). The trait approach tends to endeavor to explain the description of
personality behavior with respect to the observer toward the observed, or from the
outside/in (Hampson, 1989). The trait approach tends to reveal personality features
that have been encoded in trait terms in the natural language. By decoding these terms,
the basic description of personality can be revealed (McCrae and John, 1992).
Another study demonstrating the similarities of the two personality
description approaches was McCrae (1989), which used a joint factor analysis of the
NEO-PI and the MBTI. The joint factored solution revealed that the MBTI scales
corresponded to all of the five factored scales of the NEO-PI, with high loadings on
each except no loading on the neuroticism scale. The joint factoring of the MBTI
scales revealed that El (Introversion) loaded -.91 on Extroversion; SN (Intuition)
loaded .89 on Openness; TF (Feeling) loaded .79 on Agreeableness; and JP
(Perception) loaded -.75 on Conscientiousness (McCrae, 1989).
McCrae also demonstrated, through joint factor analysis, the recovering of the
five factors from other personality instruments by using the typology approach.
52
These include Block’s California Q-Set (CQS, 1961) and the Guilford-Zimmerman
Temperament Survey (GZTS, McCrae, 1989). McCrae showed that the GZTS scales
can be both traced back to the natural language (similar to scales using the trait
approach) and connected by theory (similar to scales using the typology approach).
In another study, the same five factors were still replicated after the
instruments were translated and administered in German, Dutch, Japanese, and
Spanish. This led researchers to conclude that these factors are fundamental
dimensions of personality structure (McCrae and John, 1992). The five-factor model
has been demonstrated to be a bona fide structure of personality. However, it should
not be concluded that the five factors cover all aspects of personality. The five-factor
model can be used as a definitive framework for personality psychologists and
researchers toward organizing a guide to the comprehensive assessment of individuals
(McCrae and John, 1992). “The Five Factor Model will not replace them (other
personality instruments such as the MBTI and GZTS), but it can provide a universal
descriptive framework that complements their unique perspective on personality”
(McCrae, 1989).
Personality Trait Instruments (Five-Factor Model)
In the above sections the typology approach to the description of personality
was discussed. Both the MBTI and the SDS are based on a psychological theory. The
MBTI is based on Jungian theory and the SDS is based on Holland’s theory. The
53
subsequent discussion on the trait approach to a description of personality is
atheoretical, or not theory based.
The basic framework for the trait approach does not originate from a
psychological theory. One of the major criticisms to this approach is the fact that it is
not grounded in theory. Trait theory, though, has shown replicable attributes from
studies despite its not being grounded in a psychological theory (McCrae, 1989;
McCrae, & Costa, 1997). The NEO-PI and BFI-44, to be discussed in this section, are
examples of instruments using the concept of trait theory, specifically the five-factor
model of trait theory. These replicable attributes have been popularly named “The
Big Five.” This is due to five factors being repeatedly the factored solution of many
studies (Borgatta, 1964; Digman and Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Fiske, 1949; Norman,
1963; Tupes and Cristal, 1961).
NEO-PI factors from self-reports, spouse ratings, and mean peer ratings
were factored. Each of the five factors is defined by the same trait
dimension in all three methods of measurement, as the salient loadings
clearly show. Such findings demonstrate that personality traits are not
cognitive fictions within the heads of raters, but are consensually-
validated psychological facts. (McCrae, 1989, p. 239)
Overview
The Big Five Dimensions
Explanations of the Big Five are given in Benet-Martinez and John (1998) as
follows. These explanations are given in the order that they are generally written, as
Factors I-V.
Extraversion summarizes traits related to activity and energy,

dominance, sociability, expressiveness, and positive emotions.
54
Agreeableness contrasts a prosocial orientation toward others with

antagonism and includes traits such as altruism, tendermindedness,
trust, and modesty. Conscientiousness describes goal-directed
behavior. Neuroticism contrasts emotional stability with a broad range
of negative affects, including anxiety, sadness, irritability, and nervous
tension. Openness describes the breadth, depth, and complexity of an I
ndividual’s mental and experiential life. (Benet-Martinez and John,
1998, p. 730)
For the five factors, the acronym OCEAN has been coined by using the first
letter of each factor: (0) Openness; (C) Conscientiousness; (E) Extroversion; (A)
Agreeableness and (N) Neuroticism. This facilitates easy remembrance of the factor
names. The general ordering of Factors I-V in terms of the number of words found in
the English language to describe that factor, is E-A-C-N-O, in descending order
(McCrae and John, 1992). The five-factor model is used as a description of
personality behavior at its basic level of abstraction (John, 1989; John, Hampson, and
Goldberg 1991).
An Expanded Explanation of Each of the Big Five Dimensions
Neuroticism (N).
The term “Neuroticism” includes a broad dimension of individual differences
demonstrating the tendency to experience negative, distressing emotions and to
possess associated behavioral and cognitive traits (Costa and McCrae, 1987).
Neuroticism is often associated with unhealthy physiological experiences or disease,
and analysis o f the mortality literature by Costa and McCrae supports this
connection. Neuroticism, the factor, subsumes such traits as perceived stress and
55
subjective adequacy of social support, which may cause a bias toward Neuroticism
influencing disease because of this intimate association (Costa and McCrae, 1987).
Neuroticism has also been labeled Negative Affectivity since other traits it
subsumes are fearfulness, irritability, low self-esteem, social anxiety, poor inhibition
of impulses, and helplessness (Watson and Clark, 1984). An individual high on
Neuroticism would have a tendency to experience fear, anger, sadness, and
embarrassment; would be unable to control cravings and urges; and would feel unable
to cope with stress (Costa and McCrae, 1987).
Extraversion (E).
Extraversion can be labeled Positive Affectivity, using the same rationale by
which Neuroticism has been labeled Negative Affectivity. Extraversion is related to
sociability, tempo, and vigor and is more closely associated to the term Happiness
(Costa and McCrae, 1980). Together, although working independently, the balance of
Extraversion and Neuroticism in a person’s make-up influences that person’s
perception of morale and hopefulness and affects mental balance (Costa and McCrae,
1980). How happy a person feels is partly determined by his or her personal balance
of Extraversion and Neuroticism (Costa and McCrae, 1980).
Openness to Experience (O).
Openness to Experience may be the most difficult of the five traits to define
(McCrae and John, 1992). Studies have interpreted Openness to Experience by using
such terms as “imaginative”, and “perceptive” (Fiske, 1949; Hogan, 1986; Digman,
1990). Other studies have found broader concepts included in Openness to
56
Experience. These include differentiated emotions, aesthetic sensitivity, need for
variety, and unconventional values (Coan, 1974; Rokeach, 1960; Rogers, 1961). The
natural language also presents a problem since there is no single English word meaning
“sensitive to art and beauty” (McCrae, 1990). Structurally, Openness to Experience
seems to represent the depth, scope, and permeability of consciousness.
Motivationally, it represents concepts such as the need for variety and experience.
Agreeableness (A).
Agreeableness subsumes a number of traits that make it, also, difficult to
define and label. In fact, some researchers feel that a term other than agreeableness
should be used to depict these profound traits. This is explained by the following
quote from Digman (1990):
Agreeableness... seems tepid for a dimension that appears to involve

the more humane aspects of humanity-characteristics such as altruism,
nurturance, caring, and emotional support at the one end of the
dimension, and hostility, indifference to others, self-centeredness,
spitefulness, and jealousy at the other. ( pp. 422-424)
Given the many social traits embodied in Agreeableness, there have been
studies that have termed it “prosocial tendency” and attempted to demonstrate its
influence on social behaviors and school adjustment (Graziano and Eisenberg, 1997).
Conscientiousness (C).
Since all of the Big Five Factors are constructs on a continuum, their
delineations tend to be inherently ambiguous. Conscientiousness is no exception.
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness are both classic dimensions of character. They
tend to describe “good” versus “evil” and “strong-willed” versus “weak-willed”
57
individuals (McCrae and John, 1992). Also, it is easily perceived that some people are
thorough, neat, well-organized, diligent, and achievement oriented, whereas others are
not. Conscientiousness attempts to encapsulate these traits. “Conscientious" is a
proper term for this domain because it can mean governed by conscience, diligence,
and thoroughness.
Neuroticism, Extraversion and Openness Personality Inventory (NEO-PI)
The NEO-PI was originally created to capture only the three factors of
Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), and Openness to Experience (O). It was later
revised to capture all five factors, and therefore its name was changed to NEO-PI-R,
with “R” standing for Revised ( Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991). Five-factor structures
are currently the dominant model being used in personality description (Digman,
1990; Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Goldberg, 1990; John, 1990; McCrae, 1989;
Norman, 1963; Peabody & Goldberg, 1989). The NEO-PI was developed in 1985 by
Costa and McCrae to measure the Big Five Factors. Six facet scales were also
developed for N, E, and O.
NEO-PI-R Facet Scales
Each dimension of the Big Five subsumes several characteristics. This makes it
possible for each dimension to be divided into subdimensions, or facets. In addition to
facet scales for N, E and O, facet scales were developed for A and C as well. Table 2
gives these facets.
58
TABLE 2
NEO-PI-R Facet Scales
Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Aggreablesness Conscientiousness

Anxiety Warmth Fantasy Trust Competence
Anger Gregariousness Aesthetics Straightforwardness Order

Hostilty
Depression Assertiveness Feelings Altruism Dutifulness
Self- Excitement Actions Compliance Achievement

consciousness Seeking Striving
Impulsiveness Activity Ideas Modesty Self-discipline
Vulnerability Positive Values Tender-mindedness Deliberation

Emotion
NEO-PI-R Items and Reliabilities
Coefficient alphas for the Big Five scales ranged from .78 to .91, and from .52
to .79 for the facet scales. The NEO-PI contains 181 items (Costa, & McCrae, 1985).
Since its expansion to the NEO-PI-R, it contains 240.
Actual questionnaire items from each given dimension are dispersed
throughout the instrument. Examples of items to measure each domain are as follows
I have never literally jumped for joy.(E)
I really like most people I meet (A)
59
I rarely feel lonely or blue. (N)
I’m pretty good about pacing myself so as to get things done on time. (C)
I am sometimes completely absorbed in music I am listening to. (O)
The responses are scored on a 5 point-Likert scale, from strongly disagree to strongly
agree (Costa and McCrae, 1995).
Big Five Inventory (BFI-44)
BFI-44 Items and Reliabilities
The BFI-44 was created in 1991 by Dr. Oliver John, with the purpose of
measuring the Big Five Factors quickly and easily. Therefore the number of items is
reduced to 44, while the size of reliabilities for factors is retained. For one BFI-44
sample, the coefficient alphas of the Big Five Factors ranged from .83 to .88, in
comparison to the NEO alphas of .70 to .87 (John, Donahue, and Kentle, 1991). The
BFI-44 has been used in several studies to utilize its ability to demonstrate
personality structure description (Benet-Martinez and John, 1998; Benet-Martinez
and Waller, 1997; John, Donahue, and Kentle, 1991).
Properties of the BFI-44 have been shown to be retained across many other
languages and cultures, including several Spanish-speaking cultures.This was
demonstsrated in a cross-cultural study using both English and Spanish versions of
the BFI. The Spanish-speaking cultures included in this study were college students in
Spain, college-educated Hispanic bilinguals, and a Hispanic noncollege sample (Benet-
Martinez and John, 1998). These studies have been used to empirically validate the
60
five-factor model. They have established it as a description of personality that is
viable and effective across languages, cultures, and ethnic groups. In US and Canadian
samples the reliabilities of the BFI-44 scales typically range from .75 to .90 (Benet-
Martinez and John, 1998).
Examples of items from the BFI-44 for the Big Five Factors are as follows:
Is full of Energy (E)
Is helpful and unselfish with others (A)
Can be somewhat careless (C)
Is relaxed, handles stress well (N)
Is curious about many different things (O)
The responses are scored on a 5-point Likert scale that ranges from strongly
disagree to strongly agree. Some items are reversed (John, Donahue, and Kentle,
1991).
Illustrative Accounting Student Profile
In the opinion of the researcher, a Big Five example profile for a typical
accounting student might be described as follows. (This Illustrative Accounting
Student Profile will be referenced to as a student name “TAS,” Typical Accounting
Student, for result purposes).
Openness
The student would probably reach mid-way on the scale for openness, not
tending to be too creative and generally wanting things to be spelled out in terms of
61
how things function. The student tends to be more of a concrete thinker, wanting to
place things into real terms.
Conscientiousness
The student would be rather high on this scale. Most accounting students
know that to be a good accountant, one needs to explain accounting facts and be
meticulous to represent the facts fairly. Accountants tend to be diligent in their
studies, and tenacious and complete in their work. They will be patient enough to
study the facts and be meticulous enough to understand the amounts spent on
projects.
Extraversion
The student would be high on this scale also. When necessary, the student can
provide a high level of energy to perform demanding tasks or to become highly
involved to meet complex requirements.
Agreeableness
The student would probably be low to midway on this scale. Having a
propensity to become highly involved in things and objects, the student tends not to
be socially engaging.
Neuroticism
The student would be low on this scale, with the tendency to be emotionally
stable, focused and directed in purpose.
62
Personality Research in the Accounting Literature
Personality instruments have been used to measure and describe the personality
of accounting students. Findings from these studies could have implications for
implementing changes suggested by the AECC for accounting education, since
pressures from the profession have caused pressures on accounting educators (Wolk &
Nikolai, 1997).
The one most common personality instrument used in the accounting literature
is the Myers-Briggs Typology Indicator (MBTI). The MBTI has been used to place
new employees in positions most comfortable for their personality types, to investigate
the personality types of accountants and accounting students, to investigate the
relationships of the personality of accounting students and their learning style, and to
compare students’ and faculty’s personalities on teaching modalities and learning
styles. (Booth & Winzar, 1993; Otts, Mann & Moores, 1990; Wolk & Nikolai, 1997).
The following paragraphs summarize some of the findings using the MBTI in the
accounting literature.
Research using the MBTI has consistently found the accountants and
accounting students to be of the ISJT personality type, which indicates that the person
is described as the introvert, sensing, judging, and thinking MBTI type. The Wolk and
Nikolai study of 1997 reports that the ISJT was indeed the combination of
characteristics needed for the traditional accountant of some years past, but now the
emphasis is on an accountant having innovative qualities and strong interpersonal
competencies. Wolk and Nikolai compared the personality types of accounting students
to accounting faculty to better understand whether there was a difference in the
propensity of the faculty to teach one way but for students to prefer to learn another
way. It was found that undergraduate students and faculty are different. Students
tended to want to learn differently than the teachers’ preferred teaching style.
63
In a study by Ott, Mann, and Moore, (1990), there was found a significant
interaction between the personality variables of the MBTI (Sensing-Intuitive-Thinking-
Feeling) and the method of instruction. The sensing type performed better in a lecture-
type method rather than Computer Aided Instruction (CAI). On the other hand the
Intuitive typed performed better in CAI. The implication of the results given by this
study is that students have different basic learning styles and that teachers should vary
their teaching styles to reach the broad spectrum of learning styles of the students. A
study by Booth and Winzar (1993) also found evidence of there being a distinct bias of
accounting students for different learning style preferences.
Since prior research has indicated a relationship between the congruence of

student faculty personality types and student performance, Wolk and Nikolai (1997)
compared the personality from MBTI data results of graduate students, undergraduate
students, and faculty. Undergraduate students were significantly different from
graduate students, but there was no significant difference on the MBTI components.
Scott, Tassin, and Posey (1998) did a study using the MBTI on high school
students to attempt to answer the question of when do accounting students obtain the
skills needed by corporations. A stepwise discriminant function and MANOVA were
used to analyze such variables as grades, courses, drama, music, science, career plans,
cultural diversity, and math deficiencies. There was found a significant difference
between the potential of accounting majors and non-business students. However, there
was not a significant difference between accounting students and other business
students. This study also addressed the question of whether there was a difference in
the skills asked of the accounting profession and students deciding to major in
accounting. The study concluded that the accounting majors did possess the skills,
broad general knowledge base, intellectual (problem-solving skills) and personal

capacity for creative thinking, integrity, and motivation.
64
Personality and Satisfaction
Personality variables are being used in many research endeavors. Particularly,
since there is now consensus that Big Five dimensions do in fact describe an
individual’s personality, increased use of personality variables is being seen in studies.
These studies use personality variables to assist as empirical cornerstones upon
which to build theories (Ones and Viswesvaran, 1996).
Meta-analytic studies have demonstrated substantial validities for certain
personality variables, some of which have been found to generalize across settings.
With a construct-oriented approach, meta-analysis has revealed meaningful
relationships between personality variables and job performance (Ones and
Viswesvaran, 1996; Salgado, 1997). These studies and others have led to greater
readiness among researchers to use personality variables in personnel selection (Ones
and Viswesvaran, 1996), in the prediction of performance in graduate business school
(Rothstein, Paunonen, Rush, and King 1994), and in employee absenteeism (Judge,
Martocchio, and Thoresen, 1997).
Greater use is also being made of personality variables in research involving
subjective well-being, or satisfaction (Armstead, 1996). The following paragraphs will
discuss studies that combine research on personality and satisfaction.
Brasil (1994) studied the relationship between life satisfaction and self
discrepancy in the study “Big Five Personality Dimensions for Women.” In this
study 21 female subjects were studied to compare their level of life satisfaction
65
measured by the Berkeley Personality Profile with that from the Berkeley Life
Satisfaction Measure. The results of the study revealed a significant negative
correlation between ideal and actual self-discrepancy and general life satisfaction. The
study defined the Big Five dimensions of personality as styles; expression style
(Extraversion), interpersonal style (Agreeableness), work style (Conscientiousness),
emotional style (Neuroticism versus emotional stability), and intellectual style
(Openness to Experience). There was a significant negative correlation between ideal
and actual self-discrepancy and general life satisfaction (r = -.63, p < .01). Of the Big
Five dimensions, only one, Conscientiousness, had a significant correlation (negative)
with the life satisfaction measure. The researchers explained this finding as a result of
the fact that the subjects were college students, who would be primarily concerned
with work style due to their school assignments.
In 1996 Armstead conducted a study of 81 college students to investigate the
relationship between subjective well-being (satisfaction) and three models. These were
the life event model, the personality disposition model and an integration of the two
models. Results of the study revealed that positive affect (Extraversion) and negative
affect (Neuroticism) were independent of each other. Life satisfaction was related to
subject well-being. Both life events and personality disposition were found to be
important in the integrative model of subject well-being and adjustment.
As far back as 1980, though, Costa and McCrae reported three studies that
examined the relationship between personality and happiness or subject well-being.
This study argued as follows.
66
(a) one set of traits influences positive affect or satisfaction, whereas a

different set of traits influences negative affect or dissatisfaction; (b) the
former set of traits can be viewed as components of extraversion, and the
latter as components of neuroticism; and (c) personality differences
antedate and predict differences in happiness over a period of 10 years,
thus ruling out the rival hypothesis that temporary moods or states
account for the observed relations. (Costa and McCrae, 1980, p. 668)
Marital distress has been consistently predicted by neuroticism, which is
stated as the tendency to experience negative affect (Kamey & Bradbury, 1995).
Marital satisfaction is often associated with dysfunctional marital attributions, but it
probably is the reflection of a global negativism of negative affectivity as found in a
study by Bradbury and Fincham (1990).
Studies on college student satisfaction and personality include an interactive
study of 68 students by Robinson (1986), where the Personal Support System
Survey (Robinson, 1986), the Tennessee Self Concept Scale (Fitts, 1965) and the
CSSQ were administered. The results revealed a positive relationship between college
satisfaction, self-concept, and support, and also revealed that college satisfaction
covaried as a function of personal support and self-esteem.
In an investigation of 50 Princeton University students by Pervin and Rubin
(1967), student attrition and reported nonacademic dissatisfaction were found to be
significantly related to discrepancies between students’ perceptions of self and the
college. The results of an extensive study by Pervin in 1967 with over 3000 college
students consistently found a relationship between student dissatisfaction and a high
number of these discrepancies (Pervin and Rubin, 1967; Pervin 1967).
67
As noted above, there have been many studies using personality or a facet or
construct of personality to investigate the relationship between personality and
satisfaction. However, this researcher did not find a study using a comprehensive
personality instrument such as the BFI-44 in the accounting literature that
investigated this relationship, or any relationships, with accounting students. To fill
this void in the literature, this study will use a Big Five personality instrument, the
BFI-44, to investigate the relationship between personality and accounting
students’ satisfaction with their accounting program.
Anticipated Findings Matrix Support

Most studies in the literature do not use instruments with five subscales of
satisfaction. They generally compare one facet or dimension of satisfaction, such as job
satisfaction, or a global satisfaction with personality traits or attitudes. Therefore the

studies summarized below are an effort to demonstrate what components of the
relationships of personality and satisfaction have been empirically tested. Since CSSQ
uses five subscales of satisfaction each study will be labeled as to which subscale
relationship is being shown in an effort to show how the literature supports the
anticipated findings matrix of the researcher. Only articles that use a Big Five
personality instrument will be discussed. The CSSQ instrument was grounded in the
employee-employer framework; therefore, literature pertaining to job satisfaction was

explored to find support for the anticipated finding matrix. The employee-employer
relationship is also used because the field of business researches these relationships
heavily. Using the subscales of CSSQ and BFI-44 as headings the following studies
exemplify the research work that has been done with personality as relating to
satisfaction.
68
Social Life as Related to Extraversion and Social Life as Related to Agreeableness

The article “How Franchise Job Satisfaction and Personality Affects
Performance, Organizational Commitment, Franchisor Relations, and Intention to

Remain” by Morrison (1997) investigates how the attitudes of franchisors toward their
work effect their decision-making. Job satisfaction is extensively studied to better

understand the variables it effects and the consequences of the effect. This article
concentrates on the small business. Previous research in the franchise literature mainly
studied large organization employees, but there may be great benefits to having job-
satisfied small business franchisees.
The Morrison study’s main purpose was to empirically investigate the
relationship between franchisee job satisfaction and the possible consequence to

performance, organizational commitment, congenial franchisor relations, and the
intention to remain in the franchise business. The second purpose of the study was to
investigate the relationship of several personality dimensions with the performance of
the franchisee and the franchisor relations. This article states that personality factors as
predictors of job performance can now be studied more specifically due to the
development of the five-factor-model structure of personality.
Morrison’s study did not find a relationship between job performance and
Conscientiousness and Agreeableness contrary to Barrick and Mount’s (1991).

Morrison suggested that types of occupations may be influential in whether or not a
relationship between Conscientiousness and Agreeableness would be found with job
performance. Further research would need to be done in this area for more
comprehensive results for all occupations
In Morrison’s study there was a significant relationship (r=.23; p< .001)

between Extraversion and franchisee performance. Neuroticism was significantly
related with organizational commitment (r=-.22; p< .001). Agreeableness was
69
significantly related (r=-.24; p< .001) suggesting “that franchisees “[who]”tend to be

sincere, cooperative, and considerate of others, and believe that others are honest and
trustworthy, may have more congenial relations with their franchisor” (pg. SI).
The regression results revealed that franchisee job satisfaction and
organizational commitment explained 45% of the variance of the dependent measure

(F=120.07; p< .001; n = 301). This suggests that franchisees whose expectations and
actual franchise experiences are similar will be more inclined to remain as franchisees.
Working Conditions as Related to Openness

The article “Voicing By Adapting and Innovating Employees: An Empirical
Study on How Personality and Environment Interact to Affect Voice Behavior” by
Janssen, Vries, and Cozijnsen (1998) is an article of the jobinsatisfaction literature that
can be compared to student satisfaction in regards to the similarities of the way
employees react to the functioning of the organization and to how students react to the
classroom and learning. The ideas of employees are crucial to solving work-related
problems to bringing about effective organizational functioning. “Employees input can
play a key role in personnel and operational decisions, as well as alert managers to
areas of needed change and adjustment in organizational policy and strategy” (Glauser,
1984, p. 614).
Voice in this article is similar to students giving their ideas about the classroom
situation or just leaving the school setting because they do not feel that they fit in or that
they will not be heard and can not learn under those circumstances. Janssen et al.’s
(1998) analysis found that their context variable of supervisor as voice manager was
positively related to employee likelihood to voice conventional ideas (r - .21, p< .05),
while work satisfaction was negatively related to employee likelihood to voice novel
ideas (r = -.25, p< .01).
70
Recognition as Related to Extraversion
Morrison (1996) examines the effects of personality on subject well-being and

job characteristics on job satisfaction. Job satisfaction has been shown to be related to
various aspects of the non-work satisfaction such as life, family, and self-satisfaction.
All the respondents in this article were franchisees operating a current franchise
arrangement in the U. S. in the industry of restaurant, business aids, auto products and
services, or non-food retailing.
Job satisfaction for franchisees is important from a practical standpoint since the
success and attractiveness of the position may indeed be determined by the harmonious
work attitudes of the franchisee. This article, similar to the researcher’s study, is the
only study to date investigating a topic with a Big Five instrument on franchising of
small businesses. The structuring of the Big Five has made studying personality
relationships with a form of satisfaction a reality.
In Morrison’s (1996) article the most common source of franchisee
dissatisfaction was poor financial return, lack of financial support, and unfulfilled
expectations. Morrison gave her participants a five-factor-model instrument called the
NEO-FFI. She compared the means of the manual to the mean scores of the franchisee.
On Neuroticism they were slightly less-than average; on Extraversion higher than

average; Openness was slightly less-than average; Agreeableness was average;
Conscientiousness slightly higher than average. Her interpretation of their scores was
as follows:
The personality profile of franchisees as a group suggests that they tend to

enjoy social interaction, have a relatively high need for achievement, are
generally able to cooperate with others, have a slightly better than average
ability to deal with stress, trend to seek out the familiar and not exhibit a strong
desire for creativity, and tend to be less satisfied with their lives than the
average person. These Endings lend support to research which has profiled the
typical franchisee as having a moderate Type “A” orientation. (Morrison, 1996,
p. 32)
The satisfaction scores revealed low to moderate job satisfaction, indicating that
the franchisees were not satisfied with their occupation. The regression model used by
71
Morrison included job characteristic factors as well as personality dimensions and
therefore it had a R2 of .5, indicating that the model explained 50% of the variance in
the dependent variable.
Working Conditions as Related to Conscientiousness and Compensation as Related to

Conscientiousness
Bogg and Cooper (1995) summarize articles that state that in a job setting the
conscientiousness of a person can be effected by the working conditions of the
organization. This effect has been such that some researchers like Frankel and Manners
(1980) proposed a “psychological type,” a person actually more suited for
governmental work; such individuals are inclined to stay in government work

regardless of the stresses and strains associated with their job. In one study Smith and
Nock (1980) found white collar public sector employees more dissatisfied than their
private sector counterparts with the quality of their work life. Conscientiousness here is
operationalized as Type A personality behavior-hard driving, persistent, involved in

his/her work, and possessing an enhanced sense of time urgency, especially to work
deadlines.
Bogg and Cooper’s 1995 study had 1051 senior civil servants and 1056 senior
executives in private industry complete surveys to investigate which job stressors and
individual difference variables may predict job dissatisfaction. The t-test for unrelated
samples on the comparison between senior civil servants and private sector executives
revealed that civil servants suffered negative stress outcomes to a greater extent than the
senior executives in the private sector. Also the civil servants showed greater job
dissatisfaction than managers in private industry.
In contrast, executives in private industry reported more sources of job stress
(e.g., their management role, relationship at work, etc.) whereas the senior civil
servants perceived more stress from intrinsic factors of their particular job. The
72
personality type characteristics of the two groups were very different with the civil
servants showing less Type A behavior and more external locus of control.
Relating personality to job conditions was investigated using multivariate
analysis. Further research needs to be done in this area but the study suggested that job
dissatisfaction could be predicted by organizational climate. The personality factors

seemed more predominate in the outcome equation such as mental and physical ill
health.
Neuroticism as Related to Satisfaction

In an article “Police Stress and Well-Being: Integrating Personality, Coping and
Daily Work Experience” by Hart, Wearing, & Headey (1995), a type of satisfaction
was termed a person’s “well-being”. This study was conducted to measure the work-
related factors that contribute to a police officer’s psychological well-being. The
instrument Perceived Quality of Life (PQL) was used. The PQL measures the
relationship between a police officer’s personality and coping processes with the police
officer’s positive (beneficial to well-being) and negative (harmful to well being) job
experiences. The personality dimensions of Extraversion and Neuroticism were the

strongest in predicting the officer’s PQL, use of coping strategies and psychological
well-being.
Just as accountants are stereotyped so are police officers and their work. A
police officer’s work seems inherently stressful, but empirical evidence has
demonstrated the organizational rather than operational experiences are more
bothersome. Perhaps the officers have accepted the operational experiences such that
they do not register as stressful to them.

Hart et al.’s 1995 findings suggested support for the view that people’s life
satisfaction reflects a balance between their levels of positive and negative affect. This
article addresses three questions in regard to police officer’s occupation. First, how
73
does the level of psychological well-being reported by police officers compare to the
levels reported by other occupational and community groups? In answer the article
reported that their 1988 sample and norm data of psychological reports suggest that
police offices report less psychological distress and greater well-being than the average
person in the community (Hart et al, 1995). The police officers, when compared to
school teachers, tertiary students, and the Australian norm, had more favorable levels
of well-being and psychological distress. Second, what are the positive and negative
work experiences which contribute most to police officers’ psychological well-being?

The empirical results of this article found that for police officers organizational
experiences rather than operational experiences determine psychological well-being.
Third, how do police officer’s personality characteristics, coping strategies and work
experiences operate to determine psychological well-being? It seems that “Neuroticism

contributed to emotion-focused coping, police hassles and psychological distress,
whilst Extraversion contributed to problem-focused coping, police uplifts and well

being” (Hart et al., 1995, p. 146).
Neuroticism as Related to Working Conditions and Extraversion as Related to Social

Life
In support of the Anticipated Findings Matrix, the following article investigates
the relationship between Neuroticism and Working Conditions and the relationship
between Extraversion and Social Life. Cropanzano, James, and Konovsky’s 1993
article entitled “Dispositional Affectivity as a Predictor Of Work Attitudes and Job
Performance,” examined empirical data on the position that individuals may be
dispositionally predisposed to relatively higher or lower levels of job satisfaction. The
article refers to Extraversion as positive affectivity and Neuroticism as negative
affectivity. Specifically, the article investigates the relationships of the negative
affectivity (NA) or positive affectivity (PA) to organizational commitment and turnover
intentions. It seems organizational commitment is inversely related to turnover
74
intentions. (This is very similar to educational involvement being inversely related to

student drop-out rate.)
It has been found in several studies that NA and PA are relatively independent,
stable, partially inherited, and related to different behaviors (Watson & Clark, 1984;
Deiner & Emmons, 1985). In the Cropanzano et al. (1993) they actually used the two
traits as if they caused work attitudes, but stated that causality could not be
unambiguously established.
Quality of Education as Related to Openness and Quality of Education as Related to
Conscientiousness
“Leader Communications Style: A Test of Average Versus Vertical Dyad
Linkage Models” by Baker and Ganster (1985) investigated the effects of one
leadership style over another as to which one was perceived to be more satisfying to the
employee. The “within and between” (WABA) analysis or ANOVA was used to
statistically test the significance of the two styles. The article stated that the styles were
found to be significantly different. It was shown, though, that employees were more
satisfied with supervisors who were warm, open, relaxed, and attentive
communicators. Employees were less satisfied with leaders who were perceived as
being dominant in social situations, who were expressive nonverbally, who dramatized
extensively, and who regularly told jokes, stories and anecdotes.
Personality variables have been related to satisfaction variables in many studies

as can be seen by the previous articles. When personality is combined with other
characteristics of the situation, then more of the variance of the dependent variable can
be predicted. In many studies of job satisfaction, factors of job characteristics are added
to the model. Personality and satisfaction are very much correlated and further long
term research can bring out more of this relationship.
75
Summary
Chapter two discusses in detail the two main topics, satisfaction and
personality, of the study. Satisfaction is explained as having many aspects such as life
or general satisfaction, consumer satisfaction, program satisfaction, and student
satisfaction. Several instruments that have been used to measure student satisfaction
are discussed in detail. These instruments are the SOS, CSEQ, CDI, SSI, and the
CSSQ. Because of its consistently obtained high reliabilities and several positive
indications of its validity, the CSSQ was chosen as the instrument for this study to
measure student satisfaction.
In this chapter, two approaches to the description of personality are
discussed. These two approaches are personality description by type or by trait. The
typology (type) approach attempts to describe personality as the similarities of
behavior of humans of a certain group, such as conventional, realistic, or thinking and
feeling. The trait approach attempts to describe personality by using the basic units
of an individual’s behavior derived from natural language encodings. Factor analysis of
these descriptive encodings has revealed five domains labeled Openness,
Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism.
Two instruments depicting each approach to the description of personality are
reviewed. For the typology approach, the MBTI and SDS are discussed. The NEO-
PI and BFI-44 are discussed to illustrate the trait approach. The BFI-44 is chosen for
the present study because it is brief yet retains the full psychometric properties of
the longer NEO-PI personality instrument.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter will present literature that discusses satisfaction, personality,
and the relationship between different subtypes of satisfaction and personality. There
will initially be a discussion of literature relating to different kinds of satisfaction.
Then life satisfaction, consumer satisfaction, academic program satisfaction, and
student satisfaction will be reviewed. Finally, satisfaction instruments will be
described.
The presentation of personality literature will lead with an overall contrast of
the two major approaches to the description of personality. These are the usage of
traits and types to explain the descriptions of personality. Examples of both
approaches as well as illustrative instruments will be presented. Next, consideration
of some studies which use the Big Five model of personality to measure personality
traits will be emphasized. A critique of the Big Five model will follow.
Since the quantity of literature relating personality to student satisfaction is
limited, study of the relationship between personality and satisfaction will require
that a broader range of literature be used. Therefore, the literature that is comprises of
studies combining general personality and satisfaction will be used as a basis for
76
77
same instruments, with modified instructions that explained the need for
retrospection, were used for secondary subjects.
Description Of Instruments
Satisfaction Instrument
The satisfaction instrument used was the 1989 Form D of the College Student
Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSSQ), created by Drs. Nancy Betz, Ellen Betz, and John
Menne. The CSSQ was slightly modified, with permission, to capture essential
information for the present study. The response code was represented as follows: 1 =
I am very dissatisfied; 2 = I am somewhat dissatisfied; 3 = I am neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied; 4 = I am somewhat satisfied; and 5 = I am very satisfied.
In the modified CSSQ, two sets of response codes are available following most
questions. The first set of response codes calls for the respondent to answer the
question in terms of the respondents’ university satisfaction experiences. The second
set of response codes asks the respondents to answer the question while mentally
regarding the question as referring only to the respondents’ accounting program
satisfaction.
Fourteen of the 70 questions of the CSSQ do not apply to program
satisfaction. The program response codes for these questions were labeled “not
applicable” (NA). This is true for items such as “availability of good places to live
near the campus,” “chances to have privacy when you want it,” “chances to go out
and have a good time,” and “chance of having a date here.”
78
The original CSSQ was created using five scales to measure university
satisfaction. Each scale contains 14 items. The present modification of the CSSQ adds
five more scales to measure program satisfaction, for a total of 10 satisfaction scales.
The dimensions of the university satisfaction scales and the program satisfaction
scales are identically labeled. The five dimension labels are as follows.
1. Working Conditions are the physical conditions of college life that the
student experiences, such as the type of campus housing and places to lounge
between classes.
2. Betz et al. (1989) describe the second dimension, Compensation, as “the
amount of input (e.g., study) required relative to academic outcomes (e.g., grades), and
the effect of input demands on the student’s fulfillment of her/his other needs and
goals.”(p. 10)
3. The Quality of Education dimension indicates the level of intellectual and
vocational development that the student can achieve. This is based on the competency
levels of the faculty, staff, counselors, and the stringency of the requirements of
curricula, assignments, and teaching methods.
4. Social Life is the dimension that assesses the opportunities available to
meet socially relevant goals. These include meeting interesting people, availability of
campus events and informal social activities. Social life aspects pertinent to
accounting program satisfaction include the opportunity for a student to become a
member of an accounting fraternity, an accounting club, or field trips to accounting
relevant sites.
79
5. Recognitions are, as stated by Betz et al. (1989),., “Attitudes and behaviors
of faculty and students indicating acceptance of the student as a worthwhile
individual”, (p. 10).
Calculation of Scale Scores
Scale scores are based on the sum of the item responses for each scale. A total
satisfaction score is derived by summing all item responses of the individual (Betz,
1989). An average item response of (3), I am neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, across
the 14 items of a dimension results in a sum of 14 x 3, or 42. This is 60% of the
maximum university satisfaction score of 14 x 5, or 70, for an individual respondent.
This score is denoted as an average satisfaction score which denotes the respondent as
satisfied (Betz, Menne, Starr, & Klingensmith, 1971).
The total university satisfaction score across the 5 dimensions, which
comprise 70 university satisfaction questions, can range from 70 x 1 = 70 to 70 x 5 =
350. Likewise, for the 56 program satisfaction questions the program satisfaction
score for an individual can range from 1 x 56 = 56 to 5 x 56 = 280. Students are
considered satisfied if their total university satisfaction score is equal to or greater
than an average score of .60 x 350, or 210 (Betz, Menne, Starr, & Klingensmith,
1971).,
If calculated by hand the aggregate score for each school could be obtained by
multiplying the number of students from each school by 350 to determine a maximum
score. This maximum score is then multiplied by 60% to find the score needed to be
80
exceeded to determine satisfaction at that school. However, SPSS functions were used
to find the satisfaction mean score percentages of each individual. When calculated by
SPSS, for each record the university satisfaction responses were summed. This sum
was then divided by 350, the highest possible score that could be obtained, to obtain a
percentage university satisfaction score. The SPSS column containing all the
university satisfaction scores for each record is a new variable, known as individual
university satisfaction (IND-USAT). This is one of the dependent variables of the
current study. For each record the program satisfaction responses were summed. This
sum was divided by 280, the highest possible score that can be obtained, to obtain a
percentage program satisfaction score. The SPSS column containing all the program
satisfaction scores for each record is a new variable, known as individual program
satisfaction (IND-PSAT). Aggregate data results are to be provided to schools that
voluntarily participated in this study.
Personality Instrument
The Big Five Inventory-44 (BFI-44)
The Big Five Inventory-44 (BFI-44) was used to capture the personality traits
of the participants. The BFI-44 was created by Dr. Oliver John of the University of
California at Berkeley in 1991. The BFI-44, like all “Big Five” model instruments,
captures the personality traits of the respondents by using five dimensions. These
five dimensions are not the only possible dimensions of an individual’s personality.
The five dimensions have been replicated by several studies to demonstrate their
81
robustness in personality description. The five factor personality traits are (O)
Openness to Experience; (C) Conscientiousness, (E) Extraversion; (A) Agreeableness;
and (N) Neuroticism. These traits subsume many facets within them, and therefore a
short definition is difficult. Beneat-Martinez and John (1998) briefly describes them
as follows.
Extraversion summarizes traits related to activity and energy,

dominance, sociability, expressiveness, and positive emotions.
Agreeableness contrasts a prosocial orientation towards others with
antagonism and includes traits such as altruism, tendermindedness,
trust, and modesty. Conscientiousness describes socially prescribed
impulse control that facilitates task and goal-directed behavior.
Neuroticism contrasts emotional stability with a broad range of
negative effects, including anxiety, sadness, irritability, and nervous
tension. Openness describes the breadth, depth, and complexity of an
individual’s mental and experiential life. (Benet-Martinez & John,
1998, p.730)
Though it is a shorter instrument than the NEO-PI-R of 240 items, the BFI-44
maintains good content coverage and psychometric properties (Benet-Martinez and
John, 1998). The five point response code for the BFI-44 is as follows: 1 = Disagree
strongly; 2 = Disagree a little; 3 = Neither agree nor disagree; 4 = Agree a little; and 5
= Agree strongly.
Several of the BFI-44 items are worded such that before scoring the response
must be reversed. All scale items are dispersed throughout the instrument so that scale
domains are disguised. The BFI-44 items which were reversed by scales and item
number are Extraversion scale, reverse items 6,21, and 31; Agreeableness scale,
reverse items 2,12,27, and 37; Conscientiousness scale, reverse items 8,18,23, and
82
43; Neuroticism scale, reverse items 9,24, and 34; and Openness scale, reverse items
35 and 41.
The summing of the item scores of a scale yields the total score for that scale.
Scales were summed and averaged to give the total scale scores for the personality
profile. Using a personality instrument with a quantitative final analysis for averaging
makes the BFI-44 more useful in comparison to the alphabetical final analysis given
by the MBTI and SDS.
Materials
For administration purposes, the CSSQ and BFI-44 instruments were
combined to form a computer Scantron survey instrument, the College Student
Satisfaction Inventory (CSSI). The CSSI captures both satisfaction and personality
responses from the subjects. The survey instrument has three sections. Section one.
Demographics, has 11 questions that capture basic subject characteristics.
The coded responses are (1) Social Security number (not required to be
answered), (2) gender (1 = male; 2 = female), (3) race [1 = African American (not
Hispanic); 2 = American Indian or Alaskan; 3 = Hispanic American; 4 = Caucasian
(not Hispanic); 5 = Asian or Pacific Islander; 6 = Other ], (4) age (1 = 20 or under; 2 =
21-25; 3 = 26-30; 4 = 30+); (5) program concentration (1 = Accounting; 2 =
Management; 3 = Finance; 4 = Other), (6) marital status (1 = Married; 2 = Single; 3 =
Divorced; 4 = Other), (7) student status (1 = full-time; 2 = part-time), (8) class level
(1 = Sophomore; 2 = Junior; 3 = Senior; 4 = Grad Student), (9) self-reported GPA (1
= 2.5 or below; 2 = 2.6 - 3.0; 3 = 3.1 - 3.5; 4 = 3.6 - 4.0), (10) hours worked per week
83
(during regular session) (1 = 0-5; 2 = 6 -10; 3 = 11 - 15; 4 = 16 - 20; 5 = 20+), and
(11) hours of study per week (during regular session) (1 = 0 - 5; 2 = 6 -10; 3 = 11-
15; 4 = 1 6 -2 0 ; 5 = 20+).
Section two is the satisfaction instrument, with two items (university
satisfaction and program satisfaction) for most questions. Section three is the
personality instrument. A copy of the scantron survey is included in the Appendix.
Data Collection
Data were collected for as four groups: accounting juniors, accounting seniors,
master’s accounting students earning Master’s in Accountancy (M.Acc.) or Master’s
in Taxation (M.T.A.) degrees, and the CPA firm’s new accounting employees.
Pilot Sample
In the Fall of 1998, data for the pilot study were collected in two sessions at
The University of Alabama. Students of a large business management class were given
bonus points to complete the survey. The pilot study comprised 331 subjects. The
diverse population of majors in the management class was the specific reason why
that class was utilized for the pilot study. The sizes of the pilot study sample by
majors were 43 accounting, 54 finance, 74 management, and 160 students of other
majors such as history, communications, or restaurant and hotel administration.
The pilot study served two purposes. These were to establish the amount of
time needed to complete the survey, and to verify the psychometric properties of the
survey. Survey administration and completion times needed to be determined in order
84
to provide this information to give to the schools administering the survey.
Reliabilities also needed to be obtained, since the CSSQ had been slightly modified. To
collect sufficient voluntary data the survey had to be self-explanatory. The maximum
time allowed for survey administration and completion had been determined to be 35
minutes. Pilot administrations were performed in two sessions. Administration times
were 10 and 15 minutes. Survey completion times for the pilot study were 12 and 17
minutes. This proved the survey to be adequate with regard to timing.
The next initial concern to be resolved by the pilot study involved the
psychometric properties of the modified CSSQ. Scale psychometric properties of the
pilot data were determined by using the SPSS-PC software package. Alpha reliabilities
for the five scales of the university satisfaction instrument were Working Conditions -
.84; Compensation - .86; Quality of Education - .88; Social Life - .89; and Recognition
- .88. The alpha reliabilities for the five scales of the personality instrument were
Neuroticism - .78; Extraversion - .84; Agreeableness -.79; Conscientiousness - .79;
and Openness - .78. As a result, the scale reliabilities of the two instruments were
demonstrated to be adequate.
Primary sample
Several public institutions of higher learning that which grant accounting
degrees were represented in this survey. Surveys were administered in classroom
settings by volunteer accounting professors of six schools. This researcher
administered the surveys to undergraduate classes at her school.
85
M.Acc. and M.T.A. sample
Surveys were distributed and completed by a University of Alabama
accounting master’s class. Completion had to be voluntary and on the students’ own
time for this sample.
CPA Firm Sample
The CPA firm of KPMG LLP volunteered to administer the survey to a group
of its new accounting employees. The survey was administered and completed during
the new hires’ initial training sessions.
Data Analysis
Once the surveys were received, the Testing Services at The University of
Alabama input the data to disks. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-
PC) software was used to analyze the data. The researcher encoded and performed the
analytical procedures necessary to answer the three research questions of the study.
These procedures were as follows.
Research question I: What levels of satisfaction exist among accounting
students, do they differ for university and program, and does the level of satisfaction
differ among the four accounting program groups for the study? The accounting
groups are juniors, seniors, master’s accounting students and new accounting
employees at a CPA firm.
86
Analysis For Research Question 1: The specific summation calculations for
satisfaction levels previously given were programmed for summation of each school.
Satisfaction mean levels were obtained. ANOVA and follow-up tests compared mean
satisfaction levels of the schools.
Research question 2: What patterns of personality traits do accounting
students exhibit? Are there differences among the groups represented in this study?
Analysis For Research Question 2: Mean plots of the personality scale scores
revealed the profile of the accounting students for each school. An overall group mean
of the scales of the personality data revealed the average accounting student’s
personality profile. ANOVA and followup tests revealed the differences among the
groups represented in the study.
Research question 3: What relationships are there, if any, between accounting
student personality and university and program satisfaction? Does this vary between
groups?
Analysis For Research Question 3: With the results of the satisfaction
instrument as the dependent variable and the results of the personality instrument as
the independent variable, regression analysis was used to investigate the strength of
the personality instrument to predict satisfaction. Correlational analysis was used to
investigate the direction and strength of the relationship between the scales of the
satisfaction instrument and the personality instruments responses.
Results of the analysis will be sent to all participating schools.
87
Summary
This chapter describes the four types of sample populations used in the
study. The study’s primary group of concern is the undergraduate accounting
students. It is this group to which all other groups are to be compared. It also gives
the methodology by which the data for the present study were collected and
analyzed, in order to answer the research questions for the study.
Accounting students from various public universities and one major public
accounting firm were used as subjects of the study. The CSSQ was modified to enable
it to capture not only university student satisfaction but also program satisfaction
responses. The BFI-44, a “Big Five” personality instrument, was used to capture the
personality responses of the subjects.
The modified CSSQ and the BFI-44 were combined and placed on a Scantron
survey form. The survey was mailed to the various participants in the study. Except
for the group of accounting master’s students at The University of Alabama and the
new CPA firm employees group, the class time of undergraduate accounting classes
was used for this study.
Data analysis was performed by SPSS-PC functions. Correlational procedures,
ANOVAs, regression analysis, and descriptive means were used to answer the
research questions of the study.
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Introduction
This chapter describes in detail the data collection and demographics of the
sample and provides the school regions used in the study. The chapter also lists each
research question and gives the analysis results for that question. Each research
question is answered by using SPSS charts or graphs with an accompanying text
interpretation. Results are depicted in different ways to better demonstrate the
relationships in the study. The chapter ends with a summary of the results found in
the study.
Data Preparation
Upon receiving the surveys in the mail, the testing services department of The
University of Alabama was employed to read the Scantron survey and to put each
institution’s response in a file on disk. The responses from institutions were received
at varying times and placed in separate files as raw data. Each raw data file was
delimited into specific variable columns in an Excel program as required for the
conversion into SPSS-readable data files. After SPSS conversion, the separate files
were merged into one large file. The variable columns of this final file were then
88
89
defined with names so that variable-specific analyses could be performed. The total
number of records in the final SPSS file was 899, but was reduced to 802 due to the
deletion of 97 records that had more than four variables with missing data. A
completed record had to have 180 filled variables. The SPSS program was then
commanded to supply column variable means to the remaining records with missing
data for construct and ANOVA calculation purposes.
Description of Sample
Eight institutions were used in this study, seven schools and one CPA firm.
The institutions were randomly numbered one through eight, making group level
analysis possible. Names of schools are not included since the schools did not want
their names to be known. All the participants in this study were accounting students
or newly hired accounting students. All schools were U.S. colleges granting
baccalaureate accounting degrees. Accounting professors voluntarily administered the
survey. The response rate was 96%, 711 returned of the 740 surveys mailed. Table 3
gives sample demographics and the code numbers for groups (institutions and class
levels) used in the analysis.
The 802 participants included 418 males and 380 females. Four participants
did not include their gender. All the institutions except the CPA firm answered a
demographic item that separated the group into class level of 1) sophomore; 2) junior;
3) senior; 4) master’s. Although the option “ 1) sophomore” was provided, it was not
90
used by any participants. The CPA group is identified as number S for its class level
(CLSLVL) group number.
Seventy-seven percent of the participants were between the ages of 21-25;
10% were between the ages of 26-30; 7.9% were over 30; and 4.6% were under the
age of 21. For marital status, 77.6% of the participants were single; 20.4% were
married; and for “divorced and other” there was a 1% response. Responses for the
race variable show that 80% of the participants were Caucasian; 9.2% were Asian;
4.9% were African American; 2.4% responded “other”; and 1.7% were American
Indian. Fifteen participants did not respond to race. The student status question was
not responded to by 271 students, or 33.7% of the total. Of the 66.3% who did
respond to student status, 60% were full time students. The number of participants
from each institution and the percent of demographics is detailed in Table 3. Exact
percentages from the SPSS printout are given. Some categories do not sum to 100%;
answers for those categories were not completed by every respondent.
91
TABLE 3
Demographics
“ OTEOOWES N OR % d escrM IO n
Institutions
Number I 159 ’ We s t e r n
Number i 15 SOUTHEAST
Number 3 111 SOUTHEAST "
Number 4 11 SOUTHEAST
Number 5 31 so u th east
Number 6 35 NORTHWEST
Kpmg-Number 7 331 CTAHkM
Number 8 43 EflbWEST
Males 418
Females 380
Juniors 164 Males =114, Females = 50

Seniors 254 Males =104, Females = 150
Master’s 53 Males =30, Females = 23
New Professionals 331 Males = 169, Females = 162
KPMG new professionals
from over 100 schools in
every major geographical
region in the USA.
Age 21-25 =76.8%, 26-30 =10%

30+ = 7.8, under 21 = 4.6%
Marital Status Single = 77.6%
Married = 20%
Divorced = 1%
Other = 1.4%
Hours Worked d-5=13.H
Per Week Over 21=25.4%
16-20= 18.1%
11-15= 15.7%
6-10= 11.3%
Hours Studied 11-15= 26.3%
Per Week 16-20= 22.9%
6-10 = 22.8%, over 21 =
14.8%, 0-5 = 8.8%
Race Caucasian = 80%
Asian = 9.2%
African American = 4.9%
American Indian =1.7%
Other = 2.4
STUDENT " ' Full time =60%
STATUS Part time =6.2%
92
Reliability Analysis of Instruments Used By Subscales
To obtain the cohesiveness of the items by subscales, scale reliability tests
were performed. Reliabilities of .80 are quite adequate for this type of exploratory
research (Struening & Guttentag, 1975). As shown in Table 4, all the satisfaction scale
reliabilities were above .86 except the program satisfaction subscale “Working
Conditions.” Scale reliability can be influenced by the number of items in the scale.
For program satisfaction, the subscale “Working Conditions” had eight items
inappropriate to this study deleted. Possibly as a result of this, the alpha reliability of
this scale is the lowest at .7040. For university satisfaction, Table 4 also lists the
subscales and reliabilities as follows: Working Conditions - .8723; Compensation -
.9055; Quality of Education - .9036; Social Life - .9150; Recognition - .9180. The
alpha reliabilities for the program satisfaction subscales are as follows: Working
Conditions - .7040; Compensation - .9231; Quality of Education - .9042; Social Life
- .8624; Recognition - .9236.
Scale reliability tests were also performed on the subscales of the personality
instrument. These Cronbach alpha reliabilities ranged from .77 to .87. Specifically, the
personality reliabilities are Openness - .7731; Conscientiousness - .799; Extraversion
- .871; Agreeableness - .796; and Neuroticism - .818. Personality subscale reliabilities
are contained in Table 5.
93
TABLE 4
Satisfaction Subscale Reliabilities of CSSQ Program and University Satisfaction
SATISFACTION UNIVERSITY NO. OF PROGRAM NO. OF

SUBSCALES ALPHA REL. ITEMS ALPHA REL. ITEMS
WORKING .8723 14 .7040 6
CONDITIONS
COMPENSATION .9055 14 .9231 14
QUALITY OF .9036 14 .9042 14
EDUCATION
SOCIAL LIFE .9150 14 .8624 8
RECOGNITION .9180 14 .9236 14
TABLES
Personality Subscale Reliabilities of BFI-44 Personality Instrument
PERSONALITY NUMBER OF ITEMS ALPHA

SUBSCALES
OPENNESS 8 .7731
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 9 .799
EXTRAVERSION 8 .871
AGREEABLENESS 9 .796
NEUROTICISM 8 .818
Preparation of Constructs and New Variables
Supplying column means for each record during data preparation is one of the
first necessary steps for the construction of new variables and constructs. Next, the
personality instrument has item responses that need to be reversed. A personality
instrument should have items reversed to ease the interpretation of table values.
(Struening & Guttentag, 1975). The BFI-44 personality instrument used in this study
needed 16 item scores to be reversed. Coding of the survey required the reverse
94
scoring of three items on the Extraversion subscale; these were items 6,21, and 31.
The Agreeableness subscale had four items to be reversed; these were items 2,12,27,
and 37. The Conscientiousness subscale required the reversing of items 8,18,23, and
43. The Neuroticism subscale required the reversing of items 9,24, and 34. The
Openness subscale required the reversing of items 35 and 41. Once the necessary
items were been reversed, the preparation for constructs and new variables was
complete.
New variables and constructs of the data had to be made, from which the
analyses were done. It is through combining and calculations of the data that these
new variables or constructs are formed. These variables are called new variables since
they can not be inputted as data but are created from the data. Two new variables and
15 constructs were needed to perform this study’s analysis.
New Variables and Constructs
The two new variables to be created are program satisfaction scores and
university satisfaction scores for each record. For each record the university
satisfaction responses were summed. This sum was then divided by 350, the highest
possible score that can be obtained, to obtain a percentage university satisfaction
score. The SPSS column containing all the university satisfaction scores for each
record is a new variable, known as individual university satisfaction (IND-USAT).
This is one of the dependent variables of the current study. For each record the
program satisfaction responses were summed. This sum was divided by 280, the
95
highest possible score that can be obtained, to obtain a percentage program
satisfaction score. The SPSS column containing all the program satisfaction scores for
each record is a new variable, to be known as individual program satisfaction (IND-
PSAT). This is another dependent variable of the present study.
The constructs in this study are made up of the specific items of an
instrument’s subscale. Actually, the procedure for doing this is very similar to the
creation of a new variable explained above, except SPSS is instructed to use only
specific item responses rather than all the responses. Creation of such constructs is
necessary in order to investigate the relationships of the subscales of the two
instruments. The means of the subscales of the personality instruments are what
describe the personality profiles of the accounting students.
The 15 constructs needed for this study are the 15 subscales of the study’s
two instruments. SPSS is instructed to transform, or make a new construct variable,
for each subscale. A new variable name is provided for each construct and for the
specific items needed to be summed for that construct. The program performs this
summation of responses of specific items for each record. The column containing the
scores of this procedure is the created construct. The satisfaction instrument has 10
such constructs; five for university satisfaction and five for program satisfaction. For
university satisfaction, the subscales and their related 14 items are Working
Conditions (W/C), which uses items 6,12,14,18,21,24,27,28,38,46,48,52,61,
and 68; Recognition (REG), which uses items 3 ,4,8,9, 11,13,23,26,30,32,42,50,
54, and 60; Quality of Education (Q/E), which uses items 15,17,36,40,43,44,45,
51.63.64.65.67.69, and 70; Social Life (S/L), which uses items 1, 10, 19,25,31,33,
39,41,49, 55, 57, 59,62, and 66; and Compensation (COMP), which uses items 2, 5,
7, 16,20,22,29, 34,35,37,47,53,56, and 58. Two of the subscales of program
satisfaction had to be altered, as stated above, due to item irrelevancy to program
satisfaction. Therefore, instead of the usual 14 items, program satisfaction - Working
Conditions uses 6 items and program satisfaction - Social Life uses 8 items. The
subscales for program satisfaction are Working Conditions (W/C), which uses items 6,
27,28,38,46, and 68; Recognition (REG), which uses items 3,4,8, 9, 11, 13,23,26,
30,32,42, 50, 54, and 60; Quality of Education (Q/E), which uses items 15, 17,36,
40.43.44.45.51.63.64.65.67.69, and 70; Social Life (S/L), which uses items 1,10,
19,25, 31,49, 55, and 62; and Compensation (COMP), which uses items 2, 5, 7, 16,
20,22,29, 34, 35,37,47,53, 56, and 58. Once the scales are constructed for
university and program satisfaction, research questions concerning both types of
satisfaction can be analyzed.
Analysis of Research Questions
Overall, this study has three research questions. Each question has several
parts, to be answered separately for program and for university satisfaction. Each
part, where relevant, is answered for either institution or class level groups. Both the
SPSS procedures used to obtain the answer and the results will be used to explain
findings.
97
Research Question 1
What levels of satisfaction exist among accounting students, where do they differ
between (a) university and (b) program satisfaction, and (c) does the level of
satisfaction differ among the four accounting program groups in this study?
Procedure for Answering Part (a)
To answer Research Question 1 for parts a, b, and c, a one-way ANOVA
procedure was performed four times, twice on the dependent variable for university
satisfaction and twice on the dependent variable for program satisfaction. Both
dependent variables were analyzed by the ANOVA procedure by using institution
and class level as factors. The dependent satisfaction variables are the created
variables IND-USAT and IND_PSAT, which contain the respective percent
satisfaction scores of the records. The ANOVA lists the means of the factors. A
Tukey follow-up test was performed after each ANOVA to indicate which contrasts
were significantly different.
Results for Part (a) on University Satisfaction
KPMG (Institution 7) has the highest university mean of .7368. This suggests
that students tend to appreciate their institutions, once they have been selected and
have been able to actually obtain a position. Of the schools, Institution 1 has the
highest mean at .7122. Institution 6 has the lowest mean at .6604. This difference of
.0518, in this context, may have meaning in terms of the institutions’ differing effects
on student attitudes. As one possibility, it is possible that the institution with the
highest mean may have more departmental financial resources available to students
98
than the institutions with lower means. Refer to Table 6 for a complete listing of
institution means.
The ANOVA results on university satisfaction by institution were
significant with F = 6.08, df = (7), (794), sig. = .000. The Tukey follow-up test
revealed that of all university satisfaction mean percentage scores for institutions,
significance was found among 4 and 7, with means of (.7090, .7847); 7 and 6, with
means of (.7847, .7152); and 7 and 8, with means of (.7847, .7175).
The results of the ANOVA on university satisfaction by class level were
significant with F = 10.323, df = (3), (798), sig. = .000. Class level 5, which is the
KPMG group, differed on its mean university satisfaction score from groups 2, 3, and 4.
This reveals the newly hired professionals to be significantly different from all the other
groups on university satisfaction, since the KPMG group had a mean satisfaction score
of .7368 compared to .7034, .6886, and .6877 respectively. With a mean satisfaction
score of .7034, the juniors had the highest university mean percentage score for the
groups yet in school, whereas the senior and master’s students were similar to each other
at .6886 and .6877 respectively. It appears that juniors have higher university
satisfaction than seniors and master’s. Tables 6 and.7 list the descriptives of university
satisfaction by institution and class level respectively. The means of university
satisfaction by institution and class level are figuratively shown in Figures 1 and 2
respectively.
99
TABLE 6
Descriptives of Individual University Satisfaction by Institution
Institutions N Mean Standard Minimum Maximum

Deviation
1 159 .7122 .1311 .33 .98
2 15 .6686 .1109 .55 .87
3 111 .7016 .0935 .28 .96
4 77 .6726 .1083 .38 .90
5 31 .7005 .0911 .55 .91
6 35 .6604 .0820 .51 .86
7 KPMG 331 .7368 .1129 .40 .99
8 43 .6731 .0961 .50 .89
Total 802 .7115 .1136 .28 .99
.76
.741
.72«
.70.
□
Z
.6 6 .
o
c
03
ID
5
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
SCHLJD
Figure 1. Mean plot of university satisfaction by institution.
100
TABLE 7
Descriptives of University Satisfaction by Class Level
class N Mean Standard Minimum Maximu

levels Deviation m
2-juniors 164 .7034 .1268 .35 .98

3- seniors 254 .6886 .0979 .33 .96
4- master’s 53 .6877 .1159 .28 .87
5- KPMG 331 .7368 .1129 .40 .99
Total 802 .7115 .1136 .28 .99
.74
.73
.72
(—
<
CO .70
z>
O
z
.69
o
c
CP
<D
2 .68
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
CLSLVL
Figure 2. Mean plot of university satisfaction by class level.
101
Results of Part (b) of Research Question 1 Program Satisfaction
For program satisfaction, Institution 1 had the highest mean score of .7863,
followed very closely by the KPMG group at .7847. The lowest program satisfaction
mean was that of institution 4 at .7090. The program satisfaction means by institution
were higher than the university satisfaction means, suggesting that students tend to be
more satisfied with their programs than with their universities.
Concerning program satisfaction, all the class level mean percentage scores
were 70% or above. The instructions from the CSSQ manual explained that a percent
satisfaction score above 60% indicates satisfaction (Betz et al., 1971). Therefore,
satisfaction was indicated for all class level means. Refer to Table 8 for a list of the
program satisfaction means by institution. Figure 3 is a graphical depiction of Table 8
by SPSS. The results of the ANOVA on program satisfaction by institution were
significant with F = 6.516, df = (7), (794), sig. =.000, indicating that there is at least
one significant contrast. The Tukey follow-up revealed that with the program
satisfaction means by institution, the groups that differed were 1,4; 1,6; 1, 8; 3,4; 4,7;
6,7; 7,8.
The results of the ANOVA on program satisfaction mean percentage scores
by class level were significant with F = 7.632, df = (3), (798), sig. = .000. The
significant probability of the ANOVA on program satisfaction by class level indicates
that there is at least one significant contrast. The Tukey follow-up revealed that on
the program satisfaction percentage mean scores by class level group, significant
differences were found between groups 2 and 3 (.7740, .7378) and groups 5 and 3
102
(.7847, .7378). These results indicate that the juniors were significantly different from
the seniors and the seniors were significantly different from the KPMG group. Tables
8 and 9 list the descriptives of program satisfaction by institution and class level
respectively. The means of program satisfaction by institution and class level are
shown in Figures 3 and 4 respectively.
TABLE 8
Descriptives Of Program Satisfaction by Institution
Institutions N Mean Standard Minimum Maximum

Deviation
1 159 .7863 .1242 .27 1.00
2 15 .7387 .1073 .56 .93
3 111 .7636 .1221 .27 .97
4 77 .7090 .1205 .38 .93
5 31 .7530 .1216 .46 .97
6 35 .7152 .0854 .54 .91
7 KPMG 331 .7847 .1170 .34 1.00
8 43 .7175 .1180 .43 .92
Total 802 .7661 .1213 .27 1.00
103
.80
.78 «
.7 6 .
t— .7 4 .
5
Q.
Q
Z .7 2 .
o
c
ro
(U
5 .70
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
SCHL ID
Figure 3. Means plot of program satisfaction by institution.
TABLE 9
Descriptives of Program Satisfaction by Class Level
Class N Mean Std. Minimum Maximum

Levels Deviation
2- junior 164 .7740 .1245 .27 1.00

3- senior 254 .7378 .1166 .38 .97
4 - master’s 53 .7610 .1365 .27 .96
5- KPMG 331 .7847 .1170 .34 1.00
Total 802 .7661 .1213 .27 1.00
104
.79
.78 i
.77 i
.76 i
I—
CL
Q
z
“ .74.
o
c
CO
(D
2 73.r
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
CLSLVL
Figure 4. Mean plot of program satisfaction by class level.
Results of Part (c) of Research Question 1
Figure 4 depicts the means of the program satisfaction scores by class level,
and demonstrates that the class levels differ on program satisfaction. It seems to
suggest that, once the euphoria of junior status is over, as the students progresses
toward completion of their programs they tend to become more and more satisfied
with their program. The upward trend does not begin though until the senior year
because the junior’s mean satisfaction is greater than the senior’s mean satisfaction
probably due to a self-evaluation that takes place between the junior and senior years.
It is in the senior year that accounting students apply for internships which some
105
may not receive and this tends to make them evaluate their abilities and their programs
more objectively.
Research Question 2
What patterns of personality traits do accounting students exhibit? Are there
differences among the groups represented in this study?
Procedures for Answering Research Question 2
An ANOVA was performed on each personality subscale factored by class
level. A MANOVA was performed with the personality subscales as the dependent
variable and the class level variable as the fixed factor, but there was no significant
difference among the groups. To put the means obtained by the ANOVA on an equal
scale, the subscale means were divided by the specific item number of that subscale,
therefore obtaining item means of the subscales. The personality scales mean and
standard deviation were tabulated. Also the item means were tabulated by class level.
Aggregate means of the personality subscales are obtained. Mean plots of the
personality subscales are employed to demonstrate differences between groups. The
mean plots of the personality subscales by group have, of necessity, ordinate axes
calibrated in tenths or hundredths of a Likert scale point to better show the slight
differences between group means.
106
Results for Research Question 2
Table 10 lists the means and standard deviations of the personality subscales.
Table 11 lists the item means of the personality subscales by class level. Figure 5
examines figuratively the differences between the means of the personality subscales
by class level. In Figure 6 the aggregate means of the personality subscales are plotted.
Figure 6 demonstrates the personality profile of the accounting students. SPSS
Figures 7 through 11 of the item mean plots of the personality subscales by class level
demonstrate differences in item means by class level.
It is striking that mean scores for class levels clustered tightly around similar
values. For this study, this is true without exception. The clustering of scores
suggests, as one possibility, that accounting students and new professionals have
similar personality traits as measured by the Big Five. The personality subscale
means vary much less than the satisfaction subscale mean scores. This may also
reinforce the study assumption that personality is an independent set of constructs,
and satisfaction is a dependent set.
Personality means were at least moderately high among four of the Big Five
constructs measured by the personality instrument. Conscientiousness had the
highest means for all four groups. This indicates that accounting students take their
work seriously and work assiduously to meet the standards set by their institutions
and departments. Agreeableness is almost as high as Conscientiousness. This would
indicate that accounting students are able to work together well and that they try to be
107
cooperative, sincere and considerate of others. Mid-level scores were found for
Openness and Extraversion. Relatively low scores were found for Neuroticism.
Standard deviations were moderate, indicating that individual differences exist
but that the mean represents the group well. Like the values themselves, for most
constructs the sizes of standard deviation values were similar. This was expected
since personality traits are considered to be stable.
Table 10
Personality Subscale Descriptives
Personality N Mean Standard Minimum Maximum Item Items

subscales Deviation Means in
Scale
NEUROT 802 21.3388 6.0594 8.00 40.00 2.667 8
EXTRV 802 27.3211 6.3602 11.00 40.00 3.415 8
OPEN 802 34.3759 6.2079 13.00 50.00 3.437 10
AGREE 802 35.5357 5.4359 14.00 45.00 3.948 9
CONSTI 802 35.9879 5.3306 17.00 45.00 3.999 9
TABLE 11
Item Means of Personality Subscales by Class Level
CLASS OPEN CONSTI EXTRV AGREE NEUROT

LEVEL
JUNIORS 3.490 4.010 3.318 3.998 2.563
SENIORS 3.367 4.000 3.397 3.980 2.713
MASTER’S 3.427 3.96 3.370 3.943 2.707
KPMG 3.4671 4.00 3.484 3.900 2.678
108
The sizes of subscale item means by class level varied little in each trait
category. Note that the range of the class level means in each trait category varies by
less than 0.25. Given the slightness of the differences between these items, no
statement regarding the differences can be made. However, the similarity of the means
is certainly noteworthy. There are only small mean differences between class levels.
Each higher class level represents a more elite sample than the one before. For
instance, senior accounting students represent a more exclusive sample than juniors,
because not all junior accounting students become senior accounting students.
Likewise, master’s accounting students and new CPA firm professionals represent a
more select sample than seniors, because the latter groups consist exclusively of
accounting graduates. It would be expected that the more elite groups would show
measurably different personality traits than the less exclusive ones. However, this
does not appear to be the case. The fact that all the groups of accountants show
nearly indistinguishable means for each personality trait indicates, perhaps, one of
two things. One possibility is that these results apply to more groups than accounting
majors, accounting master’s students, and new CPA firm professionals. Perhaps they
apply to the accounting profession at large, from junior accounting students all the
way to retired partners of major CPA firms. Another possibility is that these
personality trait means are shared by a yet larger sample of which accounting
specialists is a subset. Apparently academic or professional status has little effect on
the measurable traits.
109
4.2
4.0
AGREE
3.75
3.5 OPEN
EXTRV
3.25
3.0
2.75
NEUROT
2.5
JUNORS SENORS MASTERS
STUDENTS PROFESSIONALS
Figure 5. BFI-44 subscale item means by class level.
Figure 6 demonstrates the aggregate personality means for each of the Big Five
subscales. Perhaps the first thing to note is that the subscale means occupy three
values. The lowest value range is occupied by Neuroticism, which has the greatest
mean difference between itself and its nearest subscale mean. Since Neuroticism is
associated with a number of negative processes and outcomes, and emotional
instability, the low value is a good thing. The next lowest value range for the
personality means is occupied by Extraversion and Openness. The sample of
accounting students and new professionals appears to have values that are neither
particularly low nor particularly high in these subscales. This is not surprising. A
110
professional occupation that would be more likely to show high Extraversion is
salespersons. Occupations that would be more likely to show high Openness would
be sculptors, painters, and other fine arts professionals.
The highest range is occupied by Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. These
means should probably be characterized as simply high rather than extremely high.
The consistency of the values of this large sample provides a strong impression that
they are stable and would be found in a different sample of accounting students. It
would be expected that accounting students and professionals would have high
Conscientiousness values. However, there is less expectation for the existence of high
Agreeableness values due to the streotype. Since accountants perform at the center of
a firm’s activities and must receive inputs and provide outputs to and from all sectors
of the firm, high Agreeableness certainly would facilitate the free exchange of needed
financial information, analyses, and interpretations.
Ill
4.q
3.7S
3.9
3.25
3.0
2.75
im r
2.5
EXTRV OPEN COWTI
Figure 6. Aggregate means for accounting student personality profile of sample.
As demonstrated in Figure 6, the accounting students have a definite
personality pattern, with the means of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness as the
highest of the five scales at 3.9 and 4.0 respectively, Extraversion and Openness
having a mean of 3.4 and Neuroticism having the lowest mean at 2.6.
The projected profile of the TAS (Typical Accounting Student) stated that
this hypothetical student would be high on the Extraversion scale. When necessary,
such a student can provide the high level of energy needed either to perform
demanding tasks or to become highly involved in order to meet complex requirements
(Watson & Clark, 1997). The data do not support this depiction, since the findings in
Figure 7 show a consistent midrange level for Extraversion. However, the data also
112
certainly do not support the common stereotype that accountants tend not to be
social.
3.5
3 .4 i
ss
o
cTO
(U
2
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
CLSLVL
Figure 7. Personality profile of extraversion by class level.
The TAS projected profile stated that this student would probably place low
to midway on the Agreeableness scale. It stated that, having a propensity to become
highly involved in things and objects, the student would tend not to be socially
engaging. The data shown in Figure 8 gives no support for this depiction, given the
relatively high means for Agreeableness. These findings indicate that accountants tend
to place importance on relating to others and that they tend to like to work with
others and to solve problems in teams.
113
4.02
4.00
3.98 i
3.961
3.94.
Z
5
t 3.92.
I
S
<*— 3.90.
o
c
aj
5 3.88,
4.0
CLSLVL
Figure 8. Profile of agreeableness by class level.
The TAS projected profile stated that the student would be rather high on the
Conscientiousness scale. Most accounting students know that to be a good
accountant, one needs to apply accounting principles correctly right down to the last
detail. Accountants tend to be diligent in their studies, and tenacious and complete in
their work. They will be patient enough to study the facts, being meticulous to
understand amounts spent on projects. The data do tend to support the TAS
114
projected profile as shown in Figure 9, due to the high mean scores on
Conscientiousness.
4.02
4.01
4.00
3.99
3.98
Z
2
i—
I 3.97
Z
O
o
o 3.96
c
(1)
2 3.95
3.0 4.0 5.0
CLSLVL
Figure 9. Personality profile of conscientiousness by class level.
The TAS projected profile stated that the student would be low on the
Neuroticism scale, with the tendency to be emotionally stable, focused, and directed
on a purpose. The results of the data as shown in Figure 10 do support this depiction,
with Neuroticism having such a low mean.
115
2.8
2.7 i
2.6 i
Z>
LU
Z
•*—
O
C
ro
0)
S
2.0 4.0 5.0
CLSLVL
Figure 10. Personality profile of neuroticism by class level.
The projected TAS profile stated that the student would probably reach
midway on the scale for Openness, not tending to be too creative and generally
wanting things to be spelled out in terms of how things function. The profile stated
that this type of student tends to be more of a concrete thinker, wanting to place
things into real-life terms. The data does support the depiction as shown in Figure 11
for this subscale with the means of Openness ranging from 3.36 to 3.49.
116
3.50
3.48 •
3.46 i
3.44 i
3.42.
2 3.40.
t-
01
3.38.
c
(D
2 3.36 (
3.0 4.0 5.0
CLSLVL
Figure 11. Personality profile of openness by class level.
The aggregate personality profiles by class level are very similar to each other
as well as to the KPMG group. Figures 12 through IS demonstrate this similarity of
personality profiles. There is virtually no difference between the personality profiles
attesting to Holland’s theory that vocational choices can be indicators of personalities
(Costa, McCrae, & Holland, 1984).
117
4.q
3 .a
3.2(
3.0
2.7!
2 .9
Figure 12. BFI-44 subscale item means - juniors.
4.q
3 .a
3.21
3.0
2.7
2 .9
Figure 13. BFI-44 subscale item means - seniors.
118
3.8
3.2(
3 .C
2.71
2 .9
Figure 14. BFI-44 subscale item means - master’s.
4.q
3 .7 8
3.8
3.C
2 .9
OM N iMI
Figure 15. BFI-44 Subscale Item Means - New Professionals.
119
Research Question 3
What relationships are there, if any, between accounting student personality and
university and program satisfaction?
Procedures for Answering Research Question 3
SPSS was instructed to correlate all 15 subscales of the two instruments, the
CSSQ and the BFI-44, used for the study. A comparison was made between the
actual data results and the researcher’s expected findings for correlations between
constructs formed from the two instruments in the Anticipated Findings Matrix,
Table 1.
Two linear regression procedures were performed. One had program
satisfaction as the dependent variable, while the other had university satisfaction as
the dependent variable. These regression procedures were performed to obtain the
beta coefficients of each personality subscale (the independent variables). The beta
coefficients of the personality subscale reveal the direction as well as the strength of
that personality subscale to predict satisfaction.
Results for Research Question 3
Table 12 is the comparison of the researcher’s projected Anticipated Findings
Matrix, Table 1, with the actual correlation sign results. Table 12 shows the projected
(P) versus actual (A) correlations between satisfaction scales and personality traits.
All correlations were positive for each personality trait except Neuroticism, where all
correlations were negative. This indicates that four of the five Big Five personality
traits are positive indicators for all five satisfaction scales. Table 13 lists the sign and
120
magnitude of the correlation coefficients of the two instruments on program
satisfaction. The PST/ on the satisfaction scale label indicates program satisfaction.
Table 14 lists the sign and magnitude of the correlations of the two instruments on
university satisfaction. The UST/ on the satisfaction scale label indicates university
satisfaction.
Conscientiousness is the Big Five trait which shows the strongest and most
consistent results in the personality literature. It is the one trait where the researcher
correctly projected 5 of 5 correlations with satisfaction. The fewest correct
projections were made between satisfaction scales and either Extraversion or
Agreeableness. It is clear that projections proved incorrect in the 9 cases where the
researcher expected to find no significance. However, correct projections were made in
14 of the IS cases where the researcher projected significance. Perhaps had the
researcher based projections in the correlation matrix on personality traits rather than
deciding cell-by-cell, more accurate projections could have been made.
121
TABLE 12
Personality and Program Satisfaction
Projected vs. Actual Results
Program Personality Scales

Satisfaction
Scales
Actual Results Openness Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism Number of
in Bold on correct
Right Side P* A* P A P A P A P A projections
Working + + + + NS + NS + NS
Conditions
2
Compensation NS + + + + + + + — — 4
Recognition NS + + + NS + — + — — 2
Social Life + NS + + + + + + — — 4
Quality of + + + NS NS NS
Education
+ + + 2
Number of 2 5 2 2
correct
3 14 of 25
projections
*P-projected
*A-actual
Correlations between personality and program satisfaction range positively
from .066 to .241, and negatively from -.210 to -.160. Extraversion and Agreeableness
have the highest mean personality trait correlations of .227 and .224 with satisfaction
scales, followed by Conscientiousness with .216, Neuroticism with -.203, and
Openness with .109.
Agreeableness has both a high personality trait mean and a high mean
correlation with satisfaction dimensions. Next in this ranking would be
Conscientiousness, followed by Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness.
122
Apparently the satisfaction of accounting students in this sample has a weaker
relationship to Openness than to other traits.
Of all the personality traits, the results for Neuroticism are the most different
from the others. First, it is the only trait that, for this sample, is negatively related to
satisfaction. This meant that accounting students in this sample who are less satisfied
had a tendency to be higher on Neuroticism. Second, Neuroticism had the lowest mean
of all the personality traits. Apparently the students in the sample who had higher
satisfaction scores also tended to have fewer neurotic tendencies. All correlations of
the two instruments were significant at the .01 level except for the correlation between
program satisfaction and Openness with Social Life, which was nonsignificant.
The bottom row of both Tables 13 and 14 gives the correlation of that
subscale with the whole instrument. Note that correlations involving Openness are,
again, low. Another low correlation is that of Conscientiousness with university
satisfaction. Higher or lower Conscientiousness in this sample is only weakly linked
to higher or lower satisfaction. This may be partly due to range restriction, since the
sample had high Conscientiousness scores. It may also be partly due to a weaker basis
for a linkage between Conscientiousness and university satisfaction. Perhaps
Conscientiousness is simply more meaningful in the student’s major program than in
nonmajor courses or other areas of the student’s university experience.
The bottom right-hand cells of Tables 13 and 14, which are labeled “Total,”
gives the overall correlation of personality with program satisfaction as .242, versus
123
.246 for university satisfaction. In the literature it is stated that correlations with
personality generally would not go above .30.
TABLE 13
Personality and Program Satisfaction - Correlations
SCALES OPEN CONSTI EXTRV AGREE NEUROT PERS/TOTAL

PST/WC .100 .138 .186 .180 -.161 .190
PST/CMP .100 .199 .159 .178 -.210 .178
PST/REG .093 .179 .225 .184 -.171 .128
PST/SL .066 NS .189 .226 .241 -.160 .238
00
PST/QE .115 .222 .211 .221
-j
.250
i
PST/ TOTAL .109 .216 .227 .224 -.203 .242 TOTAL
TABLE 14
Personality and University Satisfaction - Correlations
SCALES OPEN CONSTI EXTRV AGREE NEUROT PERS. TOTAL

UST/WC .101 .131 .201 .171 -.144 .198
UST/CMP .111 .190 .162 .198 -.154 .214
UST/REG .099 .127 .211 .177 -.145 .202
UST/SL .096 NS .126 .246 .196 -.214 .193
UST/QE .111 .193 .200 .227 -.148 .248
UST/ .121 .103 .213 .197 -.189 .246 TOTAL
TOTAL
The beta weights in Table IS of the regression model indicate the strength of
the independent variables to predict the dependent variable. Extraversion and
Agreeableness have the highest beta weights at .163 and .128 respectively.
Conscientiousness and Neuroticism have the next highest beta weights at .113 and
-.083 respectively. For program satisfaction Openness has the lowest beta weight at
.003. Neuroticism is the only negatively correlated personality subscale and was the
only nonsignificant predictor. An R 2 of .107 indicates that 11% of the variance is
explained by personality. Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness have
been easily identified as correlates in other studies also (Watson & Clark., 1997;
Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997; Barrick & Mount, 1993).
TABLE 15
Beta Weights of The Personality Subscales on Program Satisfaction
SUBSCALE BETA t SIGNIFICANCE

EXTRAVERSION .163 4.498 .000
AGREEABLENESS .128 3.363 .001
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS .113 3.042 .002
NEUROTICISM -.083 -2.209 .027
OPENNESS .003 .089 .929
R2 .107
The beta weight pattern of Table 15 is repeated in Table 16 in the description
of the beta weights of personality on university satisfaction. The magnitudes of the
beta weights for the personality subscales tended to follow somewhat the pattern of
the means in Figure 5 with Extravesion and Agreeableness having the highest beta
weight at .183 and .158 respectively. Conscientiousness and Neuroticism have the
next highest beta weights at .064 and -.063 respectively. Openness again has the
lowest beta weight at .019 just as in Figure 5 Openness had the lowest mean of the
personality profile figure. Except in this model Conscientiousness and Neuroticism
125
join Openness as the personality subscales of nonsignificance. An R 2 of .104
indicates that 10% of the variance is explained by personality. Extraversion,
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness having the same weighted positions in Tables
15 and 16 indicates that program satisfaction was predicted very similarly but better
than university satisfaction by the personality scales.
TABLE 16
Beta Weights of The Personality Subscales on University Satisfaction
SUBSCALE BETA t SIGNIFICANCE

EXTRAVERSION .183 5.024 .000
AGREEABLENESS .152 3.989 .000
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS .064 1.722 .085
NEUROTICISM -.063 -1.676 .094
OPENNESS .019 .540 .590
R2 .104
Comparison Of Study to John 1998 BFI-44 Study
An independent sample t-test was used to compare the personality subscale
means of the present study to those from a normed study by John (1998) of the
University of California at Berkeley that also used the BFI-44 personality instrument.
John’s sample consisted of 711 (300 men and 411 female) undergraduate Berkeley
students with non-psychology majors. The mean age of students in John’s study was
21 years (SD = 3.3). The John students were from a wide range of majors, unlike
those in the present study whose participants all were or had been accounting majors.
Also, John’s sample participants completed the instrument on their own time (Benet-
126
Martinez, & John, 1998), whereas the present study’s participants completed the
instrument in class except for the S3 master’s students, who completed the
instrument on their own time.
The means were different. The standard deviations of the two groups were
very similar. All the t-test results were significant using the Bonferroni correction for
multiple t-tests at the .01 level, giving a critical value of 2.57. Table 17 contains the
two sets of BFI-44 means and the t-test results.
TABLE 17
COMPARISON OF BFI-44 PERSONALITY MEANS
SbfesCALE JOHN PRESENT John Present

STUDY STUDY study study value
SD SD
711 802
Extraversion 3.4 7430

Agreeableness T9 -3.23
Conscientiousness 3.6 4.0 -9.09

Neuroticism 735
Openness
Critical Value 2.57
Since John is also the author of the BFI-44 personality instrument, he was
personally contacted for his explanation and observations on the accounting students
personality profile found in this study. His comments are as follows:
127
These differences make a lot of sense-accounting in the Alabama

study vs. non-psych in Berkeley implies less
openness/experimenting/artistic and intellectual interests and instead
more focus on the here and now, how to get things done (= the higher
C {Conscientious} for the accounting students); and less emphasis on
one’s negative emotions-your accounting folks worry less, are less
depressed, and more confident. O. John (Personal communication,
May 14, 1999)
Figure 16 demonstrates in overlay the aggregate mean scores of the two BFI-
44 studies. The differences in means are quite evident and show different patterns.
4.0
40
10
JO H N ST U O V
3.75
3.5
3.4
14
3.25
12
10
2.75
2.7
2.5
NEUROT EXTRV CONSTI
Figure 16. Aggregate means of the two BFI-44 studies.
128
Summary
Chapter 4 described the sample and subscale reliabilities for the satisfaction
and personality instruments used in the study. In addition, the three research
questions were answered by explanations, interpretations, tables, and figures from the
data analysis.
As an answer to question one, the level of satisfaction of accounting students
for their programs is higher than their level of satisfaction for their university.
Answering question two, the personality profile of accounting students is similar for
all groups in this study. There is a modest relationship between the satisfaction and
personality instruments of the study.
Mean plots were provided to aid the understanding of the relationships of the
variables and groups in the study. An aggregate mean plot of the personality profile of
the sample was given which shows that the accounting students were low on
Neuroticism, in the middle range on Extraversion and Openness, and high of
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Figure 5, which combined in one figure the
mean plots of the personality subscales of each group, demonstrated that both
accounting students and new professionals, regardless of group, had similar
personality subscale profiles. The mean plot of the personality subscales of each
group was given. This showed the shape of the mean plots to be the same.
The overall correlation of the two instruments was found to be a modest .242.
The beta weights of each personality subscale’s prediction coefficient was given. A
comparison of the researchers’ illustrated personality profile of an accounting student
129
to the actual data results was also shown. All but one of the subscale correlations in
the matrix showed significance at the .01 level. The anticipated findings matrix of the
correlations of the subscales of satisfaction with personality was compared to the
actual findings. The researcher was found to be correct on 56% of the correlations.
CHAPTER 5
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
This study addressed the need for higher education to receive feedback from
its students in terms of their satisfaction. In particular, this work centered on the
satisfaction of accounting students with their major programs and their undergraduate
and graduate institutions. At the beginning, a basic question was whether there would
be variations in accounting student satisfaction between class levels and institutions,
and if so whether these variations would show patterns, and also whether or not there
is a relationship of satisfaction with personality.
There are several important reasons for undertaking a study involving student
satisfaction. One reason is that governmental agencies and other organizations, as well
as individuals, can use it as a criterion to judge effectiveness in schools. Another is
that departments use or can use student satisfaction to gage their own effectiveness.
Additionally, departments can measure satisfaction to gage their students’ feelings and
meet expectations.
Student personality is important to study in order to ascertain whether
students with certain behavior patterns or traits tend to gravitate toward certain
majors or groups of majors. It is important to study both whether there are
130
131
homogeneous patterns within majors and the degree of homogeneity within majors.
The researcher deemed it important to use a personality instrument that enjoyed wide
acceptance by personality psychology researchers in order to better establish the
credibility of the results. It was also desired that this study would serve as an
introduction to the Big 5 trait model of personality for researchers in the fields of
accounting and education who were previously unfamiliar with it.
This research had the overall objective of investigating relationships between
accounting student satisfaction and personality. This was to be done by using
reputable measuring instruments to ensure high reliability and the greatest possible
validity for the results. After a fairly exhaustive search, the College Student
Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSSQ) and BFI-44 were chosen for measurement
purposes.
Seven doctoral-granting institutions of higher learning were involved in this
study. Additionally, a sample of master’s students in accountancy was used and a
major CPA firm, KPMG LLP, provided a sample of new accounting professionals.
Each survey respondent had completed, or was on the way to completing, a
baccalaureate or master’s degree in accounting. KPMG respondents were queried
regarding their experiences while earning that degree.
Satisfaction
The present study looked at the satisfaction of students in their accounting
programs. The accounting profession is in the process of improving program curricula
132
to provide added skills that accounting students may need for current societal and
business demands. Given the norms of the satisfaction survey employed, the CSSQ,
all student groups in the survey were found to be satisfied with their accounting
programs. However, the facts that there were differences between the groups and that
some groups were not far above the minimum for satisfaction indicate there is room
for additional program satisfaction improvement.
To a great extent, students know and realize what they want and expect from
their universities and from the major programs that they have decided to study. Their
schools are valued by students and alumni for educationally empowering them and for
helping them to embark upon their initial careers. The accounting profession, no less
than any other profession, is dependent upon having newly graduated students who
refresh, bolster, and nourish the profession. Through the measurement of student
satisfaction, an indication of how well the schools are meeting students’ expectations
can be obtained. Accounting students come to universities with the ability to acquire
skills necessary for their careers (Scott, Taussin, & Posey, 1998). It is in college that
students are molded and shaped into budding professionals. Obtaining their
satisfaction will aid the effectiveness and certainty of this process.
Shim and Morgan (1990) stated that feelings of satisfaction are different,
depending on the life area that is being considered. An example of this is the different
satisfactions experienced by a female accounting student who works at the school
library and has recently purchased a new computer. This student may simultaneously
experience much satisfaction with her major program (high program satisfaction),
133
little satisfaction with her overall school experiences (low university satisfaction), a
reasonable amount of satisfaction with her job (moderate job satisfaction), tremendous
satisfaction with her new computer (high consumer satisfaction), and good
satisfaction with her life overall (moderately high life satisfaction). This example
shows the multiplicity of the satisfaction component in our lives.
Monitoring satisfaction is o f considerable consequence. It is important that the
organizations which provide the environments for our experiences (manufacturers of
computers or academic institutions) feel the need to closely monitor the satisfaction
levels of the recipients of these experiences (purchasers of computers or students). It
is similarly important that individuals who represent such organizations (computer
sales managers or school administrators) show an interest in and obtain an idea
regarding the satisfaction of their end users. In terms of accounting students, faculty
members, program administrators, and accounting education researchers should be
interested in the satisfaction levels of these undergraduates. Whether satisfaction is
high or low, measuring it as well as thinking about and acting on the results can help
faculty to improve their teaching, administrators to improve curriculum and resource
planning, and recruiters to better understand the school they are portraying to
prospective students.
Currently, undergraduate institutions are experiencing increasing competition
from other potential service providers, such as for-profit universities and Internet-
based higher education institutions. This competition is expected to continue and to
increase. Informed word-of-mouth accounts and descriptions from satisfied students
134
are one of the most powerful means of meeting that competition and drawing new
students to a school. Graduates of institutions who are highly satisfied become
positive ambassadors as alumni. This draws the attention of prospective students to
the school, helping to retain the competitive recruiting position of the institution.
Personality
A wide variety of studies in the behavioral sciences currently use personality
trait variables. This is due to the widespread belief by scholars that, through using
instruments which measure Big Five traits, they are able to depict personality with
greater clarity and completeness than with previous instruments (Ones and
Viswesvaran, 1996).
This study used a short, time-effective Big Five personality survey instrument
to measure personality traits of a sample of accounting students and new
professionals. The Big Five model’s intent is to measure personality in a quantitative
and comprehensive way. This model gives a type of description of the whole
personality by measuring the following five facets; O- Openness, C-
Conscientiousness, A-Agreeableness, E-Extraversion and N-Neuroticism.
Several previous studies in the accounting literature have used the Myers-
Briggs Typology Indicator (MBTI) to measure personality in qualitative terms
(Krieser, McKeon & Post, 1990; Shackleton, 1980). However, from other studies it
has been shown that the MBTI does not capture the Neuroticism personality trait,
unlike Big Five model instruments (McCrae, 1989). Neuroticism has been shown to
135
be important in that it is related to a wide range of a person’s satisfaction and other
life outcomes (Morrison, 1996).
Satisfaction and Personality
Previous research exists that links personality and satisfaction. This literature
has found that personality traits can be meaningfully studied with regard to life
satisfaction (Brasil, 1994), marital satisfaction (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990), and
other measures of well-being (Costa & McCrae, 1980). This general relationship will
continue to be studied into the future because it holds rich possibilities for increasing
our understanding in applied settings, such as accounting student personality and
program satisfaction.
In this exploratory study, predictions were made using a matrix. These
predictions, which pertain to the signs of correlations between personality and
satisfaction subscales, were based on assumptions and the experiences of the
researcher. These assumptions and experiences were described, along with an
illustrative personality profile of a typical accounting student (TAS). The researcher
predicted 56% of the correlation signs correctly.
In the analysis the dependent variable, satisfaction, was regressed on the
independent variable, personality. The personality instrument explained 10% of the
total variance in the regression model. The overall relationship between the students’
personalities and their satisfaction levels was demonstrated, with a .242 correlation
between the two instruments. The personality subscales that contributed the most as
136
predictors in the regression model for both types of satisfaction were Extraversion
and Agreeableness, which had beta weights of .163 and .128, respectively. With
program satisfaction all of the personality predictors except Openness were
significant. With university satisfaction only Extraversion and Agreeableness were
significant predictors at the .05 level.
Overall, accounting student personality was found to be a small but
meaningful contributor to satisfaction. Demographic variables and individual
characteristics variables relating to accounting students likely are additional potential
contributors to satisfaction. Most importantly, the institutional environments in
which the students received their education are likely to be the largest contributors to
satisfaction. Had personality contributed most of the variance in the regression model,
these findings would indicate that schools could not do much to increase student
satisfaction. However, it appears that institutional environments have a greater effect
on total student satisfaction than do student personality traits.
Implications
Research Question I a: What levels of satisfaction exist among accounting students?
For program satisfaction, do the satisfaction levels differ among the groups (juniors,
seniors, master’s students, and new professionals) in the study.
The new KPMG professionals in this study had the highest percentage of
satisfaction with their school and the next-to-highest with their accounting program,
with mean levels of .7368 and .7847, respectively. Institution 1 had the highest actual
137
mean level percentage for program satisfaction at .7363. University satisfaction does
differ from program satisfaction. In this study, with class level as the grouping
variable, juniors, seniors, and master’s students, program satisfaction attained a mean
level percentage of .7740 by the juniors; the highest mean level percentage on
university satisfaction was .7034, also attained by the juniors.
Research Question I b: Do program satisfaction and university satisfaction differ in
their magnitudes?
Of the students yet in school the juniors have a higher program satisfaction
mean level than the seniors and master’s students, the master’s students are higher
than the seniors, and the KPMG group’s mean level is highest of all. It appears that
once the student is out of school and gainfully employed the student has a great
satisfaction for their program.
Research Question I c: Does the level of satisfaction differ among the four accounting
program groups in the study (juniors, seniors, master’s, and new professionals)?
Seniors have the lowest level of accounting satisfaction of the four class level
groups in this study. Master’s students are next, followed by juniors. The new
KPMG firm professionals have the highest level of program satisfaction.
The overall levels of university satisfaction are lower than those of program
satisfaction. The seniors and master’s students have the lowest levels of university
138
satisfaction, followed by the juniors. Again, new KPMG professionals have the
highest levels of university satisfaction of all class levels.
Research Question II a: What patterns of personality traits do accounting
students exhibit, and are there differences among the groups represented in this study?
The following items 1 through 5 answer these questions with the data results
as well as their comparison to the illustrated personality profile previously suggested
by the researcher.
1. The aggregate accounting personality profile of the participants in the study
resulted in the accounting students exhibiting a low level of Neuroticism, which had an
item mean of 2.66. The researcher had anticipated that the typical accounting student
(TAS) would be low on this scale, since these students were expected to have a
tendency to be emotionally stable, focused, and directed in purpose.
2 and 3. The aggregate accounting personality profile of the participants in the
study showed the accounting students at the mid-range level on Extraversion and
Openness, with item means of 3.41 and 3.43, respectively. The researcher had
anticipated that the typical accounting student (TAS) would be high on the
Extraversion scale. On Openness the researcher anticipated that the typical accounting
student (TAS) would probably be midway on the scale, not tending to be too creative
and generally wanting things to be spelled out in terms of how they function. The
TAS student tends to be more of a concrete thinker, wanting to place things into real
terms.
4 and 5. The aggregate accounting personality profile of the participants in the
study showed personality traits at a moderately high level on Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness, with item means of 3.94 and 3.99, respectively. The researcher
had anticipated that the typical accounting student (TAS) would probably be low-to-
midway on Agreeableness. Regarding Conscientiousness, the researcher anticipated
that the typical accounting student (TAS) would be rather high on this scale. The
reason for this is that most accounting students know that to be a good accountant,
one needs to explain accounting facts meticulously to represent the facts fairly.
Therefore, accounting students tend to be diligent in their studies, and tenacious and
complete in their work. They will be patient enough to study the facts, being
meticulous enough to understand amounts spent on projects. Having a propensity to
become highly involved in things and objects, the student tends not to be as socially
engaging.
Being low on Neuroticism demonstrates the emotional stability of the
accounting participants. Contrary to the stereotype of the narrowness of accountants,
the aggregate personality profile suggests that the accounting students are about
average in Extraversion and Openness. Being moderately high on Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness would indicate that the accounting student has the ability to get
along with people while being capable of getting the job done in an orderly and
persistent way. Openness, on the other hand, refers to a continuum of individual
differences in how the student processes experiences. The majority of people are
intermediate in Openness (McCrae and Costa, 1997).
140
Research Question II b: Are there differences among the class level groups in this
study?
The lack of significant findings after the MANOVA test on the personality
variables indicates that there are no differences among the groups. Persons deciding to
choose accounting as their career major tend to have a preference for its job demands.
Thus, it is not surprising that they have similar personality patterns (Shackleton,
1980). The finding of no difference in the class level groups supports Holland's
theory that vocational choices are indicators of personality dispositions (Costa,
McCrae & Holland, 1984).
Research Question III: What relationships are there, if any, between accounting
student personality and university and program satisfaction?
All of the correlations between personality subscales and the subscales of
satisfaction were significant except one, which was the correlation between Openness
and Social Life. With the accounting students being moderately high on
Conscientiousness, the researcher would assume that such students are aggressively
tending to the subject matter and not engaged in the social life on campus. Neuroticism
was the only subscale that was negatively correlated to the satisfaction subscales. The
subscale Neuroticism was negatively correlated on both program and university
satisfaction. This inverse relationship of satisfaction and Neuroticism gives the
accounting student the ability to perceive a high satisfaction without being
encumbered with a lot of negative affectivity.
141
Since all but one personality subscale had positive correlations with the
satisfaction subscales, the highest correlation of each personality subscale will be
discussed in terms of its implications. The university satisfaction subscales of Social
Life and Quality of Education correlated the highest with the personality subscales.
Social Life correlated with Neuroticism and Extraversion at -.214 and .246,
respectively, while Quality of Education had the highest correlations with
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness at .227, .193 and .111 respectively.
On program satisfaction, the personality subscales correlated the highest again
on Social Life and Quality of Education, except for Neuroticism on Compensation.
Social life correlated at .226 on Extraversion and .241 on Agreeableness. Quality of
Education correlated .222 on Conscientiousness and .1 IS on Openness. The
correlation between Compensation and Neuroticism was -.210. The accounting
student’s personality significantly moderates how the student perceives satisfaction
of the Social Life and Quality of Education of their university and program major
experience.
Conclusion of Comparison of Study to John (1998) BFI-44 Study
The comparison of the present study to a group of mixed majors in the John
(1998) study revealed that the accounting students definitely had a different
personality profile. In general the accounting students had those traits that seem
needful for the accounting profession. In comparison to the mixed majors group, the
accounting students were lower on Neuroticism, revealing them to be more
142
emotionally stable. This will be to their advantage when focusing on issues. The
accounting students were higher on Extraversion, revealing them to be more outgoing.
The accounting students were lower on Openness, which would be expected since
they are not deemed to be artistic as some of the majors in the other study may have
been. For the accounting students, being higher on Conscientiousness reveals their
thoroughness in completing their tasks. Refer to Figure 16 for this comparison.
Suggestions for Further Research
Several items may be noted regarding the research literature. First, there have
been very few studies that investigated student satisfaction with accounting majors.
Second, not many studies have considered accounting student satisfaction in light of
the Accounting Education Change Commission (AECC) findings and
recommendations. Third, little research has used a comprehensive personality
instrument to measure personality in accounting students. Fourth, not many
accounting studies have used a Big Five model personality instrument. Fifth,
extremely few studies on the practical profession side of accounting have investigated
the relationship between satisfaction and personality. And sixth, accounting student
satisfaction and personality have been studied even less.
We know in general terms how individual traits are manifested in behavior.
High O individuals are inquisitive; high C persons tend to work responsibly on their
tasks; High E individuals talk and smile readily; high A individuals blend well in group
activities; and high N individuals are unlikely to help resolve an issue. We know much
143
less about how combinations of traits are shown or how the flow of behavior is
governed. Theoretical elaboration of such interactions of factors can bring a more
dynamic flavor to trait psychology (McCrae & John, 1992).
The correlating of personality and satisfaction of this study tended to lead to
more questions for future research, such as a) whether similar personality clusters will
be found for students interested in similar academic fields; b) whether it is the field
that is attracting persons or some general personality trait; c) whether a given field,
such as accounting, attracts students with a wide spectrum of traits; and d) why
personality is correlated with satisfaction.
Research on student satisfaction and personality can work toward furthering
our understanding in regards to several potentially beneficial questions. One such area
for questions is whether, as is commonly supposed, students with similarly clustered
personality traits tend to enter similar academic fields. If this were found to be true, a
follow-up question would be, why? Additional follow-up questions might be whether
the given field of study is attracting persons with the general traits it feels are best for
itself, and whether the given field of study should be made attractive to students with
a wider spectrum o f personality traits.
A second area for questions is whether students with certain specific
personality profiles will be more satisfied with school. If student satisfaction were
found to be more related to some personality profiles than to others, a follow-up
question might be, why? Other follow-up questions might involve whether (and, if
so, why) it is possible to help a larger spectrum of students in a major experience
144
satisfaction, whether personality and student satisfaction are correlated for certain
majors more than for others, and which university environmental characteristics have
an effect on the linkage between student personality and student satisfaction. There
would need to be more studies on different majors to reveal what differences could be
detected. Longitudinal studies of satisfaction would be needed to understand how the
relationships of satisfaction and personality effect each other over time and in terms
of success in a chosen field.
A third area for questions involves relationships between student personality,
student satisfaction and student success. Questions in this area involve whether
students with certain specific personality profiles are more successful at school,
whether student satisfaction is linked to student success, and whether student
satisfaction moderates the relationship between student personality and student
success (or if student success moderates the relationship between student personality
and student satisfaction). The directionality of the relationship between success and
satisfaction also may be explored. Also, it should be asked whether student
satisfaction or student success is more important, first to the student and second to
society.
Fourth, another area for questions concentrates on students in a major who
have personality profiles outside those which may be “typical” for that major. Are
these students often just as successful and happy as students whose profiles fall
inside the conventional profiles for a given program major? Do constraints imposed
by the school environment create more difficulty for such individuals? Or do self
145
imposed, personality-related constraints have an impact on the satisfaction of these
students? Also, how different are the profiles of students with nontypical profiles -
just a little, or more similar to students in a completely different major profile?
Studying these “outlier’' students may provide insights on the interaction between
student personality and satisfaction, on the nature of student satisfaction itself, and
on how the construction of different program major environments facilitates or
constrains different types of students.
Suggestions for Further Research in Accounting Area
1. Why do program differences exist between juniors, seniors and master’s students?
2. What differences exist between the personality traits of business students and
accounting majors as well as non-business majors?
3. What are the personality traits of successful accountants presently working in the
field?
4. How do the personality traits of the present study compare to the traits and skills
emphasized by the AECC?
5. What research studies would reveal how the personalities of liberal arts majors
compare to those of the accounting majors in the present study?
Conclusion
Student satisfaction is an important outcome that higher education,
governmental agencies, and major departmental programs should include as one of
146
their important concerns. It can be used as an indicator of how well the educational
process has met the expectations of the student, and as a mechanism to indicate areas
in need of change. The educational satisfaction that students experience in school has a
lasting effect upon their accounts of their educational experiences to others as well as
on their level of interest in their alma maters as alumni.
This study’s findings indicate that the personality of the accounting student is
related to the satisfaction of that student, especially in the areas of Social Life and
Quality of Education. Using the Big Five model of personality, areas of the
personality could be captured that would be missing in a less comprehensive
instrument. Contrary to the common stereotype that accountants are antisocial,
overall the accounting participants in this study exhibited a middle range value on
Extraversion and a moderately high value on Agreeableness. This indicated that
overall, the accounting participants in this sample are quite capable of interacting well
with people. Further study on the subtraits of Extraversion and Agreeableness is
needed to better understand these traits in terms of students in general, and accounting
students in particular.
In addition, the accounting students showed high values on the
Conscientiousness trait. In general, desirable employees are well adjusted and
conscientious. It is not surprising that Conscientiousness emerges as an important
element in job performance; meta-analysis has identified Conscientiousness as a
predictor of successful performance in a wide variety of occupations (Barrick &
147
Mount, 1991). Further study on the subtraits of Conscientiousness in regard to
accounting students and other students is needed.
This study could not control for proportionate class levels across the sample
nor all classes having the same number of prerequisites, which causes a limitation of
the study. Further research should be conducted with proportionate class levels and
prescribed accounting prerequistes to ensure a tighter control in that area.
148
References
Abrahamowicz, D. (1988). College involvement, perceptions and satisfaction: A

study of membership in student organizations. Journal of College Student
Personnel. 29.233-238.
Allport, G. W. (1961). Patterns and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Alston, P. L., & Harris, T. (1995). What do students want? New Accountant, 11 (2),
17-20.
Armstead, C. D. (1996). Academic adjustment and subjective well-being comparing

life events, personality, and integrated causal models. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Washington State University, Pullman.
Astin, A. W., Korn, W., & Green, K. (1987). Retaining and satisfying students.
Educational Record. Winter. 36-42.
Astin, A.W. (1978). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baker, D., & Ganster, D. (1985). Leader Communication style: A test of average
versus vertical dyad linkage models. Group & Organization Studies. 10 (3),
242-259.
Bare, A. C. (1980). The study of academic department performance. Research in

Higher Education. 12(1). 3-23.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, K. M. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology. 4 4 .1-27.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, K. M. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the

relationships between the big five personality dimensions and job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (1), 111-118.
Bauer, K. W. (1992). Self-reported gains in academic and social skills. Journal of

College Student Development, 33 (6), 492-498.
Bean, J., & Bradley, R. K. (1986). Untangling the satisfaction-performance

relationship for college students. Journal or Higher Education. 57.393-412.
Beard, J., & Ragheb, M. (1980). Measuring leisure satisfaction. Journal of Leisure
Research, 12.20-33.
149
Bedford, N., Bartholomew, E. E., Bowsher, C. A., Brown, A. L., Davidson, S.,
Homgren, C. T., Knortz, H. C., Piser, M. M., Shenkir, W. G., Simmons J. K.,
Summers, E. L., Wheeler, J. T. (1986). Future accounting education: Preparing
for the expanding profession. Issues in Accounting Education. 1 (1), 168-195.
Benet, V., & Waller, N. G. (1995). The big seven factor model of personality
description: Evidence for its cross-cultural generality in a Spanish sample.
Journal of Psychology. 69. (4), 701-718.
Benet-Martinez, V., & John, O. (1998). Los cinco grandes across cultures and ethnic
groups: Multi-trait multi-method analyses of the big five in Spanish and
English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (3), 729-750.
Benet-Martinez, V., & Waller, N. G. (1997). Further evidence for the cross-cultural
generality of the big seven factor model: Indigenous and imported Spanish
personality constructs. Journal of Personality, 65 (3), 567-598.
Berdie, R. F. (1944). The perdiction of college student achievement and satisfaction.

Journal of Applied Psychology. 28, 239-245.
Betz, E. L., Betz, N. E., & Menne, J. W. (1971). Why a college student satisfaction
questionnaire. CSSQ Materials. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
Betz, E. L., Betz, N. E., & Menne, J. W. (1989). Manual for the college student
satisfaction questionnaire, 1989 Revision. Columbus, OH: Ohio State
University.
Betz, E. L., Menne, J. W., Starr, A. M., & Klingensmith J. E. (1971). A dimensional
analysis of college student satisfaction. Measurement and Evaluation in
Guidance, 4,99-106.
Bogg, J., and Cooper, C. (1995). Job satisfaction, mental health, and occupational
stress among senior civil servants, Human Relations. 48 (3), 327-341.
Booth, P., Winzar, H. (1993). Personality biases of accounting students: Some

implications for learning style preferences. Accounting and Finance. 33 (21.
107-120.
Borgatta, E. F. (1964). The structure of personality characteristics. Behavioral

Science. 9 ,8-17.
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and

critique. Psychological Bulletin. 1 (7), 3-33.
150
Brasil, M. (1994, March 14). The relationship between life satisfaction and self
discrepancy in the big five personality dimensions for women. [18
paragraphs]. Active Intellect, 1 (2). [On-line]. Available:
http://server.berkeley.edu/Active _Intellect/Vol-1-2-5-big5.
Braskamp L. A., Wise, S. L., & Hengstler D. D. (1979) Student satisfaction as a

measure of department quality. Journal of Educational Psychology. 71 (4),
494-498.
Briggs, S. R. (1989). The optimal level of measurement for personality constructs. In

D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology recent trends and
emerging directions (pp.246-260). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Buros, O. K. (1953). The Fourth Mental Measurements Yearbook, 536-538. New

Jersey: The Gryphon Press.
Buros, O. K. (1974). Tests in Print II an Index to Tests. Test Reviews, and the
Literature on Specific Tests. New Jersey: The Gryphon Press.
Buss, A. H. (1989). Personality as traits. American Psychologist, 44, (11), 1378-

1388.
Cameron, P. A. (1994). Accounting for a better education. Today’s CPA, 20 (3), 36-
37.
Cattel, R. B. (1945). The description of personality: Principles and findings in a factor

analysis. American Journal of Psychology. 58,69-90.
Catttel, R. B. (1957). Personality, and motivation: Structure and measurement.

Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book.
Chadwick, K., Ward. J. (1987). Determinants of consumer satisfaction with

education: Implications for college and university administration. College and
University. 62.236-246.
Chaplin, W. F. (1997). Personality, interactive relations, and applied psychology. In

R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality
Psychology (pp. 873-890). San Diego: Academic Press.
Coan, R. W. (1974). The optimal personality. New York: Columbus University

Press.
Cognetta, J. S. (1993). The relationship between student involvement in selected

college extracurricular activities at de anza college and satisfaction levels with
151
the college. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the University of San

Francisco.
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on

subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 38 (4), 668-678.
Costa, P. T. Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Holland, J. L. (1984). Personality and vocational
interests in an adult sample. Journal of Applied Psychology. 69 (3), 390-400.
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory Manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1987). Neuroticism, somatic complaints, and

disease: Is the bark worse than the bite? Journal of Personality. 55.299-316.
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical

personality assessment using the revised NEO-Personality Inventory. Journal
of Personality Assessment. 64 (1), 21-50.
Costa, P. T. Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness
and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory.
Personality and Individual Differences. 12. 887-898.
Craik, K. H. (1993). The 1937 Allport and Stagner texts in personality psychology.
In K. H. Craik, R. Hogan & R. N. Wolfe (Eds.), Fifty years of personality
psychology (pp. 3-20). New York: Plenum Press.
Cropanzano, R., James, K., & Konovsky, M. A. (1993). Dispositional affectivity as a

predictor of work attitudes and job performance. Journal of Organizational
Behavior. 14,595-606.
DeVore, J. R., & Handel, P. J. (1981). The college student satisfaction Questionnaire:
A test-retest reliability study. Journal of College Student Personnel. 22.299-
301.
Dey, E., Astin, A., Korn, W. (1991). The American Freshman Twenty-Five Trends.
1966-1990. Cooperative Institutional Research Program. American Council on
Education. University of California, Los Angeles.
Diener, E.& Emmons, R. (1985). The independence of positive and negative affect.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 4 7 .1105-1117.
152
Digman, J. M. & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of

personality: Re-analysis and comparison of six major studies. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 16.149-170.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model.

Annual Review of Psychology. 41.417-440.
Drews-Bryan, A. L., & Davis, J. R. (1994). Assessment of accounting education.

Management Accounting. 57.72.
Evans, C. M. (1972). Study of personality need factors with respect to college

student satisfaction in a small, private college located in Mississippi.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi 1972).
Dissertation Abstracts International. 33, 1432A.
Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings

from different sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 44.329-
344.
Fitts, W. H. (1965). Tennessee self concept scale. Nashville. TN: Counsel Recordings
and Tests.
Francalanza, C. (1997). Accounting education and change in financial accounting,

Journal of Accounting Education. 15 (1), 109-122.
Frankel, S., & Manners, L. (1980). Australian managers: A comparative analysis of

their industrial and social orientations. Sydney: University of New South
Wales.
Franklin, K. K. (1996). Exploring the congruency between student satisfaction and

institutional effectiveness in higher education. Unpublished dissertation, East
Tennessee State University, Johnson City.
Gangestad, S., & Snyder, M. (1985). “To carve nature at its joints”: On the existence
of discrete classes in personality. Psychological Review, 92. (3), 317-349.
Glauser, M. J. (1984). Upward information flow in organizations: Review and

conceptual analysis, Human Relations. 37.613-643.
Glover, H. D., Blankley, A. I., & Oliver, E. G. (1995). An integrated business school
model. Management Accounting. May, 35-37.
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Languages and individual differences: The search for

universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of Personality
and Social Psychology (pp. 1441-165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
153
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The big five

factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59. 1216-1229.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American

Psychologist, 48 (1), 26-34.
Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality.

In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, S. Briggs (Eds.) Handbook of Personality
Psychology, (pp. 795-824). San Diego: Academic Press.
Gregg, W. E. (1972). Several factors affecting graduate student satisfaction. Journal of

Higher Education, 43 (6), 483-499.
Haggerty, L. (1998, March). Student involvement, gains and satisfaction within

Washington State University’s academic colleges: A study of the 95/96
freshman students [17 paragraphs]. CSEQ Survey: Student Affairs Research
Synopsis No. 004-04 [On-line]. Available:
http://www.wsu.edu/sares/cseq0404.html.
Hallenbeck, D. A. (1974). The analysis of reported student satisfaction and student

satisfaction as perceived by academic advisors and student affairs staff at Iowa
State University (Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, 1974).
Dissertation Abstracts International. 35. 5054A.
Hallenbeck, T. (1978). College student satisfaction: An indication of institutional

vitality. NASPA Journal. 16 (2), 19-25.
Hampson, S. E. (1989). Using traits to construct personality. In D. M. Buss & N.

Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology recent trends and emerging directions.
(pp. 286-293). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hampton, G. M. (1993). Gap Analysis of college student satisfaction as a measure of

professional service quality. Journal of Professional Services Marketing. 9(1),
115-129.
Hart, P. M., Wearing, A., J. Heading, B. (1995). Police stress and well-being:
Integrating personality, coping and daily work experiences. Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 68 (2). 133-156.
Hatcher, W. (1975). The relationship of personality and other characteristics to

college student satisfaction in differing institutions (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern Mississippi, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts
International. 36.2023A.
154
Haygood, E. L. (1995). An analysis of learning conceptions based on three modules

compared with learning style factors based on the Mvers-Briees Type
Indicator. Unpublished dissertation, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Hazier, R. J., & Carney J (1993). Student-faculty interactions: An underemphasized

dimension of counselor education. Counselor Education and Supervision. 33.
81-89.
Heam, J. (1985). Determinants of college students’ overall evaluations of their

academic programs. Research in Higher Education, 23 (4), 413-437.
Heiss, A. (1967). Berkeley doctoral students appraise their academic programs.

Educational Record, 48,30-44.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. O., & Capwell, D. F. (1957). Job attitudes:
review of research and opinion. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychological Services.
Hogan, R. (1986). Hogan Personality Inventory manual. Minneapolis, MN: National

Computer Systems.
Holland, A., & Huba, M. E. (1991). Satisfaction with college among participants in a
campus service program. NASPA Journal. 28,342-347.
Holland, J. (1958). A personality inventory employing occupational titles. Journal of

Applied Psychology. 42. 336-342.
Holland, J. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. New York: Harper & Row.
Huggins, C. P. (1987). A study of the effect of a mentor program on the academic

success and college satisfaction of freshmen. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Jackson, C. M. (1989). A comparative study of Mvers-Briggs personality type,

leaming-stvle factors, and locus of control of middle-school achieving and
underachieving intellectually gifted students. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Janssen, O., Vries, T., & Cozijnsen, A. J. (1998). Voicing by adapting and innovating
employees: An empirical study on how personality and environment interact
to affect voice behavior. Human Relations, 51 (7), 1998.
155
John, O. P. (1989). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors. In D. M. Buss &

N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology recent trends and emerging
directions, (pp. 261-271). New York: Springer-Verlag.
John, O. P. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the
natural language and in questionnaires. In L A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of
Personality: Theory and Research, (pp. 66-100). New York: Guilford Press.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The “big five” inventory-
Versions 4a and 54. Technical Report: Institute of Personality Assessment
and Research, Berkeley, CA: University of California.
John, O. P., Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R . (1991). The basic level in
personality-trait hierarchies: Studies of trait use and accessibility in different
Contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 (3). 348-361.
John, O., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality:
A historical review of trait taxonomic research, European Journal of
Personality, 2. 171-203.
Judge, A. J., Martocchio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J. (1997). Five-factor model of

personality and employee absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (5).
745-755.
Juillerat, S. (1995). Investigating a two-dimensional approach to the assessment of

student satisfaction: Validation of the student satisfaction inventory.
Unpublished dissertation. Temple University: Philadelphia.
Kamey, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality
and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin
(in press).
Knox, W. E., Lindsay, P., & Kolb, M. N. (1992). Higher education, college
characteristics, and student experiences: Long-term effects on educational
satisfactions and perceptions. Journal of Higher Education, 3 (3). 303-328.
Kotler, P. (1976). Applying marketing theory to college admissions. A role for

marketing in college admissions. New York: College Entrance Examination
Board, 54-72.
Kreisser,L, McKeon, J., and Post, A. (1990). A personality profile of CPAs in public
practice, The Ohio CPA Journal, Winter, 29-34.
Larkins, J. M. (1994). Human resources. Pennsylvania CPA Journal, 65 (5), 20-21,

32.
156
Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Sanders, M. M. (1997). Designing effective learning systems

for management education: Student roles, requisite variety, and practicing what
we teach. Academy of Management. 40 (6). 1334-1368.
McCrae, R. R. (1989). Why I advocate the five-factor model: Joint factor analyses of
the NEO-PI with other instruments. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.),
Personality psychology recent trends and emerging directions, (pp. 237-245).
New York: Springer-Verlag.
McCrae, R. R. (1990). Traits and trait names: How well is openness represented in
natural languages? European Journal of Personality. 4 , 119-129.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. JR. (1997). Personality Trait Structure as a Human
Universal. American Psychologist, 52 (5), 509-516.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its
applications. Journal of Personality. 60. 175-215.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & Piedmont, R. L. (1993). Folk concepts, natural
language, and psychological constructs: The California Psychological
Inventory and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality. 6 1 (1). 1-26.
Meredith, G. M. (1985). Student-based indicators of campus satisfaction as an

outcome of higher education. Psychological Reports. 56, 597-598.
Metzelaars, G. (1994). The relationships among college satisfaction, leisure

satisfaction, and life satisfaction in adult college students. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
Michalos, A. (1991). Global Report on Student Well-being. New York: Springer-

Verlag.
Miller, G. P. (1987). A study to identify possible correlates of satisfaction among

adult undergraduates. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, 1987).
Dissertation Abstracts International. 50.0083A.
Minor, K. L. (1972). The relationship between college student alienation and

satisfaction using canonical analysis. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Southern Mississippi, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 33. 1837A.
Morrison, K. (1996). An empirical test of a model of franchisee job satisfaction.

Journal of Small Business Management July. 27-41.
157
Morrison, K. (1997). How franchise job satisfaction and personality affects

performance, organizational commitment, franchisor relations, and intention to
remain. Journal of Small Business Management, 35 (3), 39-67.
Mueller, C. W., Boyer, E. M., Price, J. L., & Iverson, R. D. (1994). Employee
attachment and noncoercive conditions of work. Work and Occupations. 21
(2), 179-212.
Natfziger, D., Holland, J., & Gottfredson, G. (1975). Student-college congruency as a

predictor of satisfaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 22 (2). 132-139.
Netusil, A. J. & Hallenbeck, D. A. (1975). Assessing perceptions of college student

satisfaction. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
Journal, 12, 363-368.
Newcomb, T., Brown, D., Kulik, J., Reimer, D., & Revelle, W. (1970). Self-selection
and change. In J. Gaff (Ed.), The Cluster College (pp. 137-160). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Nikolai, L. (1996). Suggestions for educational research on improving thinking and

communication skills of accounting students. Journal of Accounting Education.
14(2), 193-197.
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes:

Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology. 66. 574-583.
Okun, M. A. (1991). Moderators of the semester GPA-college satisfaction relation: A

judgment approach. Contemporary Education Psychology, 16. 73-86.
Okun, M. A.. Kardash, C. A., Stock, W. A., Sandler, I. N., Baumann, D. J. (1986).
Measuring perceptions of the quality of academic life among college students.
Journal of College Student Personnel. September. 447-451.
Ones, D. S. & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality

measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17.
609-626.
Oribhabor, W. U. (1993). Relationships between student use of support services,

satisfaction with the university environment and intentions involving
dropping out at a large midwestem university: A comparative study of black
and white students. Unpublished dissertation, University of Missouri-Kansas
City, Kansas City, Missouri.
158
Ott, R., Mann, M. H., and Moores, C. (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, 8 , 17-35.
Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Student-Faculty informal contact and college outcomes.

Review of Educational Research. 50. (4), 545-595.
Peabody, D., Goldberg, L. R. (1989). Some determinants of factor structures from

personality-trait descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
5 ^ 552-567.
Pennington, D. C., Zvonkovic, A. M., & Wilson, S. L. (1989). Changes in College

satisfaction across an academic term. Journal of College Student Development
30j 528-535.
Pervin, L. A. (1967). A twenty college study of student x college interaction using

TAPE (transactional analysis of personality and environment): Rational,
reliability, and validity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 58,285-295.
Pervin, L. A. (1993). Pattern and organization: Current trends and prospects for the
future. In K. H. Craik, R. Hogan & R. N. Wolfe (Eds.), Fifty years of
personality Psychology (pp. 69-84). New York: Plenum Press.
Pervin, L. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1967). Student dissatisfaction with college and the
college drop: A transactional approach. The Journal of Social Psychology. 72.
285-295.
Peterson, R. A., & Wilson, W. R. (1992). Measuring customer satisfaction: Fact and
Artifact. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20 (1), 61-71.
Poole, S. J. (1998). Cross-cultural generalizabilitv of personality types and their

relationship to the five-factor model. Unpublished dissertation, Washington
State University, Pullman.
Reed, J. G., Lahey, M. A., & Downey, R. G. (1984). Development of the college
description index. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development. 17.67-82.
Robertson, J. A. (1980). Black student satisfaction in the deep south. Journal of

College Student Personnel. 21. (6). 510-513.
Robinson, A. P. (1986). Personal support, self-esteem and college satisfaction among

older students: An interaction study (Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse
159
University 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International. 48. 1118A.

(University Microfilms No. 87-15-373).
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy.

Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.
Rothstein, M. G., Paunonen, S. V., Rush, J. C., King, G. A. (1994). Personality and
cognitive ability predictors of performance in graduate business school.
Journal of Educational Psychology. 86 (4). 516-530.
Salgado, Jesus F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in
the European community. Journal of Applied Psychology. 82. (1), 30-43.
Sawyer, J. .E. (1992). Goal and process clarity : Specification of multiple constructs of
role ambiguity and a structural equation model of their antecedents and
consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology. 77. (2). 130-142.
Schreiner, L, A., & Juillerat, S. L. (1993). The Student Satisfaction Inventory. Iowa
City, IA: Novel/Levitz Centers, Inc.
Schwartzman, R. (1995). Are students customers? The metaphoric mismatch between

management and education. Education. 116 (2), 215-223.
Scott, M., Tassin, M., and Posey, C,.(1998). A discriminant analysis profile of the
early development of professional accounting capabilities, Issues in
Accounting Education. 13 (2), 341-355.
Segura, H. (1993). Experiences that affect college students’ persistence: The role of
institutional satisfaction. Unpublished dissertation, University of Houston,
Houston.
Shackleton, V. (1980). The accountant stereotype myth or reality. Accountancy.

November, 122-123.
Shim, S., & Morgan, G. A. (1990). Predicting students’ attitudes and satisfactions:
Implications for strategic planning in higher education. Clothing and Textiles
Research Journal, 8 (3), 29-38.
Smigla, J. E. (1996 a). Changing how we teach introductory accounting. Pennsylvania

CPA Journal. 66 (2), 4,38.
Smigla, J. E. (1996 b). Are accounting programs preparing their students adequately?.
New Accountant, 11 (7). 18-19.
160
Smigla, J. E. (1996). Education. Pennsylvania CPA Journal, 66 (2), 4,38.
Smith, M. P., & Nock, S. L. (1980). Social class and the quality of work life public
and private organizations. Journal of Social Issues. 36 (4), 59-75.
Snare, C. E. (1997). Implications of considering students as consumers. College

Teaching. 45, (4). 122.
Spector, P. E. (1991). Confirmatory test of a turnover model utilizing multiple data

sources. Human Performance. 4. (3). 221-230.
Stalnaker, L. R. 1994. A study of student satisfaction with the college experience at

Butler County Community College. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Kansas State University. Manhattan.
Starr, A. M., Betz, E. L., & Menne, J. W. (1972). Differences in college student
satisfaction: Academic dropouts non-academic dropouts, and non-dropouts.
Journal of Counseling Psychology. 19.317-321.
Steadman, M. E., & Green, R. F. (1995). Implementing accounting education change:

Bringing accounting graduates into the management mainstream. Managerial
Auditing Journal, 10 (3), 3-7.
Struening, E & Guttenag, M. (1975). Handbook of Evaluation Research. Beverly

Hills: Sage Publications.
Stumpf, S. (1979). Assessing academic program and department effectiveness using

student evaluation data. Research in Higher Education. 11 (4), 353-363.
Sturtz, S. A. (1971). Age differences in college student satisfaction. The Journal of

College Student Personnel. 12.220-222.
Stutler, D., & Calvario, D. (1996). In alumni support, satisfaction matters. Fund
Raising Management. November. 1996.
Tokar, D. M., & Subich, L. (1997). Relative contributions of congruence and

personality dimensions to job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 50
(3), 482-491.
Tupes, E. C. & Christal, R. C. (1961). Recurrent Personality Factors Based on Traits

(Tech. Rep. No. ASD-TR-61-97). Lackland Air Force Base, TX: U. S. Air
Force.
161
Valiga, M. J. (1983). Assessing the reliability of survey instruments. Paper presented

at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Toronto,
Canada
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Wagner, B., & Brown, D. ( 1995). Great expectations: Accounting students deserve
faculty support to ensure early employment success. New Accountant, 11,
(3), 21-25.
Walizer, D. G. (1973). The prediction of college engineering dropouts based on a

knowledge of student-college congruence: An analysis of deviant cases.
(Doctoral Dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1973). Dissertation
Abstracts International. 34,3928A.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience
aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96.465-490.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R.
Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology.
(pp. 767-793). San Diego: Academic Press.
Williams, D. Z. (1991). The challenge of change in accounting education. Issues in

Accounting Education, 6 (1). 126.
Wolk, C., and Nikolai, L. (1997). Personality types of accounting students and faulty:
Comparisons and implications. Journal of Accounting Education. 15 (1), 1-17.
Wooten, T. C. (1998). Factors influencing student learning in introductory accounting

classes: A comparison of traditional and nontraditional students, Issues in
Accounting Education, 13 (2), 357-373.
162
APPENDIX Survey-Modified College Student Satisfaction

Questionnaire (CSSQ)
163
College Student Satisfaction/Personality Inventory

Thisstudyis beingdonetoinvestigate student satisfactionof college
experiences. Please answerthe questions honestly. Please fill in a
response to University and Program for each question. Please use a no.
2 pencil tocomplete this form.
Section I - Demographic
1. 2. Gender -J, Male 6. Marital Status: 0 Married

'I. Female ©Single
0 Divorced
1111 3. Race: © AfricanAmerican(not Hispanic)
© AmericanIndianorAlaskanNative
©Other
@HispanicAmerican 7. Student Status: 0 Full-time

'©Caucasian (not Hispanic) ©Part-time
©I
© Other 8. Class Level: 0 Sophmore
©Junior
4. Age: o' 20 orunder ©Senior
'T'
io @21-25 @30+ @GradStudent
5. ProgramConcentration: ;Accounting 9. GPA(self-report): © 2.5 orunder

:Management ©2.6-3.0
Finance ©3.1 -3.5
Other 03.6-4.0
10. Hours workperweek (duringregularsession): ©0-5 ©6-10 ©11-15 ©16-20 ©21e

11. Hours studyperweek(duringtegularsession): ©0-5 @6-10 @11-15 ©16-20 @21+
Section II • Satisfaction
The first response is to the question of satisfaction to the University at largo and the second response Is
satisfaction to the specific program of study.
1> Iam Vwy Dissatisfied, 2 ■ Iam Somewhat Dissatisfied, 3 • Iam Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied,
4 » I am Somewhat Satisfied, S > Iam Very Satisfied.
IndicateHowSatfafiadYouateWith: University Program
2. Theamount ofworkrequiredinmostclasses. 0© 0© @ @@©0©
4. Thesupport Igatfromprofessors tormyeducational goals. 0©@©€r _Q@©0©
6. Thechances of affordinga comfortableplacetolive. @(7ifi}rT.(©0@©@©

K m g p s r r m i
8. Theamountof personal attentionstudents gat fromprofessors. @@@S@
9>sfr])ekiencs:aoDensara^wtmyotrMVâian^ KT.v©T-T\fli
10. Thefriendliness of moststudents. i\.f , @0©@©
i^nfibaLmpjWyoucan oajWwnyouTisivepersooaf prowefosM^WBSMK TITM VM
12. Theavailabilityof goodplaces tolivenearthecampus. 'tV
*2 ;mi»i rii NfA
J3.lThejrt^pf.advisors1nhel^
14. Thecleanliness ofthe housingthat is availableforstudents. '■"*t 1. ;<- . NfA
1
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
164
1 s la m Very D issatisfied, 2 3 lam Somewhat Disaattafied, 3 * lam Neither Satisfied nor Diaaatiafied,
4 * I am Somewhat Satisfied, 5 = I am Very Satisfied.
I n d ic a te H o w S a ti s f i e d Y o u a r e with:
University Program
m ? m r-rra
16. Thekindsofthings that determine yourgrade. ©xl©®® C®cS0®
00000 00000
18. Thechanceto have privacywhenyouwantit. © £ © 0 © __________
20. Professors’expectations as tothe amountthat students shouldstudy. ®@®©@ G©®@®

~-w -v - J * ' " : .. o e o oe e
o /
: ■- .i. ■•■•■r
22. Thefairness of most professors inassigninggrades. .•'.vv-
0 0 0 00 E
0 oeooo
24. Theplaces providedforstudents to relaxbetweendesses. 0®©®© NfA
OOOOfli OOOOO
26. Professors concernforstudents' needs andinterests,
57)KKfc?Bt&ygik'kbte^ 00000 oeooo
28. Thevarietyof activities andclubs youcanJoin. Q0©G©_GXiD©Gra
30. Thechancetoget helpindecidingwhat yourmajorshouldbe. QQGG© ®©<D<2®'
SrMlWKilr^ô^lsgualnteri with^
32. The availabilityof youradvisorwhenyouneedhimorher. Q@®GG (I)©©®©
33$TT&^fisiWetctoJduraitf a~ôc ooooe--iW '- ■
34. Thepressureto study._______
00000 00000
36. Thequalityof educationstudents get here. Q©®G© 0©®®©
^Z ltotejaurhher^f^'sand B 'sthataregyanlp]
38. Theconcernhere forthecomfort of students outsideofdesses. 0®®©®©®®®®
40. The chance forstudents todeveloptheirbest abilities. Q ®® 0© 0©©Q©

42. The chances of gettingacquaintedwiththeprofessors inyourmajorarea. 0®®©©? ©@@®©
^.iTh^hancetoexpioii important! ooooe »eooo
44. The usefulness of the material emphasizedinthecourses.
■4SSThe'cfwrice>of pitting jntothocbursosli22E33?jC2> •.. 00000 oeooo
46. The size of the classes I'mrequiredtotake. 0®®0®: '-Vf:©®®
yew riiust s p e r y d j ^ S 3
-r ~
U
48. Theavailabilityof comfortableplaces toloungeduringtheday. ©@@©@ NfA
tw llltia lM n c iM J ie re b M e ^ to got'acqi
SO. Thecounseling that is providedforstudents here. 0© © © © 0 © ®@®
52. Thechance to livewhereyouwant to. 0®@ ®© NfA

53^^^fwKeTto'ha\m"a fairbreak*fw^ji E E E o r a L i? j
54. The friendliness of mostfacultymembers. 0®©@@
rr;ry.3;-:’,.CTrr L x rm
56. What youlearninrelationtothe amountof timeyouspendinschool. ' iXj,©)®©
0 0 0 6 0 ‘.:b
58. Theamount of studyyouhave todo inordertoqualifysomedayforajobyouwant. ®0®®G
593ihekjndsrrfjhirigsyoucandoforfunylttioutatoff pfajnnlttfi
60. The willingness of professors to talkwithstudentsoutsideof class time.
2
165
1 s la m Very Diaaatiafied f® © ® ©
2 3 1am SomewaM D issatisfied
3 s l am Neither Satisfied nor D issatisfied
4 3 1am Somewhat Satisfied -
5 3 1am Very Satisfied .i©C ...
I n ^ e H o w S a te fia d Y o u a r e w ite ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Unhrarafty Program
62. Thecampus events thatare providedforstudents here.

a G ® G 0® HHHH
CD©®©©
i
64. Youropportunityheretodetermineyourownpatternof intalectual development
68^T he:chsnc»taioartlt^^lriT r^,^ f ‘***” ©>” '"*e o |||,e :|naSH aH ^ ^ ™ c m i .m
66. Theactivities thatareprovidedtohelpyoumeetsomeoneyoumightIke to date. O.X©©G\'v NfA
B
68. Theavailabilityof quiet studyareas forstudents. 0@@GS
70. Theappropriateness of the requirements foryourmajor.

i G©GG(y Q®©@®
Section III• Personality
Please readeach itemandfill inthenumbertoindicatethe extenttowhichyouagree ordisagree withthat statement.

IsDieagree Strongly, 2sDisagroe alittle, 3sNeitlwragreenordiaagree, feAgree a little, SsAgree Strongly
I see MvaaHas Someone Who..
1. Is talkative 23. Tends tobe lazy

sssssss • • • • • B S f tn n i'v s r -'7a t '"!sr-:* 00006
3. Does athoroughjob 25. Isinventive G@®©@
L T T 1 J §3 00600
________
5. Is original, comes upwithnewideas C ©’1© 27. Canbe cold andaloot ®@®S@
s a s sa s s a a K s a y 1r r n
7. Is helpful andunselfishwithothers ©siTL'vl.-., 29. Canbe moody ®@@S@
MlCarjbwwnmwhatcareless'MP»M ao&6Mw‘lW»dt^^
9. Is relaxed, handles stress well © —])©’.: 31. Issometimes shy, inhibited ®@C0©©
LVFT ^ V ,i c r w ^ i ^ V ^ > r e r v o r w l T
11. Is full ofenergy i - . 33. Does thingaefficiently__________ 0@©®©
‘v « 0 0 0 «
13. Is a reliableworker 35. Prefersworkthat is routine 0@@0©
w cin»giiag ^ iT in
15. is ingenious, a deepthinker * 37. Issometimes redetoothers
1-TFT:
17. Has a forgivingnature 39. Gets nervous easily
W.’terflstobedfiofwia^ ■'••••rf?.'- 0© 00«!
19. Worriesa lot 41. Hasfewartisticinterests
WEBS).
21. Tends tobe quiet 43. Iseasilydistracted
22/tegerreraBytrusiit%'J
'<
' TTT1 TiT iT'T?!

Journal 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

Bell & Howell Information and Learning

UMI 800- 521-0600

Page(s) not included in the original manuscript

This reproduction is the best copy available.

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company

Page(s) not included in the original manuscript

This reproduction is the best copy available.

want to thank them all here and now.

survey instrument into a computerized form to relieve me of tedious data entry; my

without whom I could not have procured a sufficient sample.

I will be forever grarteful to my dissertation chairman, Dr. Richard Lomax,

o f each chapter made this dissertation document possible.

do the same for him. Thank you.

Student satisfaction is an important educational outcome. Unfortunately, this variable is

accounting education in particular, can demonstrate the earnestness of the academic

and practicing professionals, helping to maintain the vitality of institutions.

and university satisfaction of the participants; second, what is the participants’

analyses revealed relationships between satisfaction and personality. Regression

Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. This contradicts the traditional stereotype of

accountants as introverted, pedantic, unsociable, and boring (Shackleton, 1980). There

supports Holland’s theory, which holds that vocational choice is an indicator of

satisfaction and personality are suggested for further research.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xii

Statement of the Problem 3

Comparison of Study to John 1998 BFI-44 Study 125

5 IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 130

1 Anticipated Satisfaction and Personality Scales Relationship 10

2 NEO-PI-R Facet Scales 61

4 Satisfaction Subscale Reliabilities of CSSQ

5 Personality Subscale Reliabilities of BFI-44

6 Descriptives of Individual University Satisfaction byInstitution 104

7 Descriptives of University Satisfaction by Class Level 105

8 Descriptives o f Program Satisfaction by Institution 107

9 Descriptives of Program Satisfaction by Class Level 108

10 Personality Subscale Descriptives 112

11 Item Means of Personality Subscales by Class Level 112

12 Personality and Program Satisfaction Projected vs. Actual Results 126

13 Personality and Program Satisfaction-Correlations 128

14 Personality and University Satisfaction-Correlations 128

15 Beta Weights of the Personality Subscales on

16 Beta Weights of the Personality Subscales on

17 Comparison of BFI-44 Personality Means 131

9 Personality profile of Conscientiouness

11 Personality profile Openness

16 Aggregate means of the two

AECC : Accounting Education Change Commission

AGREE : Agreeableness - subscale of BFI-44 Personality Instrument

CONSTI : Conscientiousness - subscale of BFI-44 Personality Instrument

CONJTMN : Conscientiousness item mean

EXTRV : Extraversion - subscale of BFI-44 Personality Instrument

HRSSTDY : Hours Studied per Week Category

HRSWK : Hours Worked per Week Category

INDJJSAT : University Satisfaction-accumulated of all subjects in sample

MARST : Marital Status Category

NEUROT : Neuroticism - subscale of BFI-44 Personality Instrument

NEUJTMN : Neuroticism item mean

OPEN : Openness - subscale of BFI-44 Personality Instrument

OJTMN : Openness item mean

PST/CMP : Program Satisfaction Subscale Compensation