Professional Skepticism and Financial Statement Fraud Detection among Malaysian and Indonesian Auditors: A Cross-Cultural Analysis

Professional Skepticism and Financial Statement Fraud Detection among Malaysian and Indonesian Auditors: A Cross-Cultural Analysis

Sharifah Nazatul Faiza Syed Mustapha Nazri¹, Fazlida Mohd Razali^*2, Salwa Zolkaflil³, Sharina Tajul Urus⁴, and Ni Nyoman Alit Triani⁵

^1,4Associate Professor, Faculty of Accountancy, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Puncak Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

^2,3Senior Lecturer, Accounting Research Institute, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

⁵Senior Lecturer, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia

^*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.815EC0016

Received: 05 December 2024; Accepted: 11 December 2024; Published: 11 January 2025

ABSTRACT

Recent financial scandals highlight flaws in auditor quality, signalling a decline in professional skepticism, particularly in regions like Malaysia and Indonesia with diverse regulatory frameworks, cultures, and environments. This study examines the relationship between six professional skepticism traits and fraud detection by comparing Malaysian and Indonesian auditor utilising a questionnaire based on Hurtt’s 30-item scale to assess auditors’ professional skepticism. A purposive samples of 187 Malaysian auditors (MIA members) and 173 Indonesian auditors (IAPI members) was surveyed. Partial Least Squares Multi-Group Analysis (PLS-MGA) revealed significant differences between the two countries in two key traits: interpersonal understanding and suspension of judgment which weakened (improve) Malaysian (Indonesian) auditors’ ability to detect fraud respectively. Indonesian auditors, on the other hand, may benefit from developing these traits to enhance fraud detection. The variance in skepticism traits is attributed to differences in professional environments, with Malaysian auditors primarily from Big 4 firms, while Indonesian auditors are predominantly from non-Big 4 firms. Targeted training for Indonesian auditors, focusing on interpersonal understanding and suspension of judgment, could enhance their fraud detection capabilities. This study contributes to the literature by identifying cultural and professional differences as key factors affecting skepticism, providing a basis for strategies to improve auditing practices in Indonesia.

Keywords: Financial Statement Fraud detection, Hurtt’s Professional Skepticism, Attribution Theory, Auditor, Malaysia, Indonesia.

JEL Classification Codes: M430, G32

INTRODUCTION

The increasing number of financial scandals in recent years highlights a significant lack of professional skepticism among auditors (Law and Yuen, 2016: Popova, 2013; Kusumawati and Syamsuddin, 2018). An auditor is a party that bridges the management and users’ interests on financial statements (Suryandari and Yuesti, 2017). Thus, professional skepticism is crucial in performing audit services (Said and Munandar, 2018), where they can perceivably enhance the audit quality and ultimately detect fraud (Puspitasari, Baridwan, and Rahman, 2019; Suryandari and Yuesti, 2017).

Cases such as Malaysia’s Serba Dinamik, where auditors faced challenges in verifying transactions and third-party details, demonstrate a gap in the detection of fraud, despite the presence of auditing standards like ISA 200 and 240. This lack of skepticism can be linked to poor fraud detection (Hussin et al. 2019), where internal and external auditors have detected less than 20% of fraudulent activities (Report to the Nations: Asia-Pacific Edition, 2018). In the case of Serba Dinamik, the auditors faced legal actions, and several independent directors resigned, signifying a serious governance failure linked to insufficient skepticism (Ecovis Malaysia, 2021). Similarly, in Indonesia, the Garuda Indonesia scandal highlighted the auditors’ failure to detect fraudulent reporting. The 2018 financial statements contained unrecognized income that should have been questioned, but the auditors did not apply sufficient skepticism (Tbk’s Annual Financial Report, 2018), which allowed the fraud to go unnoticed (Biksa and Wiratmaja, 2016; Grenier, 2017). These cases highlight the critical need for enhancing professional skepticism among auditors in both Malaysia and Indonesia, where cultural and regulatory differences impact the approach to fraud detection (Endrawes, Leong & Matawie, 2021).

Recent studies, including those by Mcgillis (2020) and Dickey, Bell & Beldona (2022), stress the urgent need for empirical research to determine how varying regulatory environments influence professional skepticism traits and the auditors’ ability to detect fraud. Malaysia’s audit landscape, shaped significantly by the influence of international firms, adopts a more structured and conservative auditing approach, while Indonesia presents an opportunity for improving skepticism traits within its professional framework. Thus, this study aims to provide comprehensive study that could provide valuable insights into how these cultural and professional environments shape the influence of professional skepticism traits on fraud detection capabilities in both nations. This study used a questionnaire based on Hurtt’s (2010) 30-item scale to assess auditors’ professional skepticism. A purposive sample included 187 Malaysian auditors (MIA members) and 173 Indonesian auditors (IAPI members). A comparison between the two groups was conducted using Partial Least Squares-Multi Group Analysis (PLS-MGA).

The findings of the study highlights that in Malaysia, auditors, especially those affiliated with larger international firms, such as the Big 4, demonstrate a strong adherence to global auditing standards. Traits like interpersonal understanding and suspension of judgment are more emphasized, which strengthens their ability to detect fraud. Conversely, Indonesian auditors, who typically operate within non-Big 4 firms, are influenced by a more flexible and less formalized auditing environment. The differences in professional and organizational culture between the two countries directly affect how auditors approach risk and apply professional skepticism.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows: next section presents the theoretical background, literature, and research hypothesis; this is followed by the methodology, research design and measurement of variables; next section presents the results of the study; and last section is the discussion and conclusions.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Interpersonal Understanding and Financial Statement Fraud Detection

There are several inducements and opportunities for management to commit fraud and provide false information (Ciolek, 2017). The management frequently pursues their best financial interest and will mislead the information (Charron and Lowe, 2008). By having an interpersonal understanding, auditors must understand the motivations that can drive the client’s behaviours (Dimitrova and Sorova, 2016). A study investigated professional skepticism characteristics that view earnings management actions as unethical (Farag and Elias, 2012). It was found that individuals with higher Interpersonal Understanding perceived this notion. In this case, the management intentionally produces financial statements that falsely presents a positive view of the company’s business activities. Another study investigated the improvements in Hurtt’s professional skepticism among accounting undergraduates over four years (Ciolek and Emerling, 2019). The study indicated that the interpersonal understanding characteristics have changed significantly over the four years of education and that interpersonal understanding serves as a guide to auditors in audit services. Meanwhile, a notable investigation assessed the interpersonal understanding of the auditors’ typical application to detect fraud (Gabryela’s (2017), revealing that auditors apply interpersonal understanding by understanding their client’s motive and integrity. In essence, auditors will make better audit decisions by understanding the behaviour of others. They can also apply suitable audit procedures and identify any irregularities. Based on the findings above, the hypothesis of this study would be as follows:

H1: Interpersonal understanding influence financial statement fraud detection among auditors in Malaysia and Indonesia.

The Questioning Mind and Financial Statement Fraud Detection

Auditors must possess skeptical behaviour that emerges in a continuous questioning of whether the gathered information and evidence indicate the presence of material misstatement due to fraud (Hussin and Iskandar, 2013). By having a significant curiosity level, auditors can assess audit evidence to detect irregularities in the financial statements (Mardijuwono and Subianto, 2018). For instance, a study investigated the effect between professional skepticism and audit quality in Indonesia (Puspitasari et al., 2019). The finding suggested that auditors’ skeptical behaviour positively affects audit quality. It shows how the auditors’ questioning mind is balanced against the audit service quality. For instance, Royaee et al. (2013) found a significant link between the auditors’ questioning mind and their decision-making at the Audit Institutions of Iran Certified Accountant’s Society. Another study employed a qualitative approach to explore the characteristics of the questioning mind among auditors to detect fraud (Gabryela, 2017). It was found that the auditors often question the reliability of their client’s information, proving that these characteristics were employed to identify fraud. Based on the findings above, the hypothesis of this study would be as follows:

H2: Questioning the mind influences financial statement fraud detection among auditors in Malaysia and Indonesia.

Searching for Knowledge and Financial Statement Fraud Detection

The search for knowledge is equated with curiosity related directly to the suspension of judgment (Ciolek, 2017). Essentially, auditors pursue knowledge by collecting audit evidence, gaining a more comprehensive understanding of the issue before making critical decisions. Hence, auditors with a high skeptical behaviour are considered more profound and evident (Popkin and Stroll, 2002; Ciolek, 2017). Fullerton and Durtschi (2004) evaluated the relationship between the search for knowledge and the lookup for fraud signs. The findings suggested that auditors generally prefer to gather more information during the emergence of fraudulent signs. Meanwhile, a study examined the impact of accounting education on characteristics of professional skepticism (Fatmawati et al., 2018). It was found that auditors with formal education exhibited enhanced professional skepticism, indicating that knowledge pursuit shapes their behaviour and ability in fraud detection. Furthermore, another investigation applied a qualitative approach to search for knowledge in auditors (Gabryela, 2017), indicating that having an astute trait is essential in fraud detection. Thus, they must acquire sufficient knowledge when searching for errors or fraud in the clients’ financial statements. Based on the findings above, the hypothesis of this study is indicated follows:

H3: Searching for knowledge influences financial statement fraud detection among the auditors in Malaysia and Indonesia.

Self-Confidence and Financial Statement Fraud Detection

Self-confidence is a requirement that enables auditors to stay independent while performing the audit (Ciolek, 2017). It can be seen as a characteristic of professional skepticism among auditors, allowing them to withstand persuasion and challenge others’ views (Hurtt, 2010). Yankova (2015) asserted that auditors with diminished self-confidence readily accept the client’s position. They also ignore remaining concerns or unanswered questions that potentially jeopardise the audit’s effectiveness. Notably, in Taiwan, Su et al. (2016) reported a significant link between the auditor’s self-efficacy and performances. This phenomenon occurs because self-efficacy affects auditors’ actions by encouraging them to overcome difficulties and improve audit performance. Meanwhile, a study highlighted the relationship between personality characteristics (i.e., self-confidence, optimism, and risk) and the accountants’ perspectives on crucial elements which affect judgement and decision making (Bogdan et al., 2017). Accordingly, it was noted that the accountant’s self-confidence is significant with these perspectives. Another study found a similar connection, investigating the link between individual self-confidence and fraud detection in Indonesia (Purnamawati, 2018). Overall, the idea suggests that self-confidence can help decide what people do with their skills and knowledge. Based on the findings above, the hypothesis of this study is indicated as follows:

H4: Self-confidence influences financial statement fraud detection among the auditors in Malaysia and Indonesia

Self-determining and Financial Statement Fraud Detection

The self-determining factor excludes external pressure or opinion, affecting the individuals’ decisions. Thus, this characteristic represents their independence and self-reliance (Yonkova, 2015). Accordingly, this trait is recognised in the professional standards (Ciolek, 2017). Paragraph 14 of the International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 240 states that auditors must remain independent in assessing and decision-making upon receiving sufficient evidence. For instance, a study examined the independence effect on the auditors’ ability in fraud detection (Hamilah, Denny and Handayani, 2019). In this context, their independence profoundly affected their ability to detect fraud, suggesting that auditors should maintain integrity and objectivity in their professional duties. Moreover, Hussin and Iskandar (2015) highlighted the effectiveness of Hurtt’s professional skepticism framework in the Malaysian environment. The results suggested that self-determination may be considered a characteristic of Malaysia’s professional skepticism. Frequently, auditors are skeptical as they do not simply accept client claims without further explanation prior to making audit decisions. Furthermore, Royaee et al. (2013) evaluated the association between the auditors’ self-determination and decision-making in Iran using the modified Hurtt (2010) questionnaire. The findings reported that self-determination has a significant relationship with their decision-making, and thus the hypothesis is postulated as follows:

H5: Self-determining influence financial statement fraud detection among the auditors in Malaysia and Indonesia.

Suspension of Judgement and Financial Statement Fraud Detection

Suspension of judgement is a vital characteristic to consider in an audit (Ciolek, 2017), and it is challenging for individuals with skeptical behaviour to accept the perceived information (Bunge, 1991). The individuals habitually seek evidence before assuming the information. Essentially, auditors must delay their judgment until they acquire appropriate evidence, free from misstatement due to fraud or human error. For instance, a study showed a significant effect between suspension of judgement and auditors’ skeptical judgements. This result shows that prior to the decision-making, auditors will spend more time assessing for asymmetries in financial statements (Quadackers, Groot, and Wright, 2009). Moreover, Agarwalla et al. (2017) examined the professional skepticism influence on an individual’s ethical assessment related to earnings management decisions. The study found that postponing auditors’ judgement could minimise unethical decisions. Furthermore, this result indicates that they perceive the different earnings management methods as reasonably unethical. on the other hand, a study investigated the utilisation of auditors’ suspension of judgement characteristics in detecting fraud (Gabryela, 2017). The researcher found that the auditors delayed their judgement to the extent that evidence was deemed unnecessary to make an audit decision. It shows that the auditors are calm, and nobody has influenced them in their duties. Based on the findings above, the hypothesis of this study is indicated as follows:

H6: Suspension of judgement influences financial statement fraud detection among the auditors in Malaysia and Indonesia.

Conceptual Framework

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study’s sample population comprised 187 respondents from the Malaysian Institute of Accountants (MIA) employed in Malaysia’s audit firms. This sample included 173 respondents from the Indonesian Institute of Certified Public Accountants (IAPI), also affiliated with the Public Accounting Firms. For the respondent’s selection, the study utilised non-probability sampling, specifically purposive sampling, to form the sample. This technique is more convenient and simpler compared to probability sampling, which is complex and requires substantial time and effort (Sekaran and Bougie, 2016). The data was collected through a questionnaire distribution, answered by auditors who are members of the MIA and IAPI. In the auditing standards issued by MIA and IAPI, auditors should maintain their professional skepticism during the audit and be aware of potential errors or fraud. Thus, this idea becomes the rationale for selecting MIA and IAPI members as target populations.

The sample comprised 360 auditors from Malaysia (187 samples, 52%) and Indonesia (173 samples, 48%). Table 1 presents the respondents’ selected demographic characteristics, with 165 (Malaysia: 78, Indonesia: 87) males and 195 (Malaysia: 109, Indonesia: 86) females. Meanwhile, there are 360 external auditors encompassing 163 (Malaysia: 70, Indonesia: 93) junior auditors, 130 (Malaysia: 77, Indonesia: 53) senior auditors, 49 (Malaysia: 40, Indonesia: 9) managers, and 18 (Malaysia: 0, Indonesia: 18) others. Notably, 48% and 30% of the respondents in Malaysia and Indonesia have more than five years of experience, respectively. In Malaysia, 43% of the respondents possessed a professional qualification (ACCA, CIMA, CPA, ACFE, ICAEW, and CIA Accountant). Meanwhile, 45% of the respondents in Indonesia acquired a professional certification (CPA, CA, and BKP), and the remaining had none.

 Table 1. The Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents

Measurement of Variables

For this study, the items for measuring the independent and dependent variables were fully adapted from previous studies. The dependent variable includes financial statement fraud detection, while the professional skepticism characteristics acted as an independent variable. Financial statement fraud detection is based on the discovery or determination process related to unlawful acts, potentially leading to intentional errors in financial statements (Widyastuti and Pamudji, 2009; Adnan and Kiswanto, 2017). Subsequently, the study employed Fullerton and Durtschi’s (2004) approach to assess the auditors’ financial statement fraud detection ability. The study also adapted Hurtt’s (2010) thirty statements to measure their level of professional skepticism characteristics. Table 2 summarises the operationalisation of variables.

Table 2. Summarises of the Operationalisation of Variables

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The data analysis in this study was analysed using the Smart-PLS version 3.3.3 (Ringle et al., 2015). The PLS-SEM exhibited the added advantage of estimating the measurement and structural model and is favoured to perform multi-group analyses (Hair et al., 2017).

Measurement Model Assessment

Table 3 reveals the measurement validity and reliability, revealing that the average variance (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) for all the measurements were more significant than 0.5 and 0.7 respectively in both regions sample, indicating that the measurement used was valid and reliable in Malaysia and Indonesia. The measurement is valid if the AVE is more than 0.5, are reliable if the CR are more than 0.7, as suggested by Hair et al. (2020).

Table 3. Convergent Validity and Reliability

Before interpreting the results of structural models, measurement models’ quality was evaluated and depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1.  Measurement Models’ Quality

Table 4 (Malaysia) and Table 5 (Indonesia) indicated that all the HTMT ratios were lower than 0.90 in both regions’ data. In this context, Gold, Malhotra, and Segars’s (2001) HTMT criterion were used to assess the discriminant validity. Accordingly, the respondents in both regions understood that the measurements were distinct.

Table 4. Hetereotrait Monotrait (HTMT) Criterion for Discriminant Validity (Malaysia)

Table 5: Hetereotrait Monotrait (HTMT) Criterion for Discriminant Validity (Indonesia)

Measurement Invariance

As shown in Table 6, all invariance test introduced by Henseler et al. (2016) was conducted to determine whether the construct measurement was similarly understood across regions. Firstly, configural invariance was established between both regions’ datasets in the measurement model stage. Secondly, a permutation test was substantiated, where none of the c values was significantly different from one another. All the permutation c value results (=1) straddle the upper and lower bounds of a 95% confidence interval, establishing compositional invariance in the research model. Notably, the composite mean value difference and the variance ratio mostly did not fall between the upper and lower bounds of a 95% confidence interval. Thus, only partial measurement invariance was established in this study.

Table 6. Measurement Invariance Test Using MICOM

Structural Model

A bootstrapping was run with 5000 resamples to test the hypotheses, generating the standard deviation, t-values, and p-values (Hair et al., 2020). Figure 2 and Figure 3 presents the structural model for Malaysia and Indonesia, respectively. In Malaysia sample, search for knowledge (ß = 0.216, p < 0.05), self-confidence (ß = 0.240, p < 0.05), self-determining (ß = 0.232, p < 0.05), and suspension of judgement (ß = 0.321, p < 0.05) were positive and significantly related to financial statement fraud detection. Meanwhile, questioning mind (ß = -0.120, p > 0.05) was not a significant predictor for financial statement fraud detection. Therefore, H3, H4, H5, and H6 were supported, while H2 was disregarded. Furthermore, interpersonal understanding (ß = -0.217, p < 0.05) was significant at 0.05, albeit it contradicts the proposed direction, thus H1 was not supported. Finally, all predictors exhibited an R² of 0.297 in fraud detection for Malaysia’s external auditors.

Figure 2: Structural Model for Malaysia

Figure 3: Structural Model for Indonesia

In Indonesia sample, search for knowledge (ß = 0.207, p < 0.05) and self-determining (ß = 0.297, p < 0.05) are positive and significantly related to financial statement fraud detection. Notably, interpersonal understanding (ß = 0.023, p > 0.05), questioning mind (ß = 0.056, p > 0.05), self-confidence (ß = 0.108, p > 0.05), and suspension of judgement (ß = 0.087, p > 0.05) were not significant predictors for financial statement fraud detection. Therefore, H3 and H5 were supported, while H1, H2, H4 and H6 were not supported. Moreover, all predictors displayed an R² of 0.212 in fraud detection of Indonesia’s external auditors.

In overall, an analysis at nation levels shows that Malaysian external auditors exhibit more characteristic of scepticism specifically Search for Knowledge (SK), Self Confidence (SC), Self-Determination (SD) and Suspension of Judgement (SJ) which has positive significant influence on their fraud risk judgment ability. On the other hand, an Indonesian external auditor exhibits only 2 characteristics of professional skepticism (Search for Knowledge (SK) and Self-Determination (SD) and it is proven to have positive impact of judgment quality. The model showed that Malaysia’s sample indicated the most significant variance at 29.7%, followed by Indonesia’s at 21.2%.

Table 7. Hypothesis Testing Direct Effect

*p-value < 0.10

Table 7 summarises the key differences from the results of the two-country comparison. In this process, the PLS-MGA assesses whether the path-coefficient was more prominent in the first group (i.e., Malaysia) compared to the second group (i.e., Indonesia). The table showed a significant difference across regions (Malaysia and Indonesia) in two hypothesised relationships. These differences include (a) interpersonal understanding and financial statement fraud detection (Differences = – 0.240, p < 0.10) and (b) suspension of judgement and financial statement fraud detection (Differences = 0.233, p < 0.10).

Furthermore, we compared the bootstrapping results using PLS-MGA to assess the difference between the regions’ path coefficients. For the interpersonal understanding and financial statement fraud detection in Malaysia (ß = -0.217) presented a more robust path coefficient than Indonesia (ß = 0.023).  Similarly, Malaysia (ß = 0.321) indicated a more significant path coefficient than Indonesia (ß = 0.087) concerning suspension of judgement and financial statement fraud detection. The variance in skepticism traits is attributed to differences in professional environments, with Malaysian auditors primarily from Big 4 firms, while Indonesian auditors are predominantly from non-Big 4 firms.

CONCLUSIONS

The occurrence of fraud has disappointed and shocked different parts of society, which has brought substantial implications. These predicaments have raised public concern about professional skepticism among auditors. In response, the need for professional skepticism during the audit and be aware of potential errors or fraud should be maintained by the auditors, as stipulated under the guideline. Hence, this study aims to investigate the relationship between auditor’s professional skepticism characteristics and fraud detection through a comparative study of Malaysian and Indonesian auditors, using attribution theory as the underpinning theory. This study refers to the professional skepticism characteristics under the Hurtt’s professional skepticism framework, which are interpersonal understanding, suspension of judgement, questioning mind, search for knowledge, self-confidence, and self-determining.

This research provides empirical evidence that Malaysian external auditors exhibit a broader range of skepticism traits, notably Search for Knowledge, Self-Confidence, Self-Determination, and Suspension of Judgment, which significantly enhance their fraud risk judgment. In contrast, Indonesian auditors demonstrate fewer skepticism traits, though these still positively influence judgment quality. The stronger path coefficients in Malaysia, particularly in areas like interpersonal understanding and suspension of judgment, further justified the variance in professional skepticism. These differences are largely attributed to the professional environments, with Malaysian auditors primarily from Big 4 firms, whereas Indonesian auditors are mostly from non-Big 4 firms, reflecting the impact of firm affiliation on auditing quality.

The result of the study will benefit many agencies such as the professional bodies, regulatory bodies, the audit firm specifically as it provides an insight on the important traits of a successful auditor. It highlights the need for organisations to conduct training on professional skepticism (such as interpersonal understanding and suspension of judgment) among the auditors as an initiative to improve the auditor’s ability in detecting fraud. In addition, this study will also highlight to the auditors on the importance of professional skepticism when conducting audit procedures. This will eventually help auditors to uphold their skepticism when dealing with the auditees or clients, as a means to safeguard themselves from any unforeseen events.

However, the results are limited to the context of the study, which are the auditors in Malaysia and Indonesia, which may have similar culture, Asean culture. Data from other region may produce different result, especially the developed country such as United States of America (USA) dan United Kingdom (UK). Therefore, future study may look the characteristics of professional skepticism among auditors in those developed countries and conduct a comparative study between auditors in the developed (US and UK) and developing countries (Malaysia and Indonesia).

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.N.F.S.M.N., F.M.R., S.Z., S.T.U. and N.N.A.T.; Methodology, S.N.F. and S.M.N; Software, S.N.F. and S.M.N B.; Validation, S.N.F. and S.M.N.; Formal Analysis, F.M.R.; Investigation, M.S.I.; Resources, M.S.I.; Data Curation, H.Z.; Writing –Original Draft Preparation, S.H.; Writing –Review & Editing, S.Z. and F.M.R.; Visualization, S.N.F., Supervision, S.N.F.; Project Administration, S.N.F.; Funding Acquisition, S.N.F.S.M.N., F.M.R., S.Z., S.T.U. and N.N.A.T. Authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study because the research does not involve vulnerable groups or sensitive issues.

Funding: The research received funding from the Accounting Research Institute (ARI- HICoE), Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia (ref: 600-RMC/ARI 5/3(015/2023))

Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to the Accounting Research Institute (ARI- HICoE), Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia, for the research grant, Universiti Teknologi MARA, and the Ministry of Higher Education for facilitating this research.

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study since it is voluntary basis and the statement is included in the first page of the questionnaire.

Data Availability Statement: The data is limited to the confidentiality agreement between the authors and respective respondents and institution. However, it may presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author and subject to approval from the institution. Due to restrictions, they are not publicly available.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Adikaram, R., & Higgs, J. (2024). Cognitive dissonance and auditor professional skepticism. Managerial Auditing Journal, 39(1), 71–110. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-08-2022-3653
2. Adnan, J., and Kiswanto. (2017). Determinant of Auditor Ability to Detect Fraud with Professional Skepticism as A Mediator Variable. Accounting Analysis Journal, 6(3), 313–325. https://doi.org/10.15294/aaj.v6i3.18415
3. Agarwalla, S. K., Desai, N., and Tripathy, A. (2017). The impact of self-deception and professional skepticism on perceptions of ethicality. Advances in Accounting, 37, 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2017.04.002
4. Al-Jumeily, D., Hussain, A., MacDermott, A., Tawfik, H., Seeckts, G., and Lunn, J. (2015). The Development of Fraud Detection Systems for Detection of Potentially Fraudulent Applications. Proceedings – 2015 International Conference on Developments in E-Systems Engineering, DeSE 2015, 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1109/DeSE.2015.59
5. Arifin, J. (2022). Determinants of the effectiveness of audit procedures in revealing fraud: An attribution theory approach. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), 11(6), 378-387. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v11i6.1952
6. Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. (2018). Report To the Nations – Global Study on Occupational Fraud and Abuse: Asia Pacific Edition. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2222608
7. Awaluddin, M., Wardhani, R. S., & Sylvana, A. (2019). The effect of expert management, professional skepticism and professional ethics on auditors detecting ability with emotional intelligence as modeling variables. International Journal of Islamic Business an Economics, 3(1), 37-50. https://doi.org/10.28918/ijibec.v3i1.1567
8. Biksa, I. A. I., and Wiratmaja, I. D. N. (2016). Pengaruh Pengalaman, Independensi, Skeptisme Profesional Auditor Pada Pendeteksian Kecurangan. E-Jurnal Akuntansi Universitas Udayana, 17(3), 2384-2415. http://dx.doi.org/10.25105/jat.v6i1.4845
9. Bogdan, V., Meşter, I. T., Gherai, D., and Scorţe, C. M. (2017). An analysis of the influences of individual optimism, risk taking and self-confidence on professional accounting judgement. Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems, 16(3), 320–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.24818/jamis.2017.03005
10. Bolton, R. J., and Hand, D. J. (2002). Statistical fraud detection: A review. Statistical Science, 235–249.  https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1042727940
11. Bunge, M. (1991). A skeptic’s beliefs and disbeliefs. New Ideas in Psychology, 9(2), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/0732-118X(91)90017-G
12. Charron, K. F., and Lowe, D. J. (2008). Skepticism and the Management Accountant: Insights for Fraud Detection. Management Accounting Quarterly, 9(2), 9–15. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/skepticism-management-accountant-insights-fraud/docview/222849828/se-2
13. Chen, Y.-H., Wang, K.-J., & Liu, S.-H. (2023). How Personality Traits and Professional Skepticism Affect Auditor Quality? A Quantitative Model. Sustainability, 15(2), 1547. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021547
14. Ciolek, M. (2017). Professional Skepticism in Auditing and Its Characteristics. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego We Wrocławiu, (474), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.15611/pn.2017.474.03
15. Ciolek, M., and Emerling, I. (2019). Can We Shape Trait Professional Skepticism through University Accounting Programs? Evidence from Polish University. Sustainability, 11(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010291
16. Danial, H., Kamaluddin, A., Sanusi, Z. M., and Khairuddin, K. S. (2014). Accountability in Financial Reporting: Detecting Fraudulent Firms. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 145, 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.06.011
17. Dickey, G., Bell, R. G., & Beldona, S. (2022). An empirical evaluation of future auditors in the USA and India using the trifurcated dimensions of trait professional skepticism. Managerial Auditing Journal, 37(6), 679-699. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-09-2021-3309
18. Dimitrova, J., and Sorova, A. (2016). The Role of Professional Skepticism in Financial Statement Audit and Its Appropriate Application. Journal of Economics, 1(2), 1–17.
19. Ecovis Malaysia. (2021). Professional Ethics of Auditors: The Case of Serba Dinamik, retrieved from https://www.ecovis.com/global/professional-ethics-and-duties-of-auditors-the-case-of-serba-dinamik/
20. Endrawes, M., Leong, S., & Matawie, K. M. (2023). The moderating effect of culture on the relationship between accountability and professional skepticism. Meditari Accountancy Research, 31(2), 381-399. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-08-2020-0986
21. Farag, M. S., and Elias, R. Z. (2012). The Impact of Accounting Students’ Professional 85 Skepticism on Their Ethical Perception of Earnings Management. Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting, 16, 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1574-0765(2012)0000016010
22. Fatmawati, D., Mustikarini, A., and Fransiska, I. P. (2018). Does Accounting Education Affect Professional Skepticism and Audit Judgement? (Adakah Pendidikan Perakaunan Mempengaruhi Kecurigaan Profesional Dan Penghakiman Audit?). Jurnal Pengurusan, 52, 221–233. https://doi.org/10.17576/pengurusan-2018-52-18
23. Fullerton, R. R., and Durtschi, C. (2004). The Effect of Professional Skepticism on The Fraud Detection Skills of Internal Auditors. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.617062
24. Gabryela, S. (2017). The Application of Professional Skepticism in Fraud Detection (A Case Study at BPKP Representative of Central Java Province). Asia Pacific Fraud Journal, 2(2), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.21532/apfj.001.17.02.02.05
25. Gajewski, J. F., Heimann, M., Léger, P. M., & Teye, P. (2024). Enhancing auditors’ professional skepticism through nudges: an eye-tracking experiment. Accounting and Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2024.2364215
26. Grenier, J.H. (2017). Encouraging professional skepticism in the industry specialization era. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(2), pp.241-256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3155-1
27. Hair, J. F., Howard, M. C., and Nitzl, C. (2020), “Assessing Measurement Model Quality in PLS-SEM Using Confirmatory Composite Analysis”, Journal of Business Research, 109, 101-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069
28. Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2017) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd Edition, Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.
29. Hamilah, H., Denny, D., and Handayani, E. (2019). the Effect of Professional Education, Experience, and Independence on the Ability of Internal Auditors in Detecting Fraud in the Pharmaceutical Industry Company in Central Jakarta. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 9(5), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijefi.8602
30. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1037/10628-000
31. Hurtt, R. K. (2010). Development of a Scale to Measure Professional Skepticism. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 29(1), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2010.29.1.149
32. Hussin, S. S. A. H., and Iskandar, T. M. (2013). Exploratory Factor Analysis on Hurtt’s Professional Skepticism Scale: A Malaysian Perspective. Asian Journal of Accounting and Governance, 4, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.17576/ajag-2013-4-5771
33. Hussin, S. S. A. H., and Iskandar, T. M. (2015). Re-Validation of Professional Skepticism Traits. Procedia Economics and Finance, 28, 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(15)01083-7
34. Hussin, S. S. A. H., Saleh, N. M., & Al-smady, A. A. (2019). Auditor Demographic Factors and Dimensions of Auditors’ Skepticism in Jordan. Asian Journal of Accounting and Governance, 11, 39–48 http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/AJAG-2019-11-04
35. Kartikarini, N dan Sugiarto. (2016). Pengaruh Gender, Keahlian, dan Skeptisisme Profesional terhadap Kemampuan Auditor Mendeteksi Kecurangan (Studi pada Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan Republik Indonesia). Simposium Nasional Akuntansi XIX, Lampung, 24-27 Agustus 2016. Retrieved from https://etd.repository.ugm.ac.id/home/detail_pencarian/95793
36. Kelley, H. H. (1973). The Processes of Causal Attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107–128. Retrieved from http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_processes_of_causal_attribution.pdf
37. Kelly, M., & Larres, P. (2023). Enhancing the auditor’s mindset: a framework for nurturing professional skepticism. Journal of Accounting Literature. https://doi.org/10.1108/jal-07-2023-0122
38. Khomsiyah, Wilson, J., and Mulyani, S. D. (2019). Auditor’s ability in detecting fraud 88 [Capacidad del auditor para detectar fraude]. Opcion, 35(21), 2337–2365. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
39. Lismawati, Rohman, A., and Chariri, A. (2017). Developing Improvement of Auditor’s Performance Model Using Professional Skepticism and Auditors’ Comfort as A Mediator. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(12), 27–37. Retrieved from http://ttp://iaeme.com/Home/issue/IJCIET?Volume=8&Issue=12
40. McGillis, S. (2020). Auditor professional skepticism–a cross-cultural study in the global International Financial Reporting Standards Environment: The Case of Canada and Brazil (Doctoral dissertation, Laurentian University of Sudbury). Retrieved from https://laurentian.scholaris.ca/items/3b246d01-a260-4d5e-903a-85c194b0aa58
41. Mardijuwono, A. W., and Subianto, C. (2018). Independence, Professionalism, Professional Skepticism: The Relation Toward the Resulted Audit Quality. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 3(1), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/ajar-06-2018-0009
42. Nugraha, A. S., and Suryandari, D. (2018). The Effect of Experience to The Accuracy 90 of Giving Opinion with Audit Expertise, Professional Skeptisism, Audit Judgement as Mediators. Accounting Analysis Journal, 7(1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.15294/aaj.v5i3.18251
43. Popova, V. (2013). Exploration of Skepticism, Client-Specific Experiences, and Audit Judgements. Managerial Auditing Journal, 28(2), 140–160. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686901311284540
44. Purnamawati, I. G. A. (2018). Individual Perception of Ethical Behaviour and Whistleblowing on Fraud Detection through Self-Efficacy. Jurnal Keuangan Dan Perbankan, 22(2), 362–372. https://doi.org/10.26905/jkdp.v22i2.1991
45. Puspitasari, A., Baridwan, Z., and Rahman, A. F. (2019). The Effect of Audit Competence, Independence, And Professional Skeptism on Audit Quality with Auditor’s Ethics as Moderation Variables. International Journal of Business, Economics and Law, 18(5), 135–144. Retrieved from https://ijbel.com/previous-issues/april-2019/vol-18-april-2019-issue-5/
46. Putra, G. S. A., and Dwirandra, A. A. N. B. (2019). The Effect of Auditor Experience, Type of Personality and Fraud Auditing Training on Auditors Ability in Fraud Detecting with Professional Skepticism as a Mediation Variable. International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences Available, 6(2), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.21744/irjmis.v6n2.604 91
47. Quadackers, L., Groot, T., and Wright, A. (2009). Auditors’ Skeptical Characteristics and Their Relationship to Skeptical Judgements and Decisions. 1–48. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1478105
48. Royaee, R. A., Nezhad, A. Y., and Azinfar, K. (2013). Relationship between Skepticism and Decision Making in Audit. World Applied Sciences Journal, 28(11), 1609–1617. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.28.11.1474
49. Said, L. L., and Munandar, A. (2018). The Influence of Auditor’s Professional Skepticism and Competence on Fraud Detection: The Role of Time Budget Pressure. Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Keuangan Indonesia, 15(1), 104–120. https://doi.org/10.21002/jaki.2018.06
50. Saiewitz, A., & Wang, E. (2020). Using Cultural Mindsets to Reduce Cross-National Auditor Judgment Differences. Contemporary Accounting Research, 37(3), 1854–1881. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12566
51. Shofia, M. (2019). The Effect of Independence, Experience, And Gender on Auditors Ability to Detect Fraud by Professional Skepticism as A Moderation Variable. Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences, 91(7), 366–375. https://doi.org/10.18551/rjoas.2019-07.43
52. Su, J. M., Lee, S. C., Tsai, S. B., and Lu, T. L. (2016). A Comprehensive Survey of The Relationship Between Self-Efficacy and Performance for The Governmental Auditors. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 508–521. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2104-x
53. Yankova, K. (2015). The Influence of Information Order Effects and Trait Professional Skepticism on Auditors’ Belief Revisions: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. In Springer Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004