Search results

Despite skepticism, consumers rely on online reviews for their purchase decisions. However, academics mostly argue that skepticism has an inverse relationship with consumer decision-making. This study aims to investigate the relationship among skepticism, reliance and consumer purchase decisions in an online review context. It also investigates the moderating role of review self-efficacy and regulatory focus in the relationship between skepticism and reliance on online reviews.

A survey with a nationally representative sample and two experimental studies are conducted.

Skepticism negatively affects consumers’ reliance on online reviews and reliance on online reviews mediates the relationship between skepticism and review-based purchase decisions. High review self-efficacy participants tend to rely more on online reviews than low review self-efficacy participants. Promotion-focused people rely more on online reviews than prevention-focused people, despite similar levels of skepticism.

The findings contribute to the skepticism, self-efficacy and regulatory focus literature. The general framework of the relationship among skepticism, reliance and purchase decision is also applicable in an online review context.

The results provide evidence of a stronger reliance on online reviews of high review self-efficacy and promotion-oriented consumers compared to low review self-efficacy and prevention-oriented consumers.

Consumer-perceived review attitude determines consumer overall information adoption and is a core part of consumer’s online-shopping. This study aims to focus on factors that could influence consumer review attitude and can be used by marketers to shape individual information perception.

The study used the questionnaire method to collect data from online shoppers and the modelling of structural equations as an empirical approach to analyse the data.

The findings demonstrate that both systematic and heuristic cues impact the reviewer’s credibility and perceived website attitude differently, which, in turn, influence review attitude. Review characteristics, such as factuality, consistency and relevancy, have a positive relationship with reviewer credibility, while only review consistency and relevancy appears to have a relationship with review attitude. Website characteristics such as reputation, familiarity and social interactivity positively influence the website attitude, which positively influences review attitude. Apart from this, review skepticism has a significant negative relationship with review attitude.

This study could help to foster a positive attitude towards online reviews. Digital marketers need to motivate trusted reviewers to post consistent, fact-based reviews. Further improving the overall website reputation and interactivity could bring a positive attitude towards the reviews. Also, digital marketers must filter and avoid contradictory reviews or reviews that have a bipolar message and reviews expressing numerous emotions to enhance review relevance and consistency.

The current study addresses the need to understand the formation of consumer review attitude through both review and website characteristics using heuristic – systematic model. The paper captures the complex process undergone by the consumer to decipher review attitude and thereby extend the understanding of consumer information processing.

This research note investigates the relationship between the constructs of professional skepticism and client advocacy as they relate to accountants’ roles as auditors and tax professionals. Although Pinsker, Pennington, and Schafer (2009) implicitly treat advocacy and professional skepticism as opposing constructs, the purpose of this research note is to explicitly examine whether an accounting professional can be both a professional skeptic and a client advocate. Two hundred and six experienced accounting professionals with a mixture of accounting and tax backgrounds responded to a client advocacy scale (Pinsker et al., 2009) and a professional skepticism scale (Hurtt, 2010). Results indicate that while tax professionals have higher levels of client advocacy than auditors, both groups have similar levels of professional skepticism. Moreover, no correlation emerges between participants’ responses to the advocacy and the full professional skepticism scale or five of its six sub-scales. These results provide evidence that client advocacy is a separate and distinct construct from professional skepticism. These findings have implications for behavioral accounting researchers by demonstrating that these two constructs are not related; thus, it is important to separately measure client advocacy and professional skepticism when they are relevant to a research question.

Drawing on the literature from cognitive neuroscience and auditing research on professional skepticism (PS), this paper identifies new research questions, determinants, and theories that may resolve current problem areas in PS research. We identify the following PS research areas that neuroscientific perspectives can potentially improve: 1) theory, 2) trust, 3) trait and state skepticism, 4) deception/fraud detection, and 5) skeptical judgment and action. The paper concludes with a discussion of the critical question of whether integrating a neuroscientific perspective in PS research is worthwhile and provides further direction for future research.

This study aims to examine the association between Iranian auditors' narcissism and the auditors' professional skepticism.

The authors' sample is comprised of 355 professional auditors working in the private and public sectors in Iranian firms in 2022. The authors use cross-sectional multivariate regression as the main methodology, along with the structural equation modeling (SEM) technique.

The authors find that a higher level of narcissism leads to a greater level of professional skepticism among auditors, which ultimately can enhance the quality of the audit process. The results provided via the robustness tests also supported this finding.

The authors' findings further the understanding of the role of narcissistic personality traits in improving professional skepticism among auditors of an Islamic and emerging country. In addition, audit firms and audit partners can also consider the findings of this study and enhance the effectiveness of audit processes by assigning appropriate employees with certain personalities to specific tasks.

This paper aims to investigate the combined effect of two interventions, perspective taking and incentives, on auditors’ professional skepticism (hereafter skepticism) when auditing complex estimates. Specifically, this paper examines the different ways that perspective taking (management versus inspector) and incentives (absent versus reward versus penalty) combine to impact skepticism.

This paper uses an experiment with 177 experienced Big 4 auditors. The experiment used a 2 (management vs inspector perspective) × 3 (absent vs reward vs penalty incentives) between-subjects design.

In the absence of incentives, adopting a management perspective raises situational skepticism when measuring skepticism as appropriateness of management’s fair value estimate while adopting an inspector perspective raises situational skepticism when measuring skepticism as need for more evidence. The authors find some evidence that incentives complement perspective-taking by enhancing those aspects of skepticism for which perspective-taking performs poorly. When assessing management assumptions, auditors adopting an inspector perspective enhance their skepticism more substantially than those adopting a management perspective, and this enhancement is greater with rewards than with penalties. However, this study does not detect an interaction between incentive type and perspective-taking on auditor skepticism in relation to gathering additional evidence.

This paper extends the literature by shifting the focus from a single perspective to a comparison of two perspective-taking approaches and discusses how each of these approaches enhances different aspects of skepticism. This paper also illustrates the importance of the interplay between perspective-taking and incentives in enhancing auditor skepticism.

This study aims to demonstrate how pressures (incentives) in the audit environment can lower audit quality because of a breakdown between professionally skeptical (PS) judgment (risk assessment) and PS action (testing).

The authors used a Qualtrics-based experiment with attitude change as a proxy measure of cognitive dissonance (CD). The authors analyze the results using a one-way independent between-group ANOVA with post hoc tests and t-tests.

The authors find that auditors experience CD when they fail to take appropriate high PS action (audit tests) that are in line with high PS judgment (risk assessments). The motivational force to reduce CD drives auditors to revise their assessments upward (rank higher), lower diagnostic audit tests (PS actions) and lower risk assessments (PS judgments). This leads to lower overall professional skepticism, and hence lower audit quality.

This investigation provides an empirical investigation of Nelson’s (2009) model of professional skepticism and demonstrates a specific mechanism for how incentives in the audit environment lower audit quality. Based on the findings, treatments to enhance audit quality can benefit by strengthening the critical link between PS judgments (risk assessments) and PS actions (audit tests).

Motivated by ongoing calls for auditors to exercise an elevated level of professional skepticism, this paper aims to examine the relationship between basic human values (values) and an underlying skeptical disposition (trait skepticism). Understanding the values that are associated with levels of trait skepticism will help in the design of audit environments that make the application of an underlying skeptical disposition more likely.

A survey was administered in which 140 postgraduate auditing students responded to the Schwartz value survey to measure the relative importance of different values, and the Hurtt trait skepticism scale to measure trait skepticism. The relative importance of the ten values was regressed against trait skepticism.

This study finds that the importance placed in the values of tradition and power, relative to other values, is negatively associated with levels of trait skepticism.

The use of postgraduate auditing students as participants may limit the generalizability of the study’s findings.

Qualified by the need for future research to test the generalizability of the findings to an audit practitioner sample, the results of this study suggest that auditors with higher levels of trait skepticism may experience negative affect in environments that emphasize values of power and tradition. To the extent that current audit environments emphasize tradition and power, the results may help explain why trait skepticism is not consistently reflected in audit judgments and actions.

The affective implications of the environment within which auditors exercise professional skepticism is emerging as an important area by which to understand and improve audit quality. By identifying the values that those with a high skeptical disposition place relatively less importance in, this study informs an understanding of the circumstances where an underlying skeptical disposition is more or less likely to be reflected in auditor judgments and actions.

The purpose of this study is to illustrate the potentially detrimental effects on audit decision-making of certain judgmental heuristics, which can lead to systematic judgmental biases. This paper provides background on the heuristics and biases approaches to decision-making to increase auditors' awareness of the anchoring and adjustment effects affecting audit judgments adversely.

This study reports the results of an experimental research design analyzing the audit judgment of 85 auditors in Switzerland.

Based on the results of the experiment, the results indicate evidence on the existence of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic in Swiss audit judgments. The authors could identify an influence of the audit company size, the auditors' experience and the auditors' knowledge about behaviorism and anchor heuristic with regard to the anchoring and adjustment effect on audit judgment.

The experimental tasks were relatively simple abstractions from the more complex analytical review situations faced by practicing auditors. Due to the small sample size, the authors cannot ensure representativeness of the results.

Professional judgment is a skill that auditor acquires overtime, combined with experience and knowledge, that allows him to achieve reasonable judgments, being independent of other opinions and free from material biases in a given circumstance. Our results show that auditors who are aware of biases and heuristics are less prone to judgment biases.

This paper is the first to analyze the impact of auditors' explicit experience and knowledge about behaviorism and anchor heuristic on the anchoring and adjustment effect on audit judgment. Through a stronger awareness of cognitive biases, a professional skepticism can be enhanced.

Following recent high-profile audit failures, concern has been expressed that auditors are not demonstrating sufficient skepticism when exercising professional judgment. In particular, client assumptions and estimations relating to hypothetical valuations in financial reporting are not being challenged. This paper seeks to address the issue by advancing a decision-making framework aimed at guiding auditors beyond regulatory reductionist thinking towards an enhanced understanding of the cognitive processes which shape professional judgment in forming a reliable audit opinion.

Drawing on the normative philosophical and theological teachings of Bernard Lonergan, the authors' decision-making framework embodies reflective thinking and the data of consciousness to highlight the central role played by enquiry in the dynamics of understanding, judgment and decision-making. Such enquiry elicits challenge of the management bias inherent in hypothetical valuations.

Auditing through a Lonerganian lens allows auditors to reflect on their approach to objective decision-making by offering a set of cognitive tools to enhance the enquiry essential for nurturing professional skepticism.

This paper contributes to the literature by developing the somewhat neglected discourse on the cognitive processes essential for professional skepticism and audit judgment. The authors demonstrate how Lonerganian self-appropriation intensifies an awareness of the recursive cognitive activities pertinent to objective judgment and decision-making. This awakened consciousness has the potential not only to change how auditors question evidence to make informed judgments and decisions, but also to normalize the practice of challenge.