Nasze serwisy używają informacji zapisanych w plikach cookies. Korzystając z serwisu wyrażasz zgodę na używanie plików cookies zgodnie z aktualnymi ustawieniami przeglądarki, które możesz zmienić w dowolnej chwili. Więcej informacji odnośnie plików cookies.

Obowiązek informacyjny wynikający z Ustawy z dnia 16 listopada 2012 r. o zmianie ustawy – Prawo telekomunikacyjne oraz niektórych innych ustaw.

Wyłącz komunikat



Logowanie za pomocą Centralnej Usługi Uwierzytelniania PRz. Po zakończeniu pracy nie zapomnij zamknąć przeglądarki.

Humanities and Social Sciences (dawna nazwa: Ekonomia i Nauki Humanistyczne)

Humanities and Social Sciences
(dawna nazwa: Ekonomia i Nauki Humanistyczne)
25 (4/2018), DOI: 10.7862/rz.2018.hss.64


Maciej Ciołek
Submitted by: Paweł Perz

DOI: 10.7862/rz.2018.hss.64


In the ongoing auditing debate on professional skepticism, ‘questioning mind’ has focused a respectable attention. With questioning mind, auditors are not satisfied with simple answers and look deeper until their beliefs are formed. It is even stated that: “professional skepticism requires an ongoing questioning of whether the information and evidence obtained suggests that a material misstatement due to fraud has occurred”. The purpose of this study is to examine whether university accounting programs shape the questioning mind of the students to a greater extent comparing other university programs in the field of economy. For this purpose I conducted an experimental study using one of the skepticism measures, the Hurtt Professional Skepticism Scale – HPSS.  It involved 432 students of Poznan University of Economics following accounting program and management program (control group). The results showed that only ACCA accredited program in accounting increased the level of ‘questioning mind’ significantly comparing to standard academic program in accounting and management program. The robustness analysis showed that gender of subjects and length of professional experience had no statistically significant impact on results. On the contrary, the experience itself had an impact on results

Full text (pdf)


  1. AICPA, The Confirmation Process, Statement on Auditing Standards No. 67, New York 1992.
  2. AICPA, Due Care in the Performance of Work. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 1, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, New York 1997.
  3. AICPA, Understanding the Entity and Its Environment and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement, Statement on Auditing Standards No. 109, New York 2006.
  4. Anderson B.H., Maletta M.J., Primacy Effects and the Role of Risk in Auditor Belief-Revision Processes, AUDITING: “A Journal of Practice & Theory”, March 1999, Vol. 18, No. 1, p. 75–89.
  5. Asare S.K., McDaniel L., The effect of familiarity with the preparer and task complexity on the effectiveness of the audit review process, “The Accounting Review”, No. 71, April 1996, p. 139–159.
  6. Baumann M., Remarks Concerning PCAOB Developments presented at the AICPA Conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments, December 4, Washington, DC, 2012, News/Speech/Pages/12042012_AICPA.aspx.
  7. Beasley M.S., Carcello J.V., Hermanson D.R., Top 10 audit deficiencies, “Journal of Accountancy”, April 2001, p. 63–66.
  8. Choo F., Tan K.,  Instruction, skepticism, and accounting students’ ability to detect frauds in auditing, “The Journal of Business Education”, No. 1, Fall 2000, p. 72–87.
  9. Ciołek M., Professional skepticism in auditing and its characteristics, Global Challenges of Management Control and Reporting, Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, No. 474, 2017, p. 33–41.
  10. Fogelin R.J., Pyrrhonian Reflections on Knowledge and Justification, Oxford University Press, New York 1994.
  11. Grenier J.H., Encouraging Professional Skepticism in the Industry Specialization Era: A Dual-Process Model and an Experimental Test, Dissertation at the University of Illinois, 2010.
  12. Harding N., Trotman K.T., Enhancing professional skepticism via the fraud brainstorming discussion outcomes, Working Paper, University of Melbourne, 2011.
  13. Hult G.T.M., Ketchen D.J., Griffith D.A., Finnegan C.A., Gonzalez-Padron T., Harmancioglu N., Huang Y., Talay M.B., Cavusgil S.T., Data equivalence in cross-cultural international business research: Assessment and guidelines, “Journal of International Business Studies”, No. 39 (6), 2008, p. 1027–1044.
  14. Hurtt R.K., Development of a scale to measure professional skepticism, Auditing: “A Journal of Practice & Theory”, issue 29 (1), 2010, p. 149–171.
  15. Hurtt R.K., Brown-Liburd H., Earley Ch., Krishnamoorthy G., Research on Auditor Professional Skepticism – Literature Synthesis and Opportunities for Future Research, AUDITING: “A Journal of Practice & Theory”, No. 32 (Sp. 1), 2013, p. 45–97.
  16. IAASB, ISA 200 Overall Objectives of the Independent Auditor and the Conduct of an Audit in Accordance with International Standards on Auditing, The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, New York 2010.
  17. IAASB, ISA 240 The Auditor’s Responsibilities Relating to Fraud in an Audit of Financial Statements, The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, New York, 2010.
  18. KPMG, KPMG Fraud Survey 2009 Report, Kuala Lumpur 2009.
  19. Kurtz P., The New Skepticism: Inquiry and Reliable Knowledge, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1992.
  20. Masztalerz M., Czy rachunkowość w Polsce jest kobietą?, Współczesne problemy w nauce, dydaktyce i praktyce rachunkowości, Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, No. 503, 2017, p. 326–335.
  21. McCormack B., Watts T., Acquistion of Auditing Skills: Enhancing Skepticism, Problem Solving and Beyond on the Fraud Continuum, Working Paper, University Of Wollongong, 2011.
  22. McGinn M., Sense and Certainty: A Dissolution of Scepticism, Basil Blackwell Inc., New York 1989.
  23. McMillan J.J., White R.A., Auditors’ belief revisions and evidence search: The effect of hypothesis frame, confirmation and professional skepticism, “The Accounting Review”, No. 68 (3), 1993, p. 443–465.
  24. Mueller J.M., Anderson J.C., Decision aids for generating analytical review alternatives: The impact of goal framing and audit-risk level, “Behavioral Research in Accounting”, No. 14, 2002, p. 157–177.
  25. Nelson M., A model and literature review of professional skepticism in auditing, Auditing: “A Journal of Practice & Theory”, No. 28 (2), 2009, p. 1–34.
  26. Peecher M., The influence of auditors' justification processes on their decisions: A cognitive model and experimental evidence, “Journal of Accounting Research”, issue (Spring), 1996, p. 125–140.
  27. Plumlee D., Rixom B.A., Rosman A.J., Training Auditors to Think Skeptically, Working paper, The University of Utah and University of Connecticut, 2012.
  28. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), An Audit of Internal Control over Financial Reporting Performed in Conjunction with an Audit of Financial Statements, PCAOB Auditing Standard, No. 2, 2004.
  29. Rose J. M., Attention to evidence of aggressive financial reporting and intentional misstatement judgments: Effects of experience and trust, Behavioral Research in Accounting, no 19, 2007, p.215–229.
  30. Shaub M., Lawrence J., Ethics, experience and professional skepticism: A situational analysis, Behavioral Research in Accounting, issue 8 (Supplement), 1996, p. 124–157.
  31. Ying S.X., Patel C., Skeptical Judgments and Self-Construal: A Comparative Study between Chinese Accounting Students in Australia and China, “Journal of International Accounting Research”, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Fall), 2016, p. 97–111.
  32. Zeune G.D., Fraud: It is your job!, Michigan CPA, No. 48(4), 1997, p. 26–31.

About this Article


Maciej Ciołek

Poznan University of Economics and Business, Department of Accounting

Paweł Perz

Humanities and Social Sciences
25 (4/2018)

questioning mind, professional skepticism, accounting education, accounting students, auditing education




Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Rzeszowskiej, al. Powstańców Warszawy 12, 35-959 Rzeszów

POLITECHNIKA RZESZOWSKA im. Ignacego Łukasiewicza; al. Powstańców Warszawy 12, 35-959 Rzeszów
tel.: +48 17 865 11 00, fax.: +48 17 854 12 60
Administrator serwisu:

Deklaracja dostępności | Polityka prywatności