A Model and Literature Review of Professional Skepticism in Auditing

By M. Nelson. 2009

602 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Information Systems and Management, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/072e09975a9bce46670c5755de8410e7872608f8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Information Systems and Management

In Safety Research

Citations in the corpus

Seeing is believing? Executives' facial trustworthiness, auditor tenure, and audit fees (2020, neutral): “Therefore, auditors should assume no bias in management's representations ex ante and exercise their professional skepticism during their audit engagement (see Nelson (2009) for a review).”
Do Individual Auditors Affect Audit Quality? Evidence from Archival Data (2012, background): “The audit JDM literature suggests that audit quality is affected by auditors’ personal attributes, such as expertise (knowledge), experience, problem-solving ability, risk preference, cognitive style, and incentives (Nelson and Tan 2005; Nelson 2009).”
Does the identity of engagement partners matter? An analysis of audit partner reporting decisions (2015, methodology): “Hypothesis 1  Auditors differ in terms of expertise, incentives and risk preferences  who does an audit may matter [Nelson and Tan 2005; Nelson 2009]  Partner and team attributes may be more indicative of audit quality than office or firm attributes [Kilgore et al 2012]  Are these attributes…”
A Review and Model of Auditor Judgments in Fraud-Related Planning Tasks (2011, background): “Nelson (2009) discusses state skepticism, which posits that external factors likely also affect how skeptically people behave.”
Fifty-Year Overview of Judgment and Decision-Making Research in Accounting (2011, neutral): “Motivated reasoning research suggests that motivations cause individuals to search for, and overweight, evidence that supports a desired conclusion (Kunda, 1990; Nelson, 2009).”
Audit Quality: Insights from the Academic Literature (2013, background): “However, there are several countervailing incentives in place, such as concerns for regulatory enforcement, potential litigation costs, and potential reputation losses, promoting high audit quality (e.g., Nelson 2009).”