Auditors' Judgment in a Financial Statement Audit and Professional Skepticism in Auditing

无论是在学术上还是在实践中，越来越多的人在国家和国际层面上提出了更多的“审计专业怀疑主义”的论点。围绕独立审计师的内部和外部环境导致了专业怀疑的侵蚀，并有可能削弱社会对审计师的信任。这种侵蚀是在1990年代初观察到的，会计专业本身也强烈承认这一点。长期以来，专业标准一直强调在整个证据过程中保持适当程度的怀疑，这一过程包括计划审计计划、执行程序和评估证据。审计师应该明白，怀疑的本质是“提出问题”和“表现出质疑的心态”，但这样做似乎不足以防止由于怀疑不足而导致的审计失败。美国、欧洲甚至…会计职业面临的基本问题之一目前，在日本，更多的是审计专业人士的怀疑态度。这个问题从根本上说是审计证据问题，涉及审计师对财务报表的怀疑程度和程度。换句话说，专业怀疑包含了审计师认知的两个方面：广度和深度。专业怀疑的范围方面涉及审计师的断言框架，包括确定基本性质(肯定和否定)和选择要审查的断言，以及如何审查和审查到什么程度。它基本上与审计师知道的方式有关，并象征性地处理审计师在开始证据收集过程之前应该(可以)采取什么方法(积极的和/或消极的)，并在证据收集过程中做出反应。因此，审计中的专业怀疑主义本质上是认识性的。一般来说，审计人员承认的肯定和/或否定断言的数量反映了他们怀疑的范围。专业怀疑论的深度层面与证据有关，对其能力做出评估性判断：审查特定断言所需收集的相关性、质量(可靠性)和数量。这一方面与审计师在特定审计环境中做出这样的证据判断时提出问题的倾向有关，从根本上讲是衡量审计师质疑的深度。从这个意义上说，审计中的职业怀疑主义本质上是心理上的。换句话说，审计中的职业怀疑主义具有双重性质，适用于审计认知的认知和心理两个层面。审计师能否在财务报表审计中成功地完成他们的保证作用，取决于他们能否成功地认识到并行使专业怀疑的双重性质。因此，审计师需要发展这两个学科的技能。关于职业怀疑论的研究已经进行了一段时间，但几乎所有先前关于这一主题的(经验)研究都集中在第二个方面，特别是审计师的心理特征对职业怀疑论的影响。为什么？许多研究似乎基于一种先入为主的观念，即只有肯定的方法(“证实断言”：确认)才能被接受为财务报表审计下的知晓方式。然而，应该注意的是，科学哲学中承认了另一种知晓方式，即消极的方法(“积极寻找重大错误陈述的负面迹象：证伪)”。在一种否定的方法下，审计师更注重于发现与否定断言相关的负面实例或迹象，以便形成一个合理的基础，以证实他们对财务报表公允陈述的信念。本研究的主要目的是提出一个专业怀疑的概念框架，该框架充分考虑了职业怀疑的两面性，以及审计文献中公认的与怀疑有关的审计师心态的不同观点。从专业怀疑论的角度来看，这一概念框架不仅可以表明目前的审计做法被认为停留在哪里，而且还可以表明这种做法可能朝哪个方向发展。较少

An increasing number of arguments have been made on a national and an international level, both academically and practically, for more "professional skepticism in auditing." The internal and external environments surrounding independent auditors have resulted in an eroding of professional skepticism and have threatened to weaken society's trust in auditors. This erosion was observed in the early 1990s and strongly acknowledged by the accounting profession itself. Professional standards have long emphasized an appropriate degree of skepticism throughout the evidence process, which is composed of planning audit programs, performing the procedures, and evaluating the evidence. Auditors are expected to understand that the essence of skepticism is "raising a question" and "exhibiting a questioning mind," yet doing so does not seem to be enough to prevent audit failures resulting from insufficient skepticism.One of the basic issues facing the accounting profession in the US, Europe, and even … More in Japan at the moment is the quality of professional skepticism in auditing. This issue is fundamentally a matter of audit evidence and is concerned with the degree and extent to which auditors should doubt the financial statements. To put it another way, professional skepticism contains the following two facets of the auditor's cognition : the scope and depth. The scope facet of professional skepticism is concerned with the auditor's assertion-framing, which includes determining the basic nature (affirmative and negative) and selection of assertions to be scrutinized and how and to what extent. It is basically related to an auditor's way of knowing and symbolically deals with what approach (positive and/or negative) the auditor should (can) adopt initially prior to beginning the evidence gathering process, and reactively during the evidence gathering process. Thus, professional skepticism in auditing is epistemic in its nature. In general, the number assertions, positive and/or negative, the auditors recognize reflects the scope of their skepticism. The depth facet of professional skepticism is concerned with the evidence, making an evaluative judgment concerning its competence : the relevance, quality (reliability), and quantity to be collected for scrutinizing a particular assertion. This facet is related to the auditor's disposition to raise questions in making such an evidential judgment in a particular audit setting and fundamentally deals with measuring the depth of the auditor's questioning mind. In this sense, professional skepticism in auditing is psychological in nature. In other words, professional skepticism in auditing is dual in nature, applicable at both epistemic and psychological facets of audit cognition. Whether the auditors can successfully accomplish their assurance role under a financial statement audit depends on their success in recognizing and exercising the dual nature of professional skepticism. Auditors therefore need to develop skills in both disciplines. Research on professional skepticism has been in progress for some time, yet almost all prior (empirical) research on the subject has focused on the second facet, particularly on the effects of auditors' psychological traits on professional skepticism. Why? Many studies seem to have been based on a preconception that only an affirmative approach ("substantiating the assertions" : confirmation) can be accepted as the way of knowing under a financial statement audit.It should be noted, however, that another way of knowing is recognized in the philosophy of science, that is, a negative approach ("proactively looking for negative indications of material misstatements : falsification). Under a negative approach, auditors put more focus on uncovering negative instances or signs related to the negative assertions so that they can form a reasonable basis for corroborating their belief in the fair presentation of financial statements.The main objective of this research is to present a conceptual framework for professional skepticism which gives due consideration to its dual nature as well as different views recognized in the audit literature of the auditor's mindset related to skepticism. This conceptual framework can show, in terms of professional skepticism, not only where the current audit practice is considered to rest, but also in which direction the practice may be moving. Less