Skeptical Judgments Research Articles

Auditors' Skeptical Characteristics and Their Relationship to Skeptical Judgments and Decisions

The purpose of this exploratory study is to examine the relationship between auditors’ skeptical characteristics and skeptical judgments and decisions. Despite the importance of auditor skepticism, as recognized by auditing standards, regulators, and practice, there is a lack of consensus and empirical data on the identification of auditor’s skeptical characteristics, how they are measured and the extent to which skeptical characteristics map with auditors’ skeptical judgments and decisions. Gaining insight on these issues has important implications for auditor recruitment and training, guidance to provide in audit tools, and future research. Three widely recognized skeptical characteristics from the psychology and auditing literatures are examined: (1) interpersonal trust; (2) suspension of judgment; and (3) locus of control. Furthermore, a comprehensive professional skepticism scale developed for the field of auditing is also considered. Finally, to examine the effect of client risks, the influence of control environment strength on the relationship between skeptical characteristics and auditors’ judgments and decisions is examined. An experimental study is conducted to address these issues involving a sample of 376 auditors from offices of the Big Four auditing firms in the Netherlands with experience ranging from staff to partner. The results show that the strength of the relationship between the alternative skeptical characteristics and skeptical judgments and decisions varies significantly. Overall, interpersonal trust displays the highest significance in predicting skeptical judgments and decisions. However, the relationship between auditors’ skeptical characteristics and skeptical judgments and decisions appears to be dependent on the strength of the control environment.

UN Conferences and Constructivist Governance of the Environment

In this article I review history of global environmental conferences and draw political lessons about their broader role in constructing efforts at global environmental governance. I also examine future of global conference diplomacy for environment, in particular Rio+10 in Johannesburg in 2002 and prospects of reaching goals for sustainable development set at UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). Global conferences are oft-used policy instruments, thus deserving careful evaluation and assessment. Jacques Fomerand expresses justifiable skepticism that most global conferences are momentary media events that provide sound bite opportunities without lasting effects on policies or quality of environment. (1) Guilio Gallarotti, and Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore, offer similar skeptical judgments about potential for effective state-based international governance. (2) Yet Fomerand also points out, as do I, that many conferences provide indirect effects that may be beneficial for inducing states to take more progressive steps toward governance and sustainable development. Governance and Constructivism Governance has recently become a popular catchphrase of international relations. Without prospects of hegemonic leadership, and in light of substantial growth of influence of international institutions and nonstate actors, international rule making has become domain of multiple overlapping actors and regimes, rather than clearcut leadership by one state or multilateral conformity with a small and homogeneous set of shared rules backed by enforcement mechanisms. Anne Marie Slaughter defines it as the formal and informal bundles of rules, roles and relationships that define and regulate social practices of states and nonstate actors in international affairs. (3) Sustainable development requires multilateral governance, because without well-defined rules and expectations most countries are incapable of unilaterally protecting themselves from transboundary and global environmental risks Constructivist scholars of international relations (IR) have been focusing on institutional, discursive, and intersubjective procedures by which international governance develops. John Ruggie writes that social constructivism rests on an irreducibly intersubjective dimension of human action ... constructivism is about human consciousness and its role in international life.... Constructivists hold view that building blocks of international reality are ideational as well as material; that ideational factors have normative as well as instrumental dimensions; that they express not only individual but also collective intentionality; and that meaning and significance of ideational factors are not independent of time and place. (4) Constructivists look at mechanisms and consequences by which actors, particularly states, derive meaning from a complex world, and how they identify their interests and policies for issues that appear new and uncertain. It is now widely accepted by most IR scholars that governance increasingly occurs in a decentralized manner, through a loosely tied network of multiple actors, states, functional state agencies, and nonstate actors who interact frequently, sometimes at global conferences. (5) Governance of environment is no different. Constructivists focus on such distinctive processes as socialization, education, persuasion, discourse, and norm inculcation to understand ways in which international governance develops. Typically these are complex procedures involving multiple interacting actors that accrue over time and contribute to transformational shifts in perceptions of national identity, international agendas, and presumptive ways by which national interests are to be attained. UN conferences contribute to governance and sustainable development by establishing and reinforcing some of these constructivist themes in international relations. …