Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Search Tips
Virtual Exhibit Hall
Personal Schedule
Sign In
This study examines the influence of mindsets on professional skepticism in auditors. Auditors have been criticized for not displaying enough professional skepticism, particularly in their audits of complex estimates (PCAOB 2008). Mindset theory suggests that objectivity can exist in the deliberative mindset but becomes eroded in the implemental mindset (Gollwitzer 1990; Gollwitzer et al. 1990; Gollwitzer and Bayer 1999). Given the definitional relation between objectivity and professional skepticism, I hypothesize that prolonging the deliberative mindset in the audit judgment and decision-making process can increase professional skepticism in auditors.
Experienced auditors take part in a 1 x 3 between-participants experiment in which they play the role of a senior auditor charged with evaluating a client’s fair value estimate. I manipulate the type of mindset (deliberative or implemental) invoked by the evidence documentation instructions and have a control condition in which participants do not have to document audit evidence. Using multiple measures of professional skepticism, I find that auditors in a deliberative mindset display higher professional skepticism than both auditors in an implemental mindset condition and auditors in a control group. I also provide evidence that task complexity could interfere with professional skepticism.