SYNOPSIS
Several international auditing firms have experimented with a training practice where auditors receive feedback about their trait skepticism levels based on the Hurtt Professional Skepticism Scale (HPSS), coupled with a prompt to increase skepticism. We test how this practice influences novice auditors’ conclusion accuracy and evidence collection. We first find that, in the absence of the training practice, auditors scoring higher on the HPSS seek more reliable evidence than lower-scoring auditors, but they are no more accurate in appropriately concluding whether accounts are misstated. We then observe that the firms’ training practice improves conclusion accuracy and evidence collection more for low-scoring auditors than high-scoring auditors. Importantly, the firms’ training practice enhances low-scoring auditors’ critical evaluation of evidence, resulting in well-calibrated skepticism in which they conclude more accurately, rather than simply overauditing. Our study contributes to practice by demonstrating that early (and simple) skepticism interventions can improve auditor performance.
Data Availability: Data are available from the authors upon request.
JEL Classifications: M41.
