The stereotype of accountants: using a personality approach to assess the perspectives of laypeople

The stereotype of accountants: using a personality approach to assess the perspectives of laypeople Fernanda Le~ ao CIICESI, ESTG, Polit ecnico do Porto, Felgueiras, Portugal, and Delfina Gomes School of Economics and Management, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal Abstract Purpose –In the context of Portugal, this study examines the stereotypes of accountants held by laypeople and how they are influenced by financial crises and accounting scandals. Design/methodology/approach –To better understand the social images of accountants, the authors adopt a structural approach based on the big five model (BFM) of personality. The authors test this approach on a Portuguese community sample (N5727) using a questionnaire survey. The results are analyzed considering the socioanalytic theory. Findings –The results suggest the existence of a stereotype dominated by features of conscientiousness, which is related to the superior performance of work tasks across job types. This feature comprises the core characteristics of the traditional accountant stereotype, which survives in a context challenged by financial scandals and crises. The findings highlight the social acceptance of accountants as an occupational group but do not suggest the possibility of accountants benefiting from the highest levels of social status when considered in relation to the traditional accountant stereotype. Originality/value –By combining the BFM and the socioanalytic theory, this study provides a unique theoretical approach to better understand the social images of accountants. The findings demonstrate the suitability of using the BFM to study the social perceptions of accountants. They also indicate a paradox based on the survival of the traditional stereotype. This stereotype appears to be resistant to scandals and financial crisis, instead of being impaired, giving rise to another prototype with concerns about integrity. Keywords Accountant stereotypes, Big five model, Socioanalytic theory, Portugal Paper type Research paper Introduction Stereotypes are shared socially constructed images resulting from interpersonal relations, personal observations and cultural values, which have the potential to influence the behavior of individuals (Chan et al., 2012;Hilton and Hippel, 1996;Hinton, 2000;Stangor and Schaller, 1996). Social judgment influences the content of stereotyped portraits, which usually AAAJ 35,9 234 © Fernanda Le~ ao and Delfina Gomes. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode Funding: Fernanda Le~ ao has conducted the study at Center for Innovation and Research in Business Sciences and Information Systems (CIICESI) (UIDB/04728/2020), ESTG, Polit ecnico do Porto, and supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) and the Portuguese Ministry of Education and Science through national funds. Delfina Gomes has conducted the study at Research Center in Political Science (UIDB/CPO/00758/2020), University of Minho/University of  Evora and supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) and the Portuguese Ministry of Education and Science through national funds. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/0951-3574.htm Received 2 December 2019 Revised 19 April 2021 10 November 2021 Accepted 25 January 2022 Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal Vol. 35 No. 9, 2022 pp. 234-271 Emerald Publishing Limited 0951-3574 DOI 10.1108/AAAJ-12-2019-4294 comprise personality traits and, to a lesser extent, physical traits (Hinton, 2000). These characteristics are generalized beliefs about individuals who share a distinguishing feature identifying a stereotyped group, such as gender, ethnicity or occupation (e.g. Hinton, 2000). This study focuses on the stereotype of accountants, a group whose personality traits cover a dominant part of their social image (e.g. Bougen, 1994;Carnegie and Napier, 2010; Le~ ao et al., 2019). In this context, it must be noted that accounting practices have widespread repercussions on societal progress (e.g. Miller, 1994), and accountants play a key role in this process. Although the accounting practices have transformed and helped accountants to transcend local boundaries, stereotypes remain “part of the social fabric of a society”(Stangor and Schaller, 1996, p. 4) and, as a result, might vary cross-culturally. Accounting researchers have been analyzing the social images of accountants; however, little is known about the stereotypes of accountants outside the Anglo-American contexts. In other fields, the research on stereotypes across cultures has highlighted important findings, transcending the Anglo-American-centered knowledge (Cuddy et al., 2009). According to Cuddy et al. (2009,p.2),“[c]ultural influences might preclude universal principles of stereotyping”and variations in accounting practices (e.g. Gray, 1988). To better understand the role of accounting in the society, it is important to examine how accountants are understood in specific social settings (Carnegie and Napier, 2010;Hopwood, 1994). Wells (2017, p. 33) calls for more research on the stereotypes of accountants and theorizes that they are “a consequence of cognitive, affective, socio-motivational and cultural mechanisms.” Caglio et al. (2019) also highlight the need for further research on the social images of accountants set in different cultural settings. As argued by Caglio et al. (2019) and Wells (2017), the literature tends to present the resistance and dominance of a poor stereotype of accountants over time; however, there is weak knowledge about its universality. This raises question on the context-dependent nature of the knowledge. A better understanding of this dimension of the phenomenon will provide material to manage the image across contexts, thus reducing the potential intergroup prejudices limiting the social power of accounting. Set in Portugal, this study examines the stereotypes of accountants held by laypeople and how they are affected by moments of scandals and financial crises. It addresses the calls made by examining the stereotypes of accountants in a specific Portuguese context, which is marked by financial instability, and thus offers valuable insights to extend this growing body of literature in several ways. The Portuguese stereotype of accountants might help in understanding cross-cultural similarities and differences among the stereotypes identified in the literature. Essentially, this study will enhance the understanding of the stereotypes of accountants found in different contexts, thus assisting in identifying potential universal content. Regarding the specific period of data collection, the Portuguese context might help in evaluating the degree of immunity of the social image of accountants to financial scandals involving accounting. We found and discuss a paradox regarding the stability of the traditional stereotype in challenging moments of scandals and financial crisis. This study offers evidence from the society in general. We add an underexplored source to the literature by collecting perceptions from the society’s realm. Although laypeople’s views of accountants might be restricted (Cantor and Mischel, 1979), it is important to gather the perceptions of nonaccountants about accountants in order to understand the stereotypes of accountants within the society. According to the findings of Caglio et al. (2019,p.18),the “distance from the profession is an important factor for explaining people’s perceptions of accountants, which influences the image of accountants held by different groups.”By drawing on the developments of the personality theory, this work contributes to interdisciplinary research in accounting, which combines accounting and psychology by using personality theory (e.g. Aranya and Wheeler, 1986;Briggs et al., 2007;Davidson and Dalby, 1993a). In adopting this theoretical frame, it answers the call for research by Taggar and Parkinson (2007) who highlight personality measures as important tools to address accounting issues. Stereotype of accountants 235 Specifically, this study examines the stereotype of accountants as perceived by the Portuguese laypeople, through a representative sample of 727 responses, by combining the big five model (BFM) of personality and Hogan’s (1996) socioanalytic theory. Hence, the study offers a unique theoretical approach to better understanding the social images of accountants. It also tests the suitability of the BFM for examining the social perceptions of accountants. The BFM has been used by psychologists to research stereotypes (e.g. Chan et al., 2012;Terracciano et al., 2005) and by Coate et al. (2003) in the field of accounting. According to Srivastava (2010, p. 69), the BFM is “first and foremost a model of social perception”, which provides its dimensions and reflects the concerns of the perceivers. In general, laypeople spontaneously infer traits about others (Hamilton et al., 2015) and are sensitive to others’typical behavior and its significance and variability across situations (Wright and Dawson, 1988). As highlighted by Srivastava (2010, p. 72), “personality traits and trait factors are perceivers’representations of temporally stable and cross-situationally coherent patterns of thought, feeling, and behavior”. We use the socioanalytic theory to interpret the results of BFM. It emphasizes that human nature is socially constructed to facilitate interpersonal relationships and postulates that personality should be understood not only from the viewpoint of the actor but also from the perception of the observer. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: the next section provides a brief review of the research on the stereotypes of accountants. The subsequent three sections address the theoretical aspects, that is, the conceptual issues of personality, the BFM of personality and the socioanalytic theory, respectively. These sections are followed by the research method, which presents the research setting, participants, instrument and procedures of recruitment and data analysis. The subsequent two sections present the study’s findings and its discussion. The final section provides the concluding comments. Prior research on the stereotypes of accountants The stereotypes of accountants are composed of a set of personality features and typical behaviors (Davidson and Dalby, 1993b). They influence social expectations that shape individuals’actions toward accountants and accounting (Hilton and Hippel, 1996). According to DeCoster and Rhode (1971, p. 662), “[t]he stereotyping of accountants has resulted in assigning negative attitudes to the profession by many observers.” Several researchers have adopted qualitative and quantitative approaches to study the stereotypes of accountants, with the literature on individuals’inquiry mainly supported by students, accountants and managers (Aranya et al., 1978;Bedeian et al., 1986;Caglio et al., 2019; Coate et al., 2003;Cory, 1992;DeCoster and Rhode, 1971;Fisher and Murphy, 1995;Friedman and Lyne, 1997;Granleese and Barrett, 1990;Hakel et al., 1970;Hunt et al., 2004,2009;Imada et al., 1980;Marriott and Marriott, 2003;Parker and Warren, 2017;Wessels and Steenkamp, 2009). This growing body of literature has identified several images of accountants. As summarized by Carnegie and Napier (2010), the two main stereotypes highlighted in the literature are the traditional accountant and the business professional, with the first one being dominant and socially unattractive. In the traditional accountant, honesty, integrity, meticulousness and trust contrast with damaging traits such as dull, boring, unimaginative and uncommercial (Carnegie and Napier, 2010). These damaging features have disappeared from the business professional, giving space to the opposite characteristics. However, concerns related to competence, integrity and opportunism are also part of this modern stereotype, while these are assets of the traditional accountant (Bougen, 1994;Carnegie and Napier, 2010). Carnegie and Napier (2010, p. 372), by examining post-Enron popular literature, state that “[t]he general consensus of the books under review is that the traditional accountant stereotype is no longer descriptive of modern accountants”They conclude that the accounting transformation has changed social perceptions of accountants from a traditional accountant to a business professional stereotype. AAAJ 35,9 236 While these results seem to announce the death of the traditional accountant stereotype, evidence from the literature set in contemporary times shows its persistence (Caglio et al., 2019;Hunt et al., 2009;Magon and France, 2018;Parker and Warren, 2017;Wessels and Steenkamp, 2009). According to Parker and Warren (2017, p. 1917), “[t]he traditional stigmatized stereotype of the accountant appeared to be alive and well”. Richardson et al. (2015), when distinguishing between the existing social images of accountants, identify two other stereotypes of accountants: (1) the guardian, a contemporary stereotype, described as ethical, professional and versatile; and (2) the beancounter,summarized as inept, awkward and obsessive. Richardson et al. (2015) classify the personality traits of these stereotypes and the prototypes of the traditional accountant and the business professional. The traditional accountant and the guardian are associated with positive personality traits, while the beancounter and the business professional are linked to the negative traits. Despite the relevance of personality traits in the content of the stereotypes of accountants, prior ventures of inquiry have paid limited attention to personality measures. According to Taggar and Parkinson (2007), these measures are useful for analytical and predictive research and for triangulating previous studies. This research has focused on the accuracy and content of the stereotypes of accountants by collecting students’and accountants’perceptions (Bedeian et al., 1986;Coate et al., 2003;DeCoster and Rhode, 1971;Granleese and Barrett, 1990; Imada et al., 1980). It highlights the inaccuracy of the traditional accountant stereotype regarding the self-image of accountants. Bedeian et al. (1986, p. 120) state that “[t]he contrast between the profile developed [... through accountants’inquiry] and the traditional public image of accountants may well reflect changes occurring in the accounting profession that have not yet been perceived by the general public”. Reinforcing this prediction, Davidson and Dalby (1993a) focus on the personality characteristics of the increasing number of women in the accounting profession and highlight the inaccuracy concerning the traditional male stereotype. However, when the focus is the content of the stereotype, personality measures have mainly revealed consistent prototypes with the traditional accountant stereotype. For example, Coate et al. (2003) reveal the survival of this stereotype, through a BFM-based survey of students’perceptions of accountants. Their results show that accountants are perceived as extremely conscientious, slightly emotionally stable, less extroverted, agreeable and open to experiences than that of an average individual. Researchers claim that this prototype does not meet the demands of a changing professional environment exposed to constant global economic and financial challenges (Hopwood, 1994;Levy et al., 2011). It has been highlighted accounting’s need for a different personality profile. Specifically, it has been emphasized the need for accountants that are more extroverted and possess effective communication and leadership skills. This emphasis has led researchers to look for changes in the personality types of current and future accountants (e.g. Briggs et al., 2007;Levy et al.,2011). Findings indicate that the accounting profession fails to attract and retain significantly different personality profiles over time, with the results of Levy et al. (2011) being consistent with those of Coate et al. (2003). This finding implies the accuracy of the traditional accountant stereotype. While the literature is not consensual about the accuracy and endurance of the traditional accountant stereotype in specific contexts, the accounting profession might be facing a reciprocal effect between the personality traits of the current or future professionals and their traditional stereotype. The personality profile of accountants might be feeding thisstereotype, which might be conditioning the processes involved in attracting, recruiting and retaining, rendering futile the efforts to attract individuals with a more colorful characterization (Jeacle, 2008). In the following section, the conceptual issues related to personality are addressed. Personality: conceptual issues The literature presents personality as a broad and fuzzy concept that is difficult to define and proposes multiple similar definitions (e.g. Coaley, 2014;Eysenck, 1998;Pervin and Stereotype of accountants 237 Cervone, 2010). Within this diversity, most theorists view personality as having observable and unobservable dimensions as well as conscious and unconscious aspects (Ewen, 2003). Researchers agree that personality refers to “[...]psychological qualities that contribute to an individual’s enduring and distinctive patterns of feeling, thinking, and behaving”(Pervin and Cervone, 2010, p. 8, italics in the original; Ryckman, 2008). According to Pervin and Cervone (2010), this conceptualization covers five main aspects underlying personality: (1) the enduring nature of personality traits, which tend to remain stable across time and situations; (2) the uniqueness and distinctiveness of a personality; (3) the research concern to identify the causal psychological factors contributing to uniqueness and long-term trends; (4) the inclusion of inner facets –mental life and emotional experiences; and (5) the relationship with the social environment. In addition to the aforementioned aspects, in most shared references, Coaley (2014) finds that an allusion to the dynamic facet of personality is related to an adaptation to the environment and the predictor function assigned to the enduring characteristics. This finding implies that individuals have the capacity to adjust to different situations with unpredictable behaviors emerging related to temporary circumstances, motivated by situational and cultural pressures (Allport, 1961;Coaley, 2014). However, apart from these transient states, personality has an enduring nature and tends to be stable since individuals usually return to their comfort areas, enabling the prediction of ordinary behavior (Allport, 1961;Coaley, 2014). This possibility has led many researchers to focus on a wide range of personal characteristics by focusing on objective descriptions (Coaley, 2014). These descriptions usually include “behavioral style, intellectual ability, special talents, motives acquired in the process of development and maturing, emotional reactivity, attitudes, beliefs and moral values”(Coaley, 2014, p. 226). Based on these descriptions, personality can be viewed as a psychological construct filled by individuals’relatively stable traits (Coaley, 2014;Ryckman, 2008). Driven by judgment, personality is also a concept used in everyday life (Coaley, 2014). Laypeople usually define personality based on social attractiveness (Ryckman, 2008). They often understand personality after a judgment process, which leads to attributing to others a good personality or the inexistence of it, depending on how much their behaviors conform to the perceivers’patterns (Ryckman, 2008). According to Allport (1961), the comparison of individuals considers universal and group rules –the perceived characteristics of a given person are compared with those of humans in general and with their peers’characteristics (Allport, 1961). Each person judges others and understands others’personality according to the broad generalizations and known stereotypes of its own class (Allport, 1961;Coaley, 2014; Terracciano et al., 2005). Although some notice a person’s individuality, the judgment process is often manipulated by the existence of well-established stereotypes linked, for example, with profession, race, gender or social class (Allport, 1961). Thus, individuals’views of others’ personalities are anchored in their beliefs and everyday thinking, including the emotional aspects (Allport, 1961;Coaley, 2014). From an academic perspective, there are several theoretical approaches to personality, including psychodynamic, phenomenological, social-cognitive and trait theories (see, for example, Pervin and Cervone, 2010). Trait theories are empirical, and they offer taxonomies to assess individuals’personality (Coaley, 2014). This study adopts a taxonomy of personality traits from the five-factor model of personality, as explained in the next section. The five-factor model of personality The five-factor model of personality, often referred to as the BFM, emerged within the trait paradigm to which Allport and Odbert (1936) contributed with a seminal work. In this paradigm, personality consists of a set of traits that can be measured, neglecting how personality develops in favor of its content and measure (Coaley, 2014;Pervin and Cervone, 2010). Trait theorists advocate that it is possible to build a comprehensive theory of an AAAJ 35,9 238 individual’s personality by measuring the most relevant individual differences (Pervin and Cervone, 2010), which rests on the following assumptions: (1) behaviors, feelings and thoughts vary in different ways, and it is possible to measure this variance; and (2) once measured, traits are normally distributed, that is, the scores extend along a normal distribution curve, where most individuals will be around the average and a small number at the extremities (Coaley, 2014). In order to describe a personality based on traits, trait approaches use inventories of natural language, which comprise straightforward words such as shyness and goodness (John et al., 2008). According to Pervin and Cervone (2010), consistency and distinctiveness are two characteristics of trait terms. That is, trait terms should reflect a regularity of behavior and its variation when comparisons between persons are made. Thus, a trait is [...] any persistent characteristic, emotional, cognitive or behavioural, which influences the way in which personality is demonstrated. Being essentially abstractions, [...] they are independent of any specific immediate stimulus external to the person which elicits a response. Traits provide some stability and are non-situational [...]. Traits also refer to single dimensions made up of related components: for example neuroticism, isolated as a fundamental and unique trait, includes behaviours and thoughts associated with guilt, low self-esteem, depression, phobia, anxiety and psychosomatic illnesses. (Coaley, 2014, p. 234) The larger seminal construct of traits of Allport and Odbert (1936) led to several subsequent studies exploring much smaller constructs of traits that could form the basis of most human behavior and provide reliable measures of personality characteristics (Ewen, 2003;Pervin and Cervone, 2010). This reduction was possible through the use of factor analysis, with the literature reaching a general agreement on how to assess personality and which individual differences are important to make this assessment (e.g. Coaley, 2014;Pervin and Cervone, 2010). Since the early 1980s, there has been a significant rise in the number of personality studies that strive to understand the relationships among the descriptors of personality and identify their structural representation (Digman, 1990;Goldberg, 1990;John et al., 2008). Several authors have proposed a structure of personality based on the five constructs or factors, known as the BFM, which have been supported by data from different disciplines and appraisers (Goldberg, 1990,1992;John et al., 2008). This evidence has convinced various researchers that BFM presents the best trait structure to approach personality (Digman, 1990, 1997), despite the existence of opposite views (Block, 1995). These constructs represent personality dimensions, which may be seen as prototypical characteristics (John et al., 2008). They cover an extensive range of personality traits, summarized into broad concepts (meta-traits) –extraversion,agreeableness, conscientiousness,neuroticism and the openness to experience (the OCEAN of personality) (John et al., 2008;John and Srivastava, 1999). These concepts have been elaborated by John and Srivastava (1999, p. 121, italics in the original) in the following words: Extraversion implies an energetic approach to the social and material world and includes traits such as sociability, activity, assertiveness, and positive emotionality. Agreeableness contrasts a prosocial and communal orientation toward others with antagonism and includes traits such as altruism, tender-mindedness, trust, and modesty. Conscientiousness describes socially prescribed impulse control that facilitates task and goal-directed behaviour, such as thinking before acting, delaying gratification, following norms and rules, and planning organizing, and prioritizing tasks. Neuroticism contrasts emotional stability and even-temperedness with negative emotionality, such as feeling anxious, nervous, sad, and tense. Finally, Openness to Experience (versus closed-mindedness) describes the breadth, depth, originality, and complexity of an individual’smental and experiential life. These constructs originally emerged from studies based on the English language. Its generalizability among languages and cultures has been an aspect of concern, particularly for Stereotype of accountants 239 research in other languages like Portuguese (De Raad and Peabody, 2005;Goldberg, 1990; John et al., 2008;Saucier et al., 2000). In this regard, the main concerns are related to misinterpretations, contextual dimensions, and mistranslations (for a discussion, refer to John et al., 2008). While studies have failed in replicating the full BFM structure outside the Anglo-American context (e.g. De Raad and Peabody, 2005;Saucier et al., 2000), several nonEnglish studies have developed similar constructs of the BFM (Pervin and Cervone, 2010). Accordingly, McCrae and Costa (1997) strongly posited the universality of the BFM, by studying diverse samples from different cultures whose languages belong to five distinctive language families, including Portuguese, which contributed to the study with a sample of 2,000 individuals. This finding is in line with that of Schmitt et al. (2007) and Benet-Mart ınez and Oishi (2008).Benet-Mart ınez and Oishi (2008) emphasize that, across cultures and languages, evidence notably supports the BFM structure, thereby allowing for its measurement outside the Anglo-American context with confidence and reliability. The BFM structure has been mostly approached and presented as orthogonal and, therefore, providing the highest level of the personality description (Digman, 1997;Saucier, 2002). Despite the lack of consensus within the psychology community (Ashton et al., 2009), there is growing evidence of high correlations between the dimensions of the BFM. This has led some researchers to suggest the use of two higher-order factors of BFM to describe personality at a broader level of abstraction (DeYoung, 2006;DeYoung et al., 2002;Digman, 1997;Jang et al., 2006). Digman (1997) analyzes the correlations between the factors of 14 studies supporting the BFM and demonstrating the existence of two higher-order constructs, which he labeled Alpha and Beta. The first construct integrates agreeableness, conscientiousness and neuroticism; the second incorporates extraversion and openness to experience. According to Digman (1997, p. 1253), Alpha and Beta “furnish links between the atheoretical Big Five model and traditional and contemporary theories of personality, which, under a variety of interpretations, have dealt with one or the other –or both –of these highlevel factors.”The author views these factors as broad concepts. He posits Alpha in socialization theories and hence considers it a socialization factor, while he posits Beta in personal growth theories and regards it a factor of personal evolution. DeYoung et al. (2002) label Alpha as stability and Beta as plasticity. They advocate that the first is formed by traits revealing a person’s stability/instability on emotional, social and motivational levels, while the second is composed of traits showing individuals’flexibility in behavior and cognition. In other words, Beta/plasticity reflects people’s capability and tendency to be involved with novelty. In this study, we refer to Alpha as socialization and Beta as personal growth, as a way of providing a more comprehensive labeling of these broad personality dimensions (Digman, 1997). While the conceptualization provided by the BFM helps in analyzing individuals’ behavior (John et al., 2008), frequent criticisms indicate that it does not provide a comprehensive theory of personality, partially due to its statistical roots (Block, 1995; Wiggins, 1996b). However, there are several theoretical perspectives on the BFM (see, for example, Wiggins, 1996a). Among these, the socioanalytic theory (Hogan, 1996) allows the interpretation of the BFM results from the perceivers’perspective. It presents a suitable frame to interpret the results of this study, and it is the subject of the next section. Socioanalytic theory Socioanalytic theory emphasizes that human nature is socially constructed to facilitate interpersonal relations and postulates that personality should be understood not only from the actor’s viewpoint but especially from the observer’s perception. According to Hogan (1996, p. 166), “[p]ersonality from the observer’s perspective consists of our views of the AAAJ 35,9 240 distinctive features of another person’s behavior.”For him, these characteristics, materialized through the trait words used by the observers, describe individuals’social reputation, which covers their social status and acceptance. Therefore, from a socioanalytic perspective, individuals’social reputation reflects their position in the community, and it is a dominant part of their personality, given that daily behavior is shaped by the individual need to protect personal reputation. The personality of others can be assessed only through observable behaviors (Allport, 1961;Eysenck, 1998), with reputations being publicly visible, and hence able to be extracted from the realm of social life. In fact, laypeople can provide accurate judgments (Funder and Sneed, 1993) and be sensitive to behavioral tendencies and inconsistencies in the case of low cross-situational consistency (Wright and Dawson, 1988). According to Hogan (1996), the BFM can be used for the aforementioned assessment as it covers the categories used by individuals for personality evaluation. From a socioanalytic perspective, the BFM constructs indicate the level of acceptance and status granted to a given person or group. When regarding the BFM, Hogan (1996, p. 173) defines reputation as “an index of how well a person is doing in the game of life.”He advocates that reputation has a stable nature, owing to which it can be used to predict future behaviors of a target and estimate individuals’value in the group to which they belong. The socioanalytic theory “is based on a commitment to evolutionary theory, naturalistic observation, and the inevitability of human self-deception”(Hogan, 1996, p. 165). Its key assumptions are as follows. First, individuals are products of evolutionary adaptation. Therefore, the context of human evolution provides the best framework for understanding personality. Second, humans are group-living, social animals. They share a culture that provides them the rules to live within the status hierarchy of their group. Third, individuals’ primary motivations arise from two unconscious needs –social acceptance and status. While acceptance improves survival conditions and group living, status provides privileges in accessing opportunities for success. Fourth, the human interactions facilitate an implicit negotiation for acceptance and status. Finally, social life is not exempt from tensions and rivalries, given that status and acceptance tend to be inversely correlated. In other words, the success of one person or a group often implies a loss for another. While conforming to others’ established rules usually leads to acceptance, such conformity damages the opportunities to succeed. In the given context, it can be stated that the socioanalytic theory mitigates the theoretical problem of the BFM by providing a lens to interpret the results obtained for the BFM from an observer’s perspective, within the social context, thereby allowing an understanding of the social performance of a group and the potential impacts of the stereotype of its members. In regard to the use of the BFM, it provides a suitable taxonomy that can be used across languages and cultures to measure the personality traits, which have been highlighted as a dominant part of the stereotypes of accountants. It covers the main aspects people use to judge others, based on natural language that facilitates ordinary people’s inquiry. This study combines the BFM and the socioanalytic theory to examine the stereotype of accountants held by laypeople. The BFM is used to assess the stereotype and the results are interpreted by using the socioanalytic theory. The research method adopted in this study is presented in the next section. Research method Research setting Social welfare characterizes the Portuguese society, which is also conservative, averse to change, little individualist and not predisposed to strive for power equalization (Hofstede, 1984;Instituto de Ci^ encias Sociais, 2013). Portugal is a liberal democracy; it is marked by the Stereotype of accountants 241 legacy of a corporatist dictatorship (1926–1974). While a long-standing authoritarian dictatorship conditioned the progress of the country (Birmingham, 2003), the country’s development strategy, in the postdictatorial period, was successful drawing on its membership in the European Union (Alexandre et al., 2019). During the 1980s and the 1990s, Portugal witnessed rapid development, which led the country to approach European standards of living (Alexandre et al., 2019). Beyond the European membership, this transformation can be attributed to the country’s financial system and the government, which “became ubiquitous”acting as a change agent in the social and economics spheres (Alexandre et al., 2019, p. 24). In this dynamic context, in 1995, government intervention led to the professionalization of accounting in business practice in Portugal. More than a century after the professionalization of accounting in Britain and after several unsuccessful attempts, Portugal succeeded in professionalizing accounting (Rodrigues et al., 2003), whose process started in 1972 with the recognition of auditing as a profession performed by auditors. The results of this study emphasize certified accountants in Portugal, who are devoted to business practice, and committed to the financial accounting. In Portugal, the certified accountant and auditing professions are well-distinguished by ordinary people, with the coexistence of two separate professions. Certified accountants are generally known as accountants, while those who perform auditing are known as auditors. Examples of the public distinction of this division can be found in the news of financial scandals published by newspapers of high circulation in Portugal. For instance, when the journalists identified the protagonists of the scandal of Banco Esp ırito Santo (BES) detailed below, they describe the profile of several implicated individuals, including an accountant and auditors, making a distinction of the roles each of professionals/professions played in the process (e.g. Riso and Lima, 2020). The certified accountants represent the largest Portuguese professional group, with approximately 70,000 members (Ferreira, 2019). They achieved social closure through a unique professional body that has long tried to highlight accountants’roles in society (Ferreira, 2019;LUSA, 2018). To get an entry into this profession, it is important to hold a bachelor’s degree and successfully complete a training and an exam. Notwithstanding the established ring fence, the profession is characterized by a high endogenous level of competition, which has been posing a significant challenge to the profession and has conditioned the income of its members (Ferreira, 2019). The data collection period corresponded to a period of economic turmoil in Portugal. In this context, there have been three major crises since the beginning of the new millennium, in addition to local financial scandals owing to accounting frauds. Between 2007 and 2014, the news highlighted several accounting frauds, particularly those involving four Portuguese banks, which led to significant losses within the Portuguese community. These scandals led to criminal processes in a context of slow and discredited justice among Portuguese citizens (Maia, 2014). They attracted significant media attention during the period. For example, VIS~ AO (a Portuguese news magazine) published 222 articles on financial and economic frauds between 2008 and 2014, which were republished in 2014 in a book (Gonçalves and Pimenta, 2014). The book used the terms “accounting”and “accounts”95 and 76 times, respectively. In the foreword, Camacho (2014, p. 21) highlights accounting fraud as “[a]n accounting virtual world, capable of generating artificial fortunes in seconds ... and real dramas [...] also from a moment to the next.”According to Camacho (2014), the republication of the articles in a book was justified by the Portuguese context in 2014, when another big financial scandal arouse –the case of BES. In the Portuguese banking industry, the first financial scandal was committed by the Banco Comercial Portugu^ es (BCP), one of the largest Portuguese private banks, in 2007 (Guerreiro and Vicente, 2015). BCP was accused of fraudulent accounting practices between 1999 and 2007. The highlighted fraud was the manipulation of the stock market by faking AAAJ 35,9 242 generally powerful (above 0.7; Hair et al., 2010), except for the path from personal growth to F2 (agreeableness), which was also identified by Rushton and Irwing (2008). To verify if Digman’s (1997) hierarchical structure provides a preferred model, we removed this weakened path. The new overall fit (X 2 (130) 5488.002; p50.000; CFI 50.932; GFI 50.926; RMSEA 50.062; P(rmsea ≤0.05) 50.001, I.C. 90% [0.056; 0.067]; SRMR 50.048; Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analysis of the BFM (final model) Stereotype of accountants 249 MECVI 50.788) is generally poorer than that obtained for the previous model, supporting the findings of Rushton and Irwing (2008). Figure 2. Second-order model of the BFM AAAJ 35,9 250 Discussion This study focuses on how accountants are socially perceived, as reflected by the BFM, and the extent to which the BFM is a suitable tool for studying the social perception of accountants. Our empirical data support the BFM as an appropriate framework for studying the social perception of accountants. However, we did not find all manifest variables in each construct, as established by the original BFI, equally important in measuring the dimensions. We tested three alternative models, and the findings show that the model labeled as “final” provides better adjustment to our data. This is an alternative model that excludes some BFI variables (those marked with one or two asterisks in Table A9). As such, while this study supports the BFM structure, it highlights changes in measures, strengthening the idea that the dimensions may vary in certain contexts (John et al., 2008). To better understand the perceived personality profile of accountants, we computed the mean scores of the manifest variables of the suggested alternative model. The new values do not substantially differ from those computed for the original BFI, indicating an identical stereotype (see Table A10). In general, the results do not highlight accountants as introverts, antagonists, neurotics, closed and lacking directions. However, the values obtained for the respective dimensions (extraversion,agreeableness,neuroticism, and openness) do not support the idea that these are key traits of the Portuguese stereotype of accountants. While their values are near the neutral point, which is where undifferentiated people are expected to be placed (Coaley, 2014), the values obtained for conscientiousness stimulated the most extreme perceptions, exhibiting a mean score near 4 (moderately high). Thus, conscientiousness is highlighted as the most distinguishing dimension (see Figure 3). It presents accountants as perfectionists and hardworking, organized and reliable workers. This categorization is consistent with the review of Barrick and Mount (1991) who state that the essence of conscientiousness lies aspects related to reliability (carefulness, responsibility, rigorousness, organization and planning) and volitional features (hardworking, persevering and achievement-oriented). The features of conscientiousness dominate the content found of the stereotypes of accountants. A stereotypical image usually encompasses the typical characteristics of a target group, capable of distinguishing such a group from ordinary people (Garcia-Marques and Mackie, 1999;Hinton, 2000). According to Cantor and Mischel (1979), laypeople have restricted views about others and often describe them based on partial perspectives. Moreover, since the results of the BFM, from the observer’s perspective, reflect the concerns of perceivers (Srivastava, 2010), one may expect that perceivers take extremist positions only regarding dimensions they consider crucial for the target group. These dimensions cover the Conscientiousness (F3) Neuroticism (F4) Agreeableness (F2) Openness (F5) Extraversion (F1) Neutral Point –0.4 –0.2 0.20 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Figure 3. Perceived personality profile of accountants Stereotype of accountants 251 recognized stimulus guiding the perception, which “is ultimately an interpretation of incoming sensory stimuli”(Rookes and Willson, 2000, p. 93). In this context, it must be noted that the standpoints taken by laypeople are anchored to broad generalizations, beliefs and everyday thinking (Allport, 1961;Coaley, 2014; Terracciano et al., 2005). They are influenced by the perceived social roles of the target group, which significantly contributes to the set of traits associated with it (Eagly and Steffen, 1984;Zebrowitz, 2009). From this perspective, our results suggest that the perceived social role of Portuguese accountants is linked to conscientiousness. Perceivers often understand others’personalities based on what they need to perform a routine activity (Eagly and Steffen, 1984). Essentially, our findings support the view of accounting as an absorbing activity, requiring people high in conscientiousness, which is related to a strong work performance across job types (Barrick and Mount, 1991;Mount et al., 1998). These findings corroborate those of Coate et al. (2003) whose survey of students also highlighted conscientiousness as the dominant dimension of the stereotype of accountants in the US context. Conscientiousness is related to work dedication, interpersonal facilitation, adherence to idealistic ethical rules and performance in nonteam contexts (Hogan et al., 1998; Levy et al., 2011;Mount et al., 1998). It “describes socially prescribed impulse control that facilitates task and goal-directed behaviour, such as thinking before acting, delaying gratification, following norms and rules, and planning organizing and prioritizing tasks” (John and Srivastava, 1999, p. 121, italics in the original). This characterization matches the description of the positive side of the known traditional accountant stereotype (Carnegie and Napier, 2010). This study also found extraversion and openness as the most neutral dimensions, showing that the Portuguese accountants are not perceived as sociable, energizing, exciting and creative persons. In these dimensions, the most noticeable ratings position accountants as dull and unexciting, which reflect the prototype characteristics of the negative side of the traditional accountant stereotype (Carnegie and Napier, 2010). Accordingly, the findings of this study support the idea that the images created by society regarding accountants are stable across time and situations. They paradoxically suggest the survival of the traditional accountant stereotype in a time and context where a different stereotype, perhaps nearer to the business professional would be expected (Carnegie and Napier, 2010). This contemporary stereotype was found in the US context after Enron’s collapse overshadowed by ethical issues along with features such as versatility and managerial and communicative skills. The context of this study is rich in aspects that could have stimulated the transformation of the former social image of accountants. The first aspect concerns the maturity of the professionalization of accounting in Portugal. When data were collected, the profession was well-recognized and had established social closure in business practice since 1995. The trajectory of the Portuguese professionalization of accounting in two phases, separated by 23 years (1972-auditing; 1995-business practice), may have conditioned the transformation of the stereotype of the latest professionals. The Portuguese professional environment of those in business practice is characterized by high competitiveness pushing down their income. This situation seems not to stimulate the challenge of the perceptive prototype held by lay society, with the upgrades in profiles provided by professionalization being neglected. The second aspect is related to the appealing contemporary image of accounting and accountants presented by professional organizations (Jeacle, 2008). The professional body of certified accountants in Portugal made significant efforts toward this image-building. Since 1995, it has sought to socially highlight the profession by presenting accountants with a Vanguardist spirit, performing tasks with an important social role (LUSA, 2018). It was expected that almost 20 years of this work have challenged the stereotype. The third aspect regards the recognition of the involvement of accountants in management tasks, a characteristic of contemporary stereotypes such as the business AAAJ 35,9 252 professional or the guardian. The participants of this study were questioned about the importance of supporting management as an accountant. Results indicate that more than 90% of the sample considers supporting management as the task of accountants, with almost 70% considering it very or extremely important. This result along with the other findings highlights the persistence of the Portuguese variant of the traditional accountant stereotype, as identified by Le~ ao et al. (2019) in 1860 and 1870s, in which the management skills were an evident feature. The fourth aspect is associated to the turbulence faced in the profession owing to several international and local financial scandals, highlighting accounting manipulations and ethical issues. In Portugal, the period 2007–2014 was marked by several financial scandals and accounting frauds in the banking industry. During these eight years, the accounting practices were broadly questioned by Portuguese media, which successively highlighted integrity problems. These scandals significantly impacted public accounts and people’s life, due to savings losses, a brutal increase in taxes and wages’cuts, representing a considerable downgrade in family’s income. At the time activist groups were created claiming for their savings, with the scandals being largely discussed over different means of communication, including prime-time news, television debates and interviews. The income of the Portuguese people was successively attacked, and the public discussion of the scandals joined journalists, people from politics and other relevant personalities. The accounts manipulation was the villain of this story which was publicly held responsible for the decline of the standard of living suffered by Portuguese citizens, mostly laypeople in accounting. The real and potential impacts of the scandals led the Portuguese government to intervene in each situation to mitigate the systemic risk in the banking industry. These interventions adversely affected public accounts, and the economic and financial crisis Portugal was dealing since the beginning of the century worsened. The scandals and their consequences are abnormal situations, which potentially challenge the way people see the world. When data collection started, Portuguese people were experiencing difficult times, which became harder with the unexpected announcement of the big collapse of BES. The headlines of the time highlight a dark side of accounting and accountants, with the accounting manipulations being made public along with the recognition, by the accountant of the bank, of their use: “The accounts [...] had been manipulated since 2008 [...]. The statement is by [...], the accountant [...] who [...] the head of BES [...] indicate as the responsible for the deviation of V1.3 billion in liabilities”(Pereira et al., 2014). While part of these contextual factors (professionalization, the attempt to rebuild the image and the recognition of accountants’involvement in management) could have stimulated perceptions of versatility, managerial and communicative skills, the scandals and their impact on people’s lives through the economic and financial crisis could have fed negative perceptions about accountants’integrity. Paradoxically, in such a context, the perceptive structures seem unshaken, revealing the survival of the traditional stereotype. A shift in the stereotype was expected, given the media exposure of the scandals and their impact on people’s standard of living due to the scandals’effect on the financial situation of the country over the years (Carnegie and Napier, 2010;Friedman and Lyne, 2001). However, as postulated by the socioanalytic theory (Hogan, 1996), a stereotype is a social reputation, and our results are consistent with Hogan’s (1996) perspective that reputations have a stable nature. Our findings are also consistent with the literature that demonstrates the survival of the traditional accountant in modern times, highlighting its endurance in different contexts (Caglio et al., 2019;Coate et al., 2003;Hunt et al., 2009;Magon and France, 2018;Parker and Warren, 2017;Wessels and Steenkamp, 2009). The paradox found in this study seems to be reinforced by the fact that graduated laypeople represent more than 50% of the sample, and they tend to be more questioning, and well-informed, traits that could give them the Stereotype of accountants 253 propensity to readjust their perceptive structures. Our results reveal a poorer stereotype held by graduated people but not its transformation. We also shed some light on the literature about the accuracy/inaccuracy of the traditional stereotype, given the dominance of conscientiousness in the found stereotype. On the one hand, according to Resick et al. (2007),conscientiousness has been related to individuals who consider their perceived compatibility with organizational culture and members when taking a job. On the other hand, the findings of Levy et al. (2011, p. 243) highlight that accountants “had a significantly higher mean score on Conscientiousness compared with those from other occupations”and significant lower mean scores on the other dimensions of personality. As such, when looking to the found stereotype, the idea of a reciprocal effect between accountants’personality and their traditional image seems to be reinforced. Additionally, the results of this study corroborate that conscientiousness is a manifestation of socialization, which reveals a person’s stability/instability on emotional, social and motivational levels (DeYoung et al., 2002), measured also by neuroticism and agreeableness. According to socioanalytic theory (Hogan, 1996), conscientiousness is a part of an individual’s social identity, which results from the individual’s conscientious or unconscientious involvement in the management of own social performance (Hogan and Ones, 1997). Socioanalytic theory postulates that people are motivated to achieve social acceptance and status, which form their social reputation. These assets support a group’s survival and grant social privileges, respectively. Therefore, individuals described by perceivers as conscientious develop “the identity of a ‘person of integrity’” (Hogan and Ones, 1997, p. 865). This identity extends people’s reputation of being agreeable and emotionally stable (Hogan and Ones, 1997). The results of this study support this proposition, given that the other two manifestations of socialization (agreeableness and neuroticism) follow conscientiousness in terms of the distance from the neutral point. When considering conscientiousness, a good reputation also grants social acceptance. This personality dimension is linked with conformism, and, as posited by the socioanalytic theory, conformity to others’rules leads to social acceptance. Conscientious people “do not challenge authority, like rules, and avoid arguments, ambiguities, and altercations”(Hogan and Ones, 1997, p. 853). According to the socioanalytic theory, social acceptance is important for maintaining a group, and this study supports accountants’comfort in this regard. However, this theory also suggests the existence of tensions in social life, highlighting that social acceptance tends to be inversely correlated with social status. The findings of this study show that achieving high social status and its inherent social privileges are challenges faced by accountants, given that conformity only facilitates social status up to a certain point (Hogan and Ones, 1997). In this regard, extraversion seems to be a key dimension for the social image of accountants, since high values in this dimension have been found to predict an elevated level of social status (Anderson et al., 2001), which, according to this study, the Portuguese group needs to improve. According to Levy et al. (2011, p. 246), “the field seems to attract more introverts in comparison with other professions”, and it has failed to captivate people with traits contributing to a successful professional project, which requires teamwork and interpersonal communication skills. In the context of Portugal, there is a need to attract the best profiles to the accounting profession, given the high competitiveness within the group and the low income of its members (LUSA, 2018). Conclusion This research examines the social perception of accountants by drawing on the BFM, and adopting a structural method, thus bringing to the field an underexplored approach. This study enriches the body of literature on the stereotypes of accountants by extending the research about the contemporary social images of accountants, using an original theoretical AAAJ 35,9 254 approach that combines the BFM with socioanalytic theory. This study also provides evidence through an underexplored community sample comprising laypeople in accounting, whose views highlight the established stereotypes. The BFM provides a deeper understanding of the stereotypes of accountants. It provides a common instrument to support studies in different contexts (Benet-Mart ınez and Oishi, 2008; McCrae and Costa, 1997), thereby illuminating the influence of cultural specificities on the stereotypes of accountants and the core traits feeding these images. By being suitable for use, from both the observers’perspective and the self-perspective (Srivastava, 2010), this model also allows research on the accuracy/inaccuracy of the stereotype of accountants, which contributes toward the lack of consensus in the literature. This study also offers insights to better understand how the social images of accountants perform in contexts with a well-established professionalization, in which the social arena is invaded by economic crisis and financial scandals implicating accountants. The major conclusion is that an early image of accountants, the traditional accountant stereotype, survives in such a context, resisting different kinds of input. On the one hand, our findings suggest the existence of a stereotype dominated by features of conscientiousness, which has been related to integrity and great job performance in nonteam contexts (Hogan and Ones, 1997;Mount et al., 1998). On the other hand, dull and unexciting are also highlighted as the most distinguishing features of accountants in the dimensions of extraversion and openness. Based on Hogan’s (1996) socioanalytic theory, this study reveals the social acceptance of accountants as a professional group but denies the possibility of accountants benefiting from the highest levels of social status when perceived as the traditional accountant stereotype. With the same perspective, the findings also suggest the possibility of people attributing different social positions to accountants according to the existing stereotype (see Figure 4). Future studies are expected to offer new insights into this possibility, thus providing a better understanding of the recognized social standing of accountants. Socioanalytic theory explains the social interaction to which stereotypes provide guiding symbolic material mostly comprised of personality traits (Hilton and Hippel, 1996). It provides a framework to better understand the personality traits people perceive in others and the contribution of stereotypes to groups’social standing and power. Guardian Business Professional Traditional Accountant Beancounter Low High Social Status Personal Growth Low High Social Acceptance Socialization Figure 4. Social standing of the stereotypes of accountants Stereotype of accountants 255 The reported persistence of the traditional accountant stereotype is consistent with most of the investigations in the field but inconsistent with the findings of Carnegie and Napier (2010). These authors, drawing on a contemporary context along with financial scandals, found that accountants may no longer be described according to the traditional image but as business professionals. When considering the existence of nonconsensual results across studies, this research corroborates the idea that how perceptions perform over time may differ across cultures (Chan et al., 2012). This suggests that cultural differences may significantly influence the perpetuation of the former image of accountants. Accordingly, future works engaging in comparative analysis, with samples from different regions, will be useful to elucidate the cultural effects on the stereotypes of accountants, and the paradox of the traditional accountant stereotype remaining unshakable in the event of scandals and financial crises and their media exposure. Another explanation for this resistance might be related to the possibility that laypeople see auditors as more responsible for the frauds than accountants. Future studies comparing the impact of scandals, occurring in different settings, on the reputation of auditors and accountants are expected to illuminate this possibility. This study also found statistically significant differences between groups of perception (educational level, age and interaction with accountants). In general, the study found a poorer stereotype for extraversion and neuroticism among graduates and younger age groups, while the interaction with accountants improved the stereotype concerning agreeableness and conscientiousness. These results strengthen the endurance of the existing stereotypes and reinforce the found paradox. Further research is needed to provide additional evidence and examine the reasons for these differences. The findings of this study also have practical implications. Considering that enduring characteristics have a predictor function (Coaley, 2014), the link between accountants and conscientiousness facilitates positive assessments of their actual or potential professional performance. This positively impacts the perceived role of accounting in society. However, according to Hopwood (1994, p. 299), accounting has undergone social transformation, contemporaneously contributing “to the functioning of a very wide range of organizations and socio-economic processes”. For example, Coate et al. (2003) emphasized that the accounting context currently requires significant social interaction. In this regard, these authors suggest that an improvement in stereotypes can benefit the profession. They advocate that recruiters should take an active position to captivate individuals high in extraversion and openness, which can lead to an adjustment in the stereotype. The BFM is a recognized model for this purpose, and the possibility of its application in practical contexts involving accountants is reinforced by the results of this study. This usefulness is highlighted through the model’s potential to obtain scores for socialization and personal growth, which reflect the model’s structure at a higher level of abstraction through an aggregated perspective (DeYoung et al., 2002;Digman, 1997). Future research is, however, expected to provide the profession with pointers to policy and action to adjust the stereotypes of accountants to the contemporary profiles. As demonstrated in this study the stereotype is universal and very resistant to change. Future studies may analyze whether this resistance prevails in the psychology literature, what would allow discussing how the profession might address this and how to change it. It is also expected research to validate the theoretical model proposed in this study through other samples. Despite the reasonability of the obtained psychometric characteristics, it is important to conduct additional investigations to validate or improve the instrument to assess the BFM in the context of accounting. In particular, concerning the constructs of extraversion and agreeableness, in which lower construct reliabilities were identified. While this study reinforces the idea of the universality of the BFM, it calls attention to the adaptation and development of measurement instruments for professional groups, especially AAAJ 35,9 256 accountants. This will be important for practical purposes and to promote local and transcultural investigations. Notes 1. https://www.fundoderesolucao.pt/financiamento-de-medidas-de-resolucao (accessed November 26, 2020). 2. https://www.ffms.pt/crises-na-economia-portuguesa/5047/a-mais-longa-e-severa-das-crises (accessed November 9, 2020). 3. https://www.ffms.pt/crises-na-economia-portuguesa/5046/filha-da-crise-financeira-internacional (accessed November 9, 2020). 4. Although initially the aim was to collect answers randomly in direct contact with people, it became clear that it would not be possible. People refused to stop and/or answer to the questionnaire. After a month, the decision was to broadly disseminate the questionnaire via email to individual persons, associations and through Facebook to reach a significant number of answers. The possible bias is acknowledged, however it would be difficult, from operational and financial perspectives, to collect significant and representative data for the purpose of the study in other way. References Alexandre, F., Aguiar-Conraria, L. and Baç~ ao, P. (2019), Crise e Castigo e o dia seguinte: Os desequil ıbrios, o resgate e a recuperaç~ ao da economia portuguesa, Fundaç~ ao Francisco Manuel dos Santos, Lisbon. Allport, G.W. (1961), Pattern and Growth in Personality, Holt, New York. Allport, G.W. and Odbert, H.S. (1936), “Trait-names: a psycho-lexical study”,Psychological Monographs, Vol. 47 No. 211, p. i-171. Anderson, C., John, O.P., Keltner, D. and Kring, A.M. (2001), “Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 116-132. Aranya, N. and Wheeler, J.T. (1986), “Accountants’personality types and their commitment to organization and profession”,Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 184-199. Aranya, N., Meir, E.I. and Bar-Ilan, A. (1978), “An empirical examination of the stereotypical accountant based on Holland’s theory”,Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 139-145. Ashton, M.C., Lee, K., Goldberg, L.R. and de Vries, R.E. (2009), “Higher order factors of personality: do they exist?”,Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 79-91. Assembleia da Rep ublica (2009), “Comiss~ ao de inqu erito sobre a situaç~ ao que levou  a nacionalizaç~ ao do BPN e sobre a supervis~ ao banc aria inerente”, available at: https://www.dn.pt/DNMultimedia/ DOCSþPDFS/BPN/RelatorioBPN_final.pdf (accessed 2 November 2020). Bandalos, D.L. (1993), “Factors influencing cross-validation of confirmatory factor analysis models”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 351-374. Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991), “The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 1-26. Bedeian, A.G., Mossholder, K.W., Touliatos, J. and Barkman, A.I. (1986), “The accountant’s stereotype: an update for vocational counselors”,Career Development Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 113-122. Benet-Mart ınez, V. and Oishi, S. (2008), “Culture and personality”, in John, O.P., Robins, R.W. and Pervin, L.A. (Eds), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, Guilford Press, New York and London, pp. 542-567. Bentler, P.M. and Chou, C.-P. (1987), “Practical issues in structural modeling”,Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 78-117. Stereotype of accountants 257 Birmingham, D. (2003), A Concise History of Portugal, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Block, J. (1995), “A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 117 No. 2, pp. 187-215. Bougen, P.D. (1994), “Joking apart: the serious side to the accountant stereotype”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 319-335. Briggs, S.P., Copeland, S. and Haynes, D. (2007), “Accountants for the 21st Century, where are you? A five-year study of accounting students’personality preferences”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 511-537. Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Routledge, New York. Caglio, A., Cameran, M. and Klobas, J. (2019), “What is an accountant? An investigation of images”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 849-871. Camacho, P. (2014), “Pref acio”, in Gonçalves, N. and Pimenta, C. (Eds), As Facetas da Fraude: Cinco Anos de Cr onicas na VIS~ AO, Ediç~ oes H umus, Porto, pp. 21-22. Cantor, N. and Mischel, W. (1979), “Prototypes in person perception”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York and London, pp. 4-52. Carnegie, G.D. and Napier, C.J. (2010), “Traditional accountants and business professionals: portraying the accounting profession after Enron”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 360-376. Chan, W., McCrae, R.R., De Fruyt, F., Jussim, L., L€ ockenhoff, C.E., De Bolle, M., Costa, P.T. Jr, Sutin, A.R., Realo, A. and Allik, J. (2012), “Stereotypes of age differences in personality traits: universal and accurate?”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 103 No. 6, pp. 1050-1066. Clark, L.A. and Watson, D. (1995), “Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development”, Psychological Assessment, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 309-319. Coaley, K. (2014), An Introduction to Psychological Assessment and Psychometrics, Sage, London. Coate, C., Mitschow, M.C. and Schinski, M.D. (2003), “What students think of CPAs: is the stereotype alive and well?”,The CPA Journal, Vol. 73 No. 8, pp. 52-55. Cory, S.N. (1992), “Quality and quantity of accounting students and the stereotypical accountant: is there a relationship?”,Journal of Accounting Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-24. Cuddy, A.J.C., Fiske, S.T., Kwan, V.S.Y., Glick, P., Demoulin, S., Leyens, J.-P., Bond, M.H., Croizet, J.-C., Ellemers, N., Sleebos, E., Htun, T.T., Kim, H.-J., Maio, G., Perry, J., Petkova, K., Todorov, V., Rodr ıguez-Bail on, R., Morales, E., Moya, M., Palacios, M., Smith, V., Perez, R., Vala, J. and Ziegler, R. (2009), “Stereotype content model across cultures: towards universal similarities and some differences”,British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 1-33. Davidson, R.A. and Dalby, J.T. (1993a), “Personality profile of female public accountants”,Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 81-97. Davidson, R.A. and Dalby, J.T. (1993b), “Personality profiles of Canadian public accountants”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-116. de Not ıcias, D. (2012), O Esc^ andalo do BPN: O Verdadeiro Retrato de Portugal, Gradiva, Lisbon. De Raad, B. and Peabody, D. (2005), “Cross-culturally recurrent personality factors: analyses of three factors”,European Journal of Personality, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 451-474. DeCoster, D.T. and Rhode, J.G. (1971), “The accountant’s stereotype: real or imagined, deserved or unwarranted”,Accounting Review, Vol. XLVI No. 4, pp. 651-664. DeYoung, C.G. (2006), “Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 6, pp. 1138-1151. DeYoung, C.G., Peterson, J.B. and Higgins, D.M. (2002), “Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: are there neuroses of health?”,Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 533-552. AAAJ 35,9 258 Appendix 2 Whole sample (N5727) Dimension/Items** Nean (original/reversed)* SD Mean (pairs of opposite items) Extraversion 3.09 0.398 Talkative (BFI-1) 3.00 0.857 Reserved (BFI-6)* (RP16) 2.74 (3.26) 0.814 3.04 Full of energy (BFI-11) 3.13 0.773 Generates a lot of enthusiasm (BFI-16) 2.82 0.688 Tends to be quiet (BFI-21)* (RP1) 3.24 (2.76) 0.690 2.88 Has an assertive personality (BFI-26) 3.46 0.703 Is sometimes shy, inhibited (BFI-31)* (RP36) 2.90 (3.10) 0.714 3.14 Is outgoing, sociable (BFI-36) 3.17 0.691 Agreeableness 3.29 0.409 Tends to find fault with others (BFI-2)* (RP17) 2.50 (3.50) 0.821 3.22 Is helpful and unselfish with others (BFI-7) 3.30 0.688 Starts quarrels with others (BFI-12)* (RP7) 2.15 (3.85) 0.758 3.58 Has a forgiving nature (BFI-17) 2.93 0.627 Is generally trusting (BFI-22) 3.12 0.732 Can be cold and aloof (BFI-27)* (RP42) 3.11 (2.89) 0.794 3.19 Is considerate and kind to almost everyone (BFI-32) 3.34 0.655 Is sometimes rude to others (BFI-37)* (RP32) 2.78 (3.22) 0.763 3.28 Likes to cooperate with others (BFI-42) 3.48 0.659 Conscientiousness 3.74 0.474 Does a thorough job (BFI-3) 3.79 0.714 Can be somewhat careless (BFI-8)* (RP13) 2.36 (3.64) 0.874 3.72 Is a reliable worker (BFI-13) 3.80 0.593 Tends to be disorganized (BFI-18)* (RP33) 2.19 (3.81) 0.796 3.80 Tends to be lazy (BFI-23)* (RP28) 2.05 (3.95) 0.693 3.83 Perseveres until the task is finished (BFI-28) 3.71 0.671 Does things efficiently (BFI-33) 3.79 0.644 Makes plans and follows through with them (BFI-38) 3.65 0.646 Is easily distracted (BFI-43)* (RP3) 2.43 (3.57) 0.668 3.68 Neuroticism 2.75 0.409 Is depressed, blue (BFI-4) 2.34 0.838 Is relaxed, handles stress well (BFI-9)* (RP19) 3.34 (2.66) 0.771 3.07 Can be tense (BFI-14) 2.88 0.813 Worries a lot (BFI-19) 3.47 0.711 Is emotionally stable, not easily upset (BFI-24)* (RP29) 3.23 (2.77) 0.719 2.79 Can be moody (BFI-29) 2.81 0.735 Remains calm in tense situations (BFI-34)* (RP39) 3.57 (2.43) 0.672 2.54 Gets nervous easily (BFI-39) 2.65 0.686 Openness 3.17 0.491 Is original, comes up with new ideas (BFI-5) 3.06 0.820 Is curious about many different things (BFI-10) 3.41 0.749 Is ingenious, a deep thinker (BFI-15) 3.63 0.677 Has an active imagination (BFI-20) 3.17 0.775 Is inventive (BFI-25) 3.20 0.777 Values artistic, aesthetic experiences (BFI-30) 2.88 0.739 Prefers work that is routine (BFI-35)* (RP5) 3.20 (2.80) 0.882 2.93 Likes to reflect, play with ideas (BFI-40) 3.18 0.671 Has few artistic interests (BFI-41)* (RP30) 2.83 (3.17) 0.810 3.03 Is sophisticated in art, music or literature (BFI-44) 3.24 0.716 Note(s): SD 5Standard deviation *Items whose scores were reversed to compute the mean of the dimensions; reversed scores in brackets **For example, “BFI-1”indicates that the item is the first sentence of the Big Five Inventory and “RP16” indicate that “BFI-6”is a reversed pair of “BFI-16” Table A2. Descriptive statistics for BFI Stereotype of accountants 265 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Constructs Manifest variables Description Extraversion (F1) M (BFI-1; BFI-21R) (Mi1i21R)* Talkative Tends to be quiet M (BFI-6R; BFI-16) (Mi6Ri16) Reserved Generates a lot of enthusiasm M (BFI-31R; BFI-36) (Mi31Ri36) Is sometimes shy, inhibited Is outgoing, sociable BFI-11 (i11) Full of energy BFI-26 (i26)** Has an assertive personality Agreeableness (F2) M (BFI-2R; BFI-17) (Mi2Ri17) Tends to find fault with others Has a forgiving nature M (BFI-7; BFI-12R) (Mi7i12R) Is helpful and unselfish with others Starts quarrels with others M (BFI-27R; BFI-42) (Mi27Ri42)** Can be cold and aloof Likes to cooperate with others M (BFI-32; BFI-37R) (Mi32i37R) Is considerate and kind to almost everyone Is sometimes rude to others BFI-22 (i22)* Is generally trusting Conscientiousness (F3) M (BFI-3; BFI-43R) (Mi3i43R) Does a thorough job Is easily distracted M (BFI-8R; BFI-13) (Mi8Ri13) Can be somewhat careless Is a reliable worker M (BFI-18R; BFI-33) (Mi18Ri33) Tends to be disorganized Does things efficiently M (BFI-23R; BFI-28) (Mi23Ri28) Tends to be lazy Perseveres until the task is finished BFI-38 (i38)* Makes plans and follows through with them Neuroticism (F4) M (BFI-9R; BFI-19) (Mi9Ri19)* Is relaxed, handles stress well Worries a lot M (BFI-24R; BFI-29) (Mi24Ri29) Is emotionally stable, not easily upset Can be moody M (BFI-34R; BFI-39) (Mi34Ri39) Remains calm in tense situations Gets nervous easily BFI-4 (i4)** Is depressed, blue BFI-14 (i14) Can be tense Openness (F5) M (BFI-5; BFI-35R) (Mi5i35R) Is original, comes up with new ideas Prefers work that is routine M (BFI-30; BFI-41R) (Mi30i41R) Values artistic, aesthetic experiences Has few artistic interests BFI-10 (i10)** Is curious about many different things BFI-15 (i15)* Is ingenious, a deep thinker BFI-20 (i20) Has an active imagination BFI-25 (i25) Is inventive BFI-40 (i40) Likes to reflect, play with ideas BFI-44 (i44)** Is sophisticated in art, music, or literature Note(s): *variables excluded in the intermediate model; ** variables excluded in the final model Fit indices Mar^ oco (2010) Hair et al. (2010) Reference values Goodness-of-fit (N> 250; 12 < Nr.Var < 30) CFI <0.80–bad fit [0.80; 0.90[–poor fit Above 0.92 [0.90; 0.95[–good fit ≥0.95–very good fit GFI The same of CFI Above 0.95 RMSEA >0.10–Unacceptable fit <0.07, with CFI of 0.92 or higher ]0.05; 0.10]–acceptable fit ≤0.05–very good fit SRMR <0.08 0.08 or less, With CFI above 0.92 Note(s): Reversed brackets used to indicate an open interval Table A3. Constructs and manifest variables Table A4. Model fit indices AAAJ 35,9 266 Appendix 5 Stereotype Participants EACNO Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD All participants (N5727) 3.089 0.398 3.293 0.409 3.745 0.474 2.750 0.409 3.174 0.491 Participants by gender Male (N5310) 3.058 0.396 3.282 0.416 3.738 0.443 2.729 0.375 3.157 0.489 Z-scores 0.078 0.994 0.025 1.016 0.015 0.935 0.049 0.917 0.034 0.996 Female (N5417) 3.112 0.399 3.301 0.403 3.750 0.496 2.764 0.433 3.186 0.493 Z-scores 0.058 1.002 0.019 0.988 0.011 1.047 0.036 1.057 0.025 1.003 Participants by age Less than 30 years (N5148) 3.038 0.402 3.251 0.397 3.713 0.471 2.811 0.429 3.188 0.529 Z-scores 0.129 1.009 0.103 0.972 0.068 0.992 0.150 1.047 0.029 1.078 From 30 to 50 years (N5425) 3.075 0.399 3.288 0.409 3.759 0.473 2.749 0.417 3.144 0.486 Z-scores 0.036 1.003 0.012 1.001 0.030 0.996 0.002 1.018 0.061 0.990 Above 50 years (N5154) 3.179 0.379 3.346 0.416 3.737 0.484 2.692 0.361 3.243 0.461 Z-scores 0.224 0.952 0.131 1.017 0.017 1.020 0.140 0.882 0.141 0.938 Participants by level of education Without graduation (N5265) 3.170 0.368 3.366 0.416 3.804 0.478 2.668 0.410 3.331 0.441 Z-scores 0.202 0.925 0.179 1.019 0.125 1.008 0.199 1.001 0.320 0.898 With graduation (N5462) 3.043 0.407 3.251 0.399 3.711 0.469 2.796 0.402 3.083 0.496 Z-scores 0.116 1.024 0.103 0.975 0.072 0.989 0.114 0.982 0.184 1.010 Participants with/without interaction with accountants With interaction (N5615) 3.098 0.385 3.300 0.402 3.752 0.477 2.742 0.411 3.186 0.480 Z-scores 0.022 0.967 0.018 0.984 0.014 1.005 0.018 1.004 0.025 0.977 Without any kind of interaction (N569) 3.062 0.377 3.184 0.398 3.610 0.434 2.797 0.381 3.080 0.454 Z-scores 0.070 0.946 0.267 0.974 0.284 0.916 0.116 0.930 0.191 0.924 Note(s): E5Extraversion; A 5Agreeableness; C 5Conscientiousness; N 5Neuroticism; O 5Openness; SD 5Standard deviation Table A5. Stereotype by groups of participants Stereotype of accountants 267 Appendix 6 Dependent variables Gender Age Level of education Interaction with accountants df Fp-value df Fp-value df Fp-value df Fp-value Extraversion 1,725 3.277 0.071 2,724 5.443 0.005 1,725 17.403 0.000 1,682 0.557 0.456 Agreeableness 1,725 0.349 0.555 2,724 2.138 0.119 1,725 13.609 0.000 1,682 5.234 0.022 Conscientiousness 1,725 0.115 0.735 2,724 0.562 0.570 1,725 6.563 0.011 1,682 5.561 0.019 Neuroticism 1,725 1.297 0.255 2,724 3.181 0.042 1,725 16.923 0.000 1,682 1.121 0.290 Openness 1,725 0.609 0.435 2,724 2.400 0.091 1,725 45.448 0.000 1,682 3.072 0.080 Table A6. One-Way ANOVA for gender, age group, level of education and interaction with accountants: groups differences on the Big Five dimensions AAAJ 35,9 268 Appendix 7 Multiple comparisons Tukey HSD Dependent variable (I) age (J) age Mean difference (IJ) Std. Error Sig 95% confidence interval Lower bound Upper bound BF1 Less than 30 years From 30 to 50 years 0.03699 0.03776 0.590 0.1257 0.0517 Above 50 years 0.14056* 0.04554 0.006 0.2475 0.0336 From 30 to 50 years Less than 30 years 0.03699 0.03776 0.590 0.0517 0.1257 Above 50 years 0.10357* 0.03721 0.015 0.1910 0.0162 Above 50 years Less than 30 years 0.14056* 0.04554 0.006 0.0336 0.2475 From 30 to 50 years 0.10357* 0.03721 0.015 0.0162 0.1910 BF2 Less than 30 years From 30 to 50 years 0.03735 0.03895 0.603 0.1288 0.0541 Above 50 years 0.09557 0.04698 0.105 0.2059 0.0148 From 30 to 50 years Less than 30 years 0.03735 0.03895 0.603 0.0541 0.1288 Above 50 years 0.05822 0.03838 0.284 0.1484 0.0319 Above 50 years Less than 30 years 0.09557 0.04698 0.105 0.0148 0.2059 From 30 to 50 years 0.05822 0.03838 0.284 0.0319 0.1484 BF3 Less than 30 years From 30 to 50 years 0.04675 0.04530 0.557 0.1531 0.0596 Above 50 years 0.02419 0.05463 0.898 0.1525 0.1041 From 30 to 50 years Less than 30 years 0.04675 0.04530 0.557 0.0596 0.1531 Above 50 years 0.02256 0.04464 0.869 0.0823 0.1274 Above 50 years Less than 30 years 0.02419 0.05463 0.898 0.1041 0.1525 From 30 to 50 years 0.02256 0.04464 0.869 0.1274 0.0823 BF4 Less than 30 years From 30 to 50 years 0.06199 0.03895 0.250 0.0295 0.1535 Above 50 years 0.11844* 0.04697 0.032 0.0081 0.2288 From 30 to 50 years Less than 30 years 0.06199 0.03895 0.250 0.1535 0.0295 Above 50 years 0.05645 0.03838 0.306 0.0337 0.1466 Above 50 years Less than 30 years 0.11844* 0.04697 0.032 0.2288 0.0081 From 30 to 50 years 0.05645 0.03838 0.306 0.1466 0.0337 (continued) Table A7. Post hoc Tukey HSD test Stereotype of accountants 269 Appendix 8 Multiple comparisons Tukey HSD Dependent variable (I) age (J) age Mean difference (IJ) Std. Error Sig 95% confidence interval Lower bound Upper bound BF5 Less than 30 years From 30 to 50 years 0.04431 0.04677 0.611 0.0655 0.1542 Above 50 years 0.05502 0.05641 0.593 0.1875 0.0775 From 30 to 50 years Less than 30 years 0.04431 0.04677 0.611 0.1542 0.0655 Above 50 years 0.09933 0.04609 0.080 0.2076 0.0089 Above 50 years Less than 30 years 0.05502 0.05641 0.593 0.0775 0.1875 From 30 to 50 years 0.09933 0.04609 0.080 0.0089 0.2076 Note(s): *The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level Table A7. Constructs/Items Standardized estimated coefficients Average variance extracted (AVE) Construct reliability (CR) Cronbach’s alpha Extraversion (F1) 0.405 0.671 0.640 Mi6Ri16 0.657 i11 0.579 Mi31Ri36 0.670 Agreeableness (F2) 0.402 0.662 0.662 Mi2Ri17 0.506 Mi7i12R 0.602 Mi32i37R 0.767 Conscientiousness (F3) 0.608 0.861 0.860 Mi3i43R 0.734 Mi8Ri13 0.781 Mi18Ri33 0.787 Mi23Ri28 0.814 Neuroticism (F4) 0.467 0.710 0.682 i14 0.464 Mi24Ri29 0.614 Mi34Ri39 0.899 Openness (F5) 0.501 0.829 0.825 Mi5i35R 0.716 i20 0.807 i25 0.860 Mi30i41R 0.580 i40 0.515 Table A8. Convergent validity (final model) AAAJ 35,9 270 Appendix 9 Appendix 10 Corresponding author Delfina Gomes can be contacted at: [email protected] For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] Factors Correlation estimate Square correlation estimate AVE of each factor F5 ↔F4 0.458 0.210 0.501 0.467 F5 ↔F3 0.402 0.162 0.501 0.608 F5 ↔F2 0.587 0.345 0.501 0.402 F5 ↔F1 0.814 0.663 0.501 0.405 F4 ↔F3 0.675 0.456 0.467 0.608 F4 ↔F2 0.809 0.654 0.467 0.402 F4 ↔F1 0.541 0.293 0.467 0.405 F2 ↔F3 0.698 0.487 0.402 0.608 F1 ↔F3 0.409 0.167 0.405 0.608 F1 ↔F2 0.751 0.564 0.405 0.402 Dimensions of personality Original BFI Suggested model (“final”) Mean SD Mean SD Extraversion 3.089 0.398 3.104 0.488 Agreeableness 3.293 0.409 3.357 0.426 Conscientiousness 3.745 0.474 3.757 0.490 Neuroticism 2.750 0.409 2.737 0.513 Openness 3.174 0.491 3.101 0.542 Note(s): N5727; SD 5Standard deviation Table A9. Discriminant validity (final model) Table A10. Perceived personality profile of accountants (compared scores) Stereotype of accountants 271