Auditors' Professional Skepticism: Neutrality versus Presumptive Doubt

T.L.C.M. Groot, L.M. Quadackers, A. Wright

Research output: Scientific - peer-reviewArticle

Abstract

Although skepticism is widely viewed as essential to audit quality, there is a debate about what form is optimal. The two prevailing perspectives that have surfaced are "neutrality" and "presumptive doubt." With neutrality, auditors neither believe nor disbelieve client management. With presumptive doubt, auditors assume some level of dishonesty by management, unless evidence indicates otherwise. The purpose of this study is to examine which of these perspectives is most descriptive of auditors' skeptical judgments and decisions, in higher and lower control environment risk settings. This issue is important, since there is a lack of empirical evidence as to which perspective is optimal in addressing client risks. An experimental study is conducted involving a sample of 96 auditors from one of the Big 4 auditing firms in the Netherlands, with experience ranging from senior to partner. One of the skepticism measures is reflective of neutrality, the Hurtt Professional Skepticism Scale (HPSS), whereas the other reflects presumptive doubt, the inverse of the Rotter Interpersonal Trust Scale (RIT). The findings suggest that the presumptive doubt perspective of professional skepticism is more predictive of auditor skeptical judgments and decisions than neutrality, particularly in higher-risk settings. Since auditing standards prescribe greater skepticism in higher-risk settings, the findings support the appropriateness of a presumptive doubt perspective and have important implications for auditor recruitment and training, guidance in audit tools, and future research.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)639-657
JournalContemporary Accounting Research
Volume31
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Cite this

Groot, T.L.C.M.; Quadackers, L.M.; Wright, A. / Auditors' Professional Skepticism: Neutrality versus Presumptive Doubt.

In: Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2014, p. 639-657.

Research output: Scientific - peer-reviewArticle

@article{1100ebbc327c443283f40efffc5007d7,
title = "Auditors' Professional Skepticism: Neutrality versus Presumptive Doubt",
abstract = "Although skepticism is widely viewed as essential to audit quality, there is a debate about what form is optimal. The two prevailing perspectives that have surfaced are {"}neutrality{"} and {"}presumptive doubt.{"} With neutrality, auditors neither believe nor disbelieve client management. With presumptive doubt, auditors assume some level of dishonesty by management, unless evidence indicates otherwise. The purpose of this study is to examine which of these perspectives is most descriptive of auditors' skeptical judgments and decisions, in higher and lower control environment risk settings. This issue is important, since there is a lack of empirical evidence as to which perspective is optimal in addressing client risks. An experimental study is conducted involving a sample of 96 auditors from one of the Big 4 auditing firms in the Netherlands, with experience ranging from senior to partner. One of the skepticism measures is reflective of neutrality, the Hurtt Professional Skepticism Scale (HPSS), whereas the other reflects presumptive doubt, the inverse of the Rotter Interpersonal Trust Scale (RIT). The findings suggest that the presumptive doubt perspective of professional skepticism is more predictive of auditor skeptical judgments and decisions than neutrality, particularly in higher-risk settings. Since auditing standards prescribe greater skepticism in higher-risk settings, the findings support the appropriateness of a presumptive doubt perspective and have important implications for auditor recruitment and training, guidance in audit tools, and future research.",
author = "T.L.C.M. Groot and L.M. Quadackers and A. Wright",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1111/1911-3846.12052",
volume = "31",
pages = "639--657",
journal = "Contemporary Accounting Research",
issn = "0823-9150",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

Auditors' Professional Skepticism: Neutrality versus Presumptive Doubt. / Groot, T.L.C.M.; Quadackers, L.M.; Wright, A.

In: Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2014, p. 639-657.

Research output: Scientific - peer-reviewArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Auditors' Professional Skepticism: Neutrality versus Presumptive Doubt

AU - Groot,T.L.C.M.

AU - Quadackers,L.M.

AU - Wright,A.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Although skepticism is widely viewed as essential to audit quality, there is a debate about what form is optimal. The two prevailing perspectives that have surfaced are "neutrality" and "presumptive doubt." With neutrality, auditors neither believe nor disbelieve client management. With presumptive doubt, auditors assume some level of dishonesty by management, unless evidence indicates otherwise. The purpose of this study is to examine which of these perspectives is most descriptive of auditors' skeptical judgments and decisions, in higher and lower control environment risk settings. This issue is important, since there is a lack of empirical evidence as to which perspective is optimal in addressing client risks. An experimental study is conducted involving a sample of 96 auditors from one of the Big 4 auditing firms in the Netherlands, with experience ranging from senior to partner. One of the skepticism measures is reflective of neutrality, the Hurtt Professional Skepticism Scale (HPSS), whereas the other reflects presumptive doubt, the inverse of the Rotter Interpersonal Trust Scale (RIT). The findings suggest that the presumptive doubt perspective of professional skepticism is more predictive of auditor skeptical judgments and decisions than neutrality, particularly in higher-risk settings. Since auditing standards prescribe greater skepticism in higher-risk settings, the findings support the appropriateness of a presumptive doubt perspective and have important implications for auditor recruitment and training, guidance in audit tools, and future research.

AB - Although skepticism is widely viewed as essential to audit quality, there is a debate about what form is optimal. The two prevailing perspectives that have surfaced are "neutrality" and "presumptive doubt." With neutrality, auditors neither believe nor disbelieve client management. With presumptive doubt, auditors assume some level of dishonesty by management, unless evidence indicates otherwise. The purpose of this study is to examine which of these perspectives is most descriptive of auditors' skeptical judgments and decisions, in higher and lower control environment risk settings. This issue is important, since there is a lack of empirical evidence as to which perspective is optimal in addressing client risks. An experimental study is conducted involving a sample of 96 auditors from one of the Big 4 auditing firms in the Netherlands, with experience ranging from senior to partner. One of the skepticism measures is reflective of neutrality, the Hurtt Professional Skepticism Scale (HPSS), whereas the other reflects presumptive doubt, the inverse of the Rotter Interpersonal Trust Scale (RIT). The findings suggest that the presumptive doubt perspective of professional skepticism is more predictive of auditor skeptical judgments and decisions than neutrality, particularly in higher-risk settings. Since auditing standards prescribe greater skepticism in higher-risk settings, the findings support the appropriateness of a presumptive doubt perspective and have important implications for auditor recruitment and training, guidance in audit tools, and future research.

U2 - 10.1111/1911-3846.12052

DO - 10.1111/1911-3846.12052

M3 - Article

VL - 31

SP - 639

EP - 657

JO - Contemporary Accounting Research

T2 - Contemporary Accounting Research

JF - Contemporary Accounting Research

SN - 0823-9150

IS - 3

ER -