IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v67y2018icp1-14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Grounding the professional skepticism construct in mindset and attitude theory: A way forward

Author

Listed:
  • Nolder, Christine J.
  • Kadous, Kathryn

Abstract

The concept of professional skepticism is pervasive throughout auditing standards, and inspectors around the globe often identify a lack of skepticism as a root cause of audit deficiencies (IFIAR, 2015, 2016). Despite its importance, the professional skepticism construct remains ill-defined and measurements used in research do not map well into practice. The purpose of this paper is to develop a conceptualization of professional skepticism that will facilitate the conduct of research with meaningful implications for practice, providing a way forward for skepticism researchers. To that end, we propose a dual conceptualization of professional skepticism as both a mindset and an attitude, and we rely on mindset and attitude theory to develop measures of each component. Mindsets drive cognitive processing, and the mindset component captures the critical thinking that is an important element of professional skepticism and is required by standards. Including the mindset component reflects the idea that skepticism involves critical analysis of evidence, and not just doubt. Attitudes include affective and cognitive components to predict intentions and behavior, and attitudes recognize the influence of social factors on evaluative judgments. Including an attitude component thus expands the notion of evaluation to include auditors' feelings, as well as their beliefs, about risk, and it improves the predictive power of “skepticism” for auditors' evidence collection. We expect that our skeptical mindset and skeptical attitude theoretical approach will move the literature forward, especially in terms of framing standards, developing interventions to improve audit quality, and performing root cause analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Nolder, Christine J. & Kadous, Kathryn, 2018. "Grounding the professional skepticism construct in mindset and attitude theory: A way forward," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 1-14.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:67:y:2018:i:c:p:1-14
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2018.03.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368218301181
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2018.03.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aghazadeh, Sanaz & Hoang, Kris, 2020. "How does audit firm emphasis on client relationship quality influence auditors’ inferences about and responses to potential persuasion in client communications?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    2. Lori Shefchik Bhaskar & Patrick E. Hopkins & Joseph H. Schroeder, 2019. "An Investigation of Auditors’ Judgments When Companies Release Earnings Before Audit Completion," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 355-390, May.
    3. Inez G. F. Verwey & Stephen K. Asare, 2022. "The Joint Effect of Ethical Idealism and Trait Skepticism on Auditors’ Fraud Detection," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 176(2), pages 381-395, March.
    4. Sammy Xiaoyan Ying & Chris Patel & Aeson Luiz Dela Cruz, 2023. "The influence of partners' known preferences on auditors' sceptical judgements: The moderating role of perceived social influence pressure," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(3), pages 3193-3215, September.
    5. Rowe, Stephen P., 2019. "Auditors’ comfort with uncertain estimates: More evidence is not always better," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-11.
    6. Dennis D. Fehrenbacher & Anis Triki & Martin Michael Weisner, 2021. "Can multitasking influence professional scepticism?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(1), pages 1277-1306, March.
    7. Jessen L. Hobson & Matthew T. Stern & Aaron F. Zimbelman, 2020. "The Benefit of Mean Auditors: The Influence of Social Interaction and the Dark Triad on Unjustified Auditor Trust," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 1217-1247, June.
    8. Sanaz Aghazadeh & Yoon Ju Kang & Marietta Peytcheva, 2023. "Auditors’ scepticism in response to audit committee oversight behaviour," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(2), pages 2013-2034, June.
    9. Mohammad Jahanzeb Khan & Noel Harding, 2020. "Why is trait scepticism not consistently reflected in state scepticism? An exploratory study into the role of aesthetic engagement," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(4), pages 3743-3774, December.
    10. Aaron Saiewitz & Elaine (Ying) Wang, 2020. "Using Cultural Mindsets to Reduce Cross‐National Auditor Judgment Differences," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1854-1881, September.
    11. Chambers, Valerie A. & Reckers, Philip M.J. & Reinstein, Alan, 2020. "Drivers of juror's malpractice assessments in auditor litigation involving offshoring and overtime: Generation and a management Mindset," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    12. Christopher J. Wolfe & Brant E. Christensen & Scott D. Vandervelde, 2020. "Intuition versus Analytical Thinking and Impairment Testing†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1598-1621, September.
    13. Arianna Spina Pinello & Ara Volkan & Mark Arnone & Jamie Lancellot & Lana Luckey, 2022. "Professional Skepticism: Standardsetters’ Responsiveness To Stakeholder Comment Letters," Accounting & Taxation, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 14(1), pages 57-74.
    14. Kathryn Kadous & Yuepin (Daniel) Zhou, 2019. "How Does Intrinsic Motivation Improve Auditor Judgment in Complex Audit Tasks?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 108-131, March.
    15. Yi (Dale) Fu & Noel Harding & David C. Hay & Mohammad Jahanzeb Khan & Tom Scott & Harj Singh & Sarka Stepankova & Nigar Sultana, 2023. "Comments of the AFAANZ Auditing and Assurance Standards Committee on Proposed International Standard on Auditing 500 (Revised) Audit Evidence," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(4), pages 4805-4812, December.
    16. Beau, Pauline & Jerman, Lambert, 2022. "Bonding forged in “auditing hell”: The emotional qualities of Big Four auditors," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    17. Dela Cruz, Aeson Luiz & Patel, Chris & Ying, Sammy & Pan, Peipei, 2020. "The relevance of professional skepticism to finance professionals’ Socially Responsible Investing decisions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(C).
    18. Griffith, Emily E. & Kadous, Kathryn & Proell, Chad A., 2020. "Friends in low places: How peer advice and expected leadership feedback affect staff auditors’ willingness to speak up," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    19. Peters, Christian P. H., 2023. "The microfoundations of audit quality," Other publications TiSEM 6a2b12a5-6060-4544-883b-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:67:y:2018:i:c:p:1-14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.