Who Rewards Appropriate Levels of Professional Skepticism?

SUMMARY In this article, we provide a practitioner summary of our paper “Who Rewards Appropriate Levels of Professional Skepticism?” (Brazel, Leiby, and Schaefer 2025; hereafter BLS). Recent research suggests that audit supervisors who reward appropriate skeptical behavior, regardless of the outcome, appear to develop staff that are more likely to detect and convey fraud red flags to their superiors. In BLS, we first identify audit supervisors who are more likely to reward appropriate skepticism. We then investigate which personality traits, knowledge, and incentives are associated with supervisors who reward appropriate professional skepticism even when no misstatement is identified. We find that trait skepticism, especially suspending one’s judgment, drives the evaluations of professional skepticism in our setting. Also, we observe that when supervisors believe that their own audit partner will view the skepticism favorably, they “pay it forward” by rewarding their own staff who engage in skepticism. Data Availability: Contact the authors. JEL Classifications: L2; M40; M42; M51.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Current Issues in Auditing
Published
2025-02-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-2024-027
Primary Topic
Education and Critical Thinking Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Who Rewards Appropriate Levels of Professional Skepticism?

Joseph F. Brazel, Tammie J. Schaefer, Justin Leiby
Current Issues in Auditing
Education and Critical Thinking Development
article

Who Rewards Appropriate Levels of Professional Skepticism?

Joseph F. Brazel, Tammie J. Schaefer, Justin Leiby
article en

Abstract

SUMMARY In this article, we provide a practitioner summary of our paper “Who Rewards Appropriate Levels of Professional Skepticism?” (Brazel, Leiby, and Schaefer 2025; hereafter BLS). Recent research suggests that audit supervisors who reward appropriate skeptical behavior, regardless of the outcome, appear to develop staff that are more likely to detect and convey fraud red flags to their superiors. In BLS, we first identify audit supervisors who are more likely to reward appropriate skepticism. We then investigate which personality traits, knowledge, and incentives are associated with supervisors who reward appropriate professional skepticism even when no misstatement is identified. We find that trait skepticism, especially suspending one’s judgment, drives the evaluations of professional skepticism in our setting. Also, we observe that when supervisors believe that their own audit partner will view the skepticism favorably, they “pay it forward” by rewarding their own staff who engage in skepticism. Data Availability: Contact the authors. JEL Classifications: L2; M40; M42; M51.

Current Issues in AuditingVol. 19(2)
North Carolina State University (US), University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US), University of Missouri–Kansas City (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 97%
Education and Critical Thinking Development
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Who Rewards Appropriate Levels of Professional Skepticism? — Joseph F. Brazel, Tammie J. Schaefer, et al. · Current Issues in Auditing (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS