Auditor professional skepticism – a cross-cultural study in the global International Financial Reporting Standards environment: the case of Canada and Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global financial reporting environment is undergoing significant change, with a global trend toward more countries adopting the International Financial Reporting Standards for public companies. Concerns exist as to potential barriers to harmonization, such as culture; therefore, it is important to draw on institutional mechanisms, such as auditing, to encourage compliance and harmonization. With this, there is a need to better understand the factors affecting the quality of such audits. Auditors’ professional skepticism is a key factor in ensuring audit quality. This exploratory quantitative study explores an area that is not well researched: specifically, the cross-cultural professional skepticism of auditors. Through a correlational design, the study provides insights as to whether auditors from different cultures make different skeptical judgments and decisions. This study also investigates whether prior research linking skeptical traits to increased professional skepticism in auditors is exportable from one culture to another. The major finding of this study is that there is no significant difference in the professionally skeptical judgments and decisions of entry-level auditors from Canada and Brazil. Culture is not associated with the professional skepticism of these auditors. The study also highlights that skepticism, as a trait does not correlate with professional skepticism of auditors across all cultures, specifically in Canada and Brazil. This study fills a major void in the literature concerning the study of cross-cultural professional skepticism and it extends prior research regarding the associations between skepticism as a trait and auditors’ professional skepticism by investigating auditors from two very different cultures. This study provides insights that are relevant to practitioners such as regulators, auditors and auditing firms, as well as academics in auditing, accounting, psychology and cultural studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".