INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
The Effect of Role Conflict, Self Efficacy and Ethical Sensitivity on  
Auditor Performance with Intellectual Intelligence as a Moderating  
Variable  
Monika Kussetya Ciptani., Mila Austria Reyes., Dandie Arya Nugroho  
Accounting Department Faculty of Business President University  
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100253  
Received: 21 November 2025; Accepted: 28 November 2025; Published: 06 December 2025  
ABSTRACT  
This study explores the influence of role conflict, self-efficacy, and ethical sensitivity on auditor performance,  
with intellectual intelligence acting as a moderating variable. Data sample is taken from from 143 auditors  
working in public accounting firms in Jakarta, Indonesia. The results indicate that role conflict does not  
significantly affect auditor performance, suggesting that auditors may have developed coping mechanisms to  
manage conflicting demands. Conversely, self-efficacy positively influences auditor performance, highlighting  
the importance of confidence in completing tasks effectively. Ethical sensitivity, while crucial in theory, does  
not significantly impact performance in this context. Intellectual intelligence is found to moderate the  
relationship between self-efficacy and performance, enhancing the positive effect of self-confidence on auditor  
performance. However, intellectual intelligence does not moderate the negative impact of role conflict on  
performance nor strengthen the relationship between ethical sensitivity and performance. The model explains  
70.6% of the variance in auditor performance, emphasizing the role of psychological and cognitive factors. These  
findings contribute to cognitive accounting theory and suggest practical implications for training, recruitment,  
and performance management in audit firms.  
Keywords: role conflict, self-efficacy, ethical sensitivity, auditor performance, intellectual intelligence.  
INTRODUCTION  
In the modern audit landscape, producing high-quality audit reports requires more than just technical skills, it  
demands psychological resilience and behavioral adaptability. Auditors frequently experience heavy workloads,  
ethical challenges, and conflicting demands which need their high ability to handle this pressure. A primary  
source of this pressure is role conflict, which occurs when auditors receive conflicting requests from multiple  
users, leading to decision-making difficulties and stress. Research by Ndruru et al. (2019) indicates that role  
conflict significantly degrades auditor performance by reducing motivation and job satisfaction. Furthermore,  
unresolved conflict can compromise independence, potentially causing auditors to cease performing ethical  
audits altogether. Lase et al. (2021) strengthen this by saying that unresolved role conflicts could make auditors  
give up their independence or possibly stop doing ethical audits altogether. To navigate these external pressures,  
auditors rely on personal belief systems and moral awareness.  
Self-efficacy also plays important role in shaping auditor performance. Self-efficacy defined as one’s assurance  
to execute some tasks and maintain the efficiency under pressure. Wiguna (2014) and Afifah et al. (2015) assert  
that higher self-efficacy correlates with enhanced decision-making, resilience, and ethical awareness, even  
during high-pressure engagements. Some research also indicates a significant positive relationship between self-  
efficacy and ethical sensitivity which also referred to as moral sensitivity. This means that individuals who have  
stronger self-efficacy tend to be more sensitive to the ethical dimensions and implications of the situation. Ethical  
sensitivity defines as the ability to recognize and interpret ethical dilemmas which ensures auditors to prioritize  
public trust and objectivity. Lase et al. (2021) highlight that strong ethical sensitivity encourages auditors to  
disclose irregularities and resist unethical instructions, thereby safeguarding audit integrity.  
Despite the known impacts of these variables, performance outcomes remain inconsistent. Schepers et al. (2016)  
Page 3172  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
note that some auditors perform well despite high role conflict, while others do not, suggesting the presence of  
a moderating variable. Intellectual intelligence, which facilitates information processing and problem-solving,  
may explain this discrepancy. Pratiwi et al. (2022) state that intellectual intelligence helps auditors clarify  
ambiguous tasks and reduce role-related stress, preventing performance setbacks.  
While previous studies have investigated emotional and spiritual intelligence as moderators, there is limited  
empirical evidence supporting the moderating role of intellectual intelligence in the relationship between role  
conflict, self-efficacy, and ethical sensitivity. This study fills that gap by proposing a comprehensive  
psychological model within the framework of cognitive accounting theory. Understanding how cognitive  
resources buffer stress is vital for audit firms to enhance their recruitment, training, and retention strategies.  
LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT  
The Influence of Role Conflict, Self-Efficacy, Ethical Sensitivity to Auditor Performance  
Role conflict is a critical stressor in the auditing profession, occurring when an individual faces incompatible  
expectations or receives conflicting orders simultaneously (Prasetyo & Anwar, 2021; Noviana et al., 2018). This  
phenomenon arises when fulfilling the requirements of one role makes it difficult to fulfill another (Rastina et  
al., 2020). For auditors, a primary source of this conflict is the tension between adhering to the ethics of the  
accounting profession and satisfying the internal control systems or commercial demands of the Public  
Accounting Firm (Sari et al., 2016). Such incompatibility leads to a loss of focus, increased tension, and  
discomfort, which ultimately hinder the achievement of maximum work results and reduce overall work quality  
(Noviana et al., 2018).  
While role conflict presents a challenge, self-efficacy serves as a vital internal resource for performance. Defined  
as an individual's belief in their ability to execute tasks and achieve goals, self-efficacy drives motivation,  
persistence, and resilience against challenges (Bandura, 1997). In the auditing context, higher self-efficacy  
allows professionals to navigate uncertainties and engage deeply with complex tasks, leading to improved  
decision-making (Luthans et al., 2020). Recent research confirms that auditors with elevated self-efficacy  
demonstrate greater accuracy in judgment and are more adept at identifying and addressing audit risks (Rahman  
et al., 2023). Furthermore, as task complexity increases, self-efficacy becomes essential for managing stress and  
ensuring superior outcomes (Sari et al., 2023). Consequently, organizations are encouraged to implement  
training programs that build this confidence to enhance audit quality and client satisfaction (Zhang et al., 2024).  
Complementing technical capability is ethical sensitivity, defined as the ability to recognize ethical issues and  
consider the implications of decisions (O'Leary & Stewart, 2023). This sensitivity is fundamental to auditor  
performance as it enables the effective navigation of ethical dilemmas and ensures the upholding of professional  
standards (Smith et al., 2024). Studies indicate a strong correlation between this trait and performance; auditors  
with high ethical sensitivity are better equipped to identify potential conflicts and respond appropriately, thereby  
maintaining audit integrity (Johnson & Lee, 2025). Beyond individual performance, ethical sensitivity positively  
influences team dynamics, fostering collaborative problem-solving and a culture of ethical awareness  
(Thompson et al., 2023). Therefore, prioritizing the development of ethical sensitivity in training is essential for  
ensuring high-quality audit practices (Brown & Green, 2024; Davis & White, 2025).  
Intellectual Intelligence and Auditor Performance  
Intellectual intelligence is defined as the ability of a person to act in a purposeful manner and to interact  
efficiently with their environment (Seran, M., & Herwiyanti, E., 2019). It serves as a key mechanism for thinking  
and decision-making, helping individuals manage their thoughts to choose the right information to understand  
situations better (Abdo et al., 2022). In the field of auditing, this intelligence is not merely abstract; it involves  
the specific ability to reason, analyze, and solve problems. It is essential for understanding complex accounting  
principles, interpreting financial data, and making sound judgments as auditors navigate increasing demands.  
Auditor performance refers to the successful completion of inspection tasks within a specified timeframe (Putus  
et al., 2023). It encompasses both the quantity and quality of work based on job duties, measuring how well and  
Page 3173  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
how quickly an auditor provides findings and finishes tasks (Putus et al., 2023).  
The justification for intellectual intelligence as a strengthening factor in auditor performance lies in its ability to  
process complexity and ensure objectivity. Research confirms that this variable has a significant positive effect  
because it enhances the crucial skills required for auditing: processing complex information, solving problems,  
and making informed decisions (Pratiwi & Suryanawa, 2020; Amir et al., 2023; Khairat et al., 2017).  
Specifically, intellectual intelligence strengthens the relationship between an auditor's efforts and their final  
output by utilizing problem-solving, verbal, and practical intelligence. These components play a vital role in  
enabling the auditor to make fair, objective, and ethical decisions (Sari et al., 2019). Consequently, intellectual  
intelligence is a substantial driver of outcomes, with a reported contribution of 27.1% to audit quality (Juni &  
Nurwulan, 2023).  
Hypothesis Developments  
An auditor might feel pulled between their duty to provide accurate, unbiased audit findings and pressure from  
management to present more favorable financial reports (Pekdemir et al., 2012). Afifah, U., et al. (2015) said  
that role conflict can cause discomfort at work and reduce work motivation. Because it has a negative impact on  
individual treatment, such as the emergence of work tension, a lot of displacement of workers, reducing job  
satisfaction so that it can reduce auditor performance. Performance is the result of the auditor's work in carrying  
out his duties. Multiple studies consistently indicate that role conflict directly leads to a decrease in auditor  
performance. This is primarily because role conflict creates a stressful work environment, which can  
significantly hinder an auditor's ability to perform tasks effectively (Sangkala et al., 2024; Husain et al., 2022;  
Lismawati et al., 2022; Layn & Atarwaman, 2020).  
Furthermore, this role conflict is strongly associated with increased job stress, which then further exacerbates its  
negative impact on performance. The persistent stress arising from conflicting roles can ultimately lead to  
burnout and a noticeable reduction in efficiency during task completion (Lismawati et al., 2022). Beyond just  
stress and efficiency, role conflict can also tragically lead to an increase in dysfunctional behavior among  
auditors, which further degrades performance. This unfortunate outcome arises because the heightened stress  
from role conflict can compel unethical decision-making and reduce adherence to professional standards (Jaya  
et al., 2018). The hypothesis related can be developed as:  
H1: Role conflict does not significantly affect auditor performance.  
Self-efficacy has been specifically shown to positively affect audit judgment, which reflected as critical  
component of overall auditor performance. Studies conducted in East Java and Bali further indicate that auditors  
with higher self-efficacy are demonstrably better equipped to make sound audit judgments, even when operating  
under pressure or confronting complex task conditions (Maradipta & Tannar, 2024; Putri & Latrini, 2024). The  
relationship between self- efficacy and audit quality is also highly significant. Research across Bali and Java  
provinces consistently highlights that self-efficacy directly contributes to higher audit quality, with emotional  
intelligence further strengthening this beneficial effect (Kharisma & Budiartha, 2022). The hypothesis related  
can be developed as:  
H2: Self-efficacy significantly affects auditor performance.  
The capacity for well-reasoned ethical decisions is vital for maintaining the integrity and quality of audits (Ismail  
et al., 2016). Research shows that ethical sensitivity strengthens this crucial skill, especially in professional  
environments that have a strong ethical culture. Some research showed that ethical sensitivity improves the  
quality of internal audits. These results are based on the fact that auditors possessing high ethical sensitivity are  
much better equipped to effectively handle complex ethical dilemmas that may cause more accurate and reliably  
audit outcomes (Badera & Jati, 2020). The positive impact of ethical sensitivity on auditor performance is a  
consistent finding across multiple studies, demonstrating its crucial role in helping auditors manage complex  
ethical challenges and deliver excellent results (Sangkala et al., 2024; Lase et al., 2021; Dewi & Dewi, 2018).  
The hypothesis related can be developed as:  
Page 3174  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
H3: Ethical sensitivity significantly affects auditor performance  
Research about intellectual intelligence, which refers to an individual's cognitive abilities, such as problem-  
solving, critical thinking, and learning capacity (Purba & Nuryatno, 2019), indicates that intellectual intelligence  
can mitigate the negative effect of role conflict on auditor performance (Sangkala et al., 2024; Pratiwi et al.,  
2022). This happens because auditors with higher cognitive abilities are able to manage the stress from  
conflicting demands, minimizing the negative consequences for their work. The hypothesis related can be  
developed as:  
H4: Intellectual intelligence weakens the negative relationship between role conflict and auditor performance.  
The interaction between self-efficacy and intellectual intelligence is crucial for auditor performance. Intellectual  
intelligence provides the necessary cognitive tools, while self-efficacy ensures these tools are applied effectively.  
This synergy results in higher audit quality and performance (Dewi & Tenaya, 2017; Nanda & Kuntadi, n.d.).  
The hypothesis related can be developed as:  
H5: Intellectual intelligence strengthens the positive relationship between self- efficacy and auditor  
performance.  
Ethical sensitivity is positively correlated with auditor performance, as it enables auditors to recognize and  
appropriately respond to ethical issues, thereby improving their judgment and decision-making processes  
(Sangkala et al., 2024; Firdaus & Tannar, 2024). Brody et al. (2020) suggests that intellectual intelligence plays  
a moderating role, altering the effect of ethical sensitivity on auditor performance. The hypothesis related can be  
developed as:  
H6: Intellectual intelligence strengthens the positive relationship between ethical sensitivity and auditor  
performance.  
Figure 1 Research Framework  
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY  
Data collection and Description  
This research used primary data that is collected by structured questionnaires designed to capture responses  
based on auditors' personal experiences and self-assessments. The choice of this method is appropriate because  
it enables the researcher to gather data from a significant number of auditors in a consistent and standardized  
manner. About 143 auditors who are working at public accounting firms (KAP) in Jakarta is using as data sample.  
The respondents are expected to answered questionnaire consists of closed-ended questions where respondents  
are asked to rate their agreement or experience on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 - Strongly Disagree to  
5 - Strongly Agree). This Likert scale allows for measuring the intensity of responses on various dimensions of  
the study, including role conflict (the degree to which auditors experience conflicting demands and expectations  
Page 3175  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
from clients, regulations, and professional standards, self-efficacy (the belief in one’s ability to complete tasks  
effectively, especially in the context of auditing, ethical sensitivity (the ability to identify and resolve ethical  
dilemmas in the audit process, and auditor performance (the perceived effectiveness and efficiency in performing  
auditing tasks).  
Table I Respondent Characteristics  
Frequency  
(Person)  
Percentage  
(%)  
Item  
Age  
Criteria  
20-25  
26-30  
30-35  
36-40  
41-45  
46-50  
>50  
108  
28  
2
75,5%  
19,6%  
1,4%  
2,1%  
0,7%  
0,7%  
0
3
1
1
0
Total  
143  
76  
100%  
Gender  
Male  
53,10%  
Female  
67  
46,90%  
100%  
Total  
143  
Variable measurements  
This study focuses on several key variables that influence auditor performance, which is the dependent variable  
in the research model. These variables include role conflict, self-efficacy, ethical sensitivity, and intellectual  
intelligence. While the first three variables are independent, intellectual intelligence serves as a moderating  
variable in the study. Each variable is measured using established scales from previous research to ensure the  
reliability and validity of the data collected.  
To measure role conflict, the scale developed by Inawati (2022), is used, which assesses how often auditors  
experience tension between conflicting expectations. Items in this scale include statements like, "I received  
assignments from two or more seniors who had conflicting principles." and "I performed tasks that were outside  
the scope of my usual duties." To measure the self-efficacy, researcher developed questions based on Nandhita  
Purnamasari et al. (2022), includes items such as, "I am confident that I can complete difficult tasks." and "I do  
not give up on assignments even if they are difficult."  
To measure the ethical sensitivity, researcher used the scale developed by Coyne et al. (2005), focusing on how  
well auditors can identify and understand ethical issues in their work. Example items include, "Things that can  
harm others are wrong, regardless of the benefits gained." and. “I should not do things that could compromise  
my integrity and the welfare of others."  
Intellectual intelligence serves as the moderating variable in this study. It refers to the cognitive ability, problem-  
solving skills, and intellectual capacity to handle complex tasks and challenges in the auditing process.  
Intellectual intelligence is hypothesized to influence the strength or direction of the relationships between the  
independent variables (role conflict, self-efficacy, and ethical sensitivity) and the dependent variable, auditor  
performance. The measurement of intellectual intelligence is adapted from Tirta Sati Ayu (2018), and it includes  
items such as, "I am able to quickly understand what I read and hear." and "I am able to complete the work  
assigned to me to the best of my ability." For auditor performance as the dependent variable in this study, this  
variable is measured using the scale developed by Inawati (2022), which includes items like, "Develop practical  
solutions to problems that arise in each assignment." and “I have the ability to fulfil responsibilities."  
Page 3176  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Table 2 Research Indicator  
Variables  
Research Indicators  
Scale  
Role Conflict (X1)  
Likert  
Differences in perception (Krishnan &;  
Krishnan, 2020)  
Limited resources (Li, 2020)  
Pressure from superiors (Dezoort &;  
Harrison, 2016)  
Self-Efficacy  
•
•
•
Level (Bandura, 2019)  
Generality (Bandura, 2019)  
Strength (Bandura, 2019)  
Likert  
Likert  
Ethical Sensitivity (X3)  
•
•
•
•
Value conformity (Sekerka &; Bagozzi,  
2019)  
Legal and regulatory compliance  
(Kaptein et al., 2015)  
Ethical Communication (Sekaran &;  
Fisher, 2020)  
Job satisfaction (Gao et al., 2015)  
Auditor Performance (Y)  
Likert  
Likert  
•
•
•
Auditor independence (Abbott et al.,  
2016)  
Auditor work experience (Gao &; Zhang,  
2020)  
Auditor Competence (Alfraih &;  
Almutairi, 2020)  
Intellectual Intelligence  
(Z)  
•
•
•
Analytical ability in identifying problems  
(Chang & Huang, 2020)  
Verbal intelligence (Zhang &; Gao,  
2019)  
Practical Intelligence (Fadzil, 2020)  
Research Model  
The research model is developed to explore the relationships between the independent variables (role conflict,  
self-efficacy, and ethical sensitivity) and auditor performance, with intellectual intelligence serving as a  
moderating variable. This model is designed to test the theoretical propositions that role conflict, self- efficacy,  
and ethical sensitivity directly affect auditor performance, and that intellectual intelligence influences the  
strength or direction of these relationships.  
This research model is structured to test six hypotheses, focusing on both the direct and moderating effects of  
the variables. The first three hypotheses examine the direct impact of role conflict, self-efficacy, and ethical  
sensitivity on auditor performance, while the last three hypotheses assess how intellectual intelligence moderates  
these relationships. The model will be tested using SmartPLS 4, which is a robust tool for performing Partial  
Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). This method allows for an in-depth analysis of both  
direct and indirect effects, providing a comprehensive understanding of how the variables interact. The research  
model, therefore, not only investigates the direct effects of key factors on auditor performance but also examines  
the influence of intellectual intelligence as a moderator, offering valuable insights into how cognitive abilities  
can shape the effectiveness of auditors in their professional duties.  
STATISTICAL RESULT AND DISCUSSION  
Statistical Result  
The PLS model scheme in this study consists of reflective measurement constructs. The independent variables  
include role conflict (RC), self-efficacy (SE), and ethical sensitivity (ES), while auditor performance (AP) is the  
Page 3177  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
dependent variable. Intellectual intelligence (II) is modelled as a moderating variable, with interaction terms (II  
× RC, II × SE, II × ES) included to examine its effect on the relationships between independent variables and  
auditor performance. Each construct is measured using multiple indicators derived from validated instruments  
in previous research. For instance, auditor performance is assessed with 11 indicators (AP1–AP11), ethical  
sensitivity with 6 indicators (ES5–ES10), self- efficacy with 7 indicators (SE2–SE9), role conflict with 5  
indicators (RC1–RC5), and intellectual intelligence with 5 indicators (II1–II5).  
The PLS scheme enables a two-stage evaluation. The outer model assessment ensures that all indicators are  
reliable and valid, evaluating factor loadings, internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability),  
convergent validity (AVE), and discriminant validity. Once the measurement model is confirmed, the inner  
model examines structural relationships through path coefficients, R-square values, and effect sizes (f²), which  
provide evidence for the magnitude and significance of direct and moderating effects. This comprehensive  
approach allows the study to investigate the impact of psychological and cognitive factors, such as role conflict,  
self-efficacy, ethical sensitivity, and intellectual intelligence, on auditor performance, providing both theoretical  
and practical insights into audit effectiveness (Hair et al., 2011; Ramadiani, 2010).  
Figure 2 PLS Modelling Scheme  
Variables:  
RC: Role Conflict  
ES: Ethical Sensitivity  
II: Intellectual Intelligence  
Page 3178  
SE: Self Efficacy  
AP: Auditor Performance  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Table 3 Outer Loading  
AP (Y)  
0.808  
0.789  
0.842  
0.832  
0.836  
0.881  
0.812  
0.869  
0.831  
0.818  
0.841  
ES (X3)  
II (Z) RC (X1) SE (X2) II (Z) x RC (X1) II (Z) x SE (X2) II (Z) x ES (X3)  
AP1  
AP10  
AP11  
AP2  
AP3  
AP4  
AP5  
AP6  
AP7  
AP8  
AP9  
ES10  
ES5  
ES6  
ES7  
ES8  
ES9  
II1  
0.877  
0.933  
0.919  
0.926  
0.935  
0.909  
0.857  
0.789  
0.867  
0.848  
0.826  
0.845  
0.830  
0.852  
0.839  
0.880  
0.790  
0.834  
0.839  
0.819  
0.861  
II2  
II3  
II4  
II5  
RC1  
RC2  
RC3  
RC4  
RC5  
SE2  
SE3  
SE5  
SE6  
SE7  
SE8  
SE9  
0.842  
0.828  
Table 3 shows the outer loadings from a structural equation model (SEM) or factor analysis. These values show  
how strongly the variables are related to their underlying constructs. Each row represents a variable, and the  
columns show how strongly these variables are connected to the different constructs in the model.  
Outer loadings show how strong the relationship is between the observed variables and the latent constructs.  
Higher values mean a stronger relationship, and values closer to 1 suggest that the observed variable fits well  
with the construct. For example, variables like AP1 (0.808), AP10 (0.789), and ES6 (0.919) have strong  
relationships with their constructs, meaning these observed variables are good indicators of their underlying  
factors. Generally, loadings above 0.7 are considered strong, while values above 0.4 are moderate. Lower values  
suggest weaker relationships. Most of the variables in this model show strong or moderate loadings, meaning  
they represent their constructs well.  
1) Composite Reliability, Cronbach’s Alpha & Average Variance Extracted (AVE)  
Based on table 4 below, it can be seen that the Composite Reliability, Cronbach’s Alpha and AVE, the test result  
show a good number. All of them are greater than minimum of the requirement. In the Composite Reliability,  
for RC is 0,928, for SE is 0.940, ES is 0.969, AP is 0.961, and II is 0.922. In the Cronbach’s alpha, for RC is  
0,904, for SE is 0.925, ES is 0.962, AP is 0.956, and II is 0.894. In the AVE, for the LOC the figure 0,852 then  
for the CEI is 0,869. From the overall result, it can be concluded that all variables are reliable and meet the  
qualification, which is greater than 0,7 for Cronbach’s Alpha & Composite Reliability, while 0,5 for Average  
Variance Extracted.  
Page 3179  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Table 4 Construct Validity and Reliability  
Composite  
reliability  
(rho_c)  
Average  
variance  
extracted (AVE)  
Cronbach's  
alpha  
Composite reliability  
(rho_a)  
AP (Y)  
ES (X3)  
II (Z)  
0.956  
0.962  
0.894  
0.957  
0.961  
0.694  
0.841  
0.702  
0.965  
0.897  
0.969  
0.922  
RC  
(X1)  
SE (X2)  
0.904  
0.925  
0.905  
0.933  
0.928  
0.940  
0.722  
0.690  
2.)  
Discriminant Validity  
The discriminant validity of this research can be done by Fornell Larcker test. The result of discriminant validity  
test as follows:  
Table 5 The Fornell Larcker  
AP (Y)  
0.833  
-0.582  
0.761  
0.700  
0.722  
ES (X3)  
II (Z)  
RC (X1)  
SE (X2)  
AP (Y)  
ES (X3)  
II (Z)  
RC (X1)  
SE (X2)  
0.917  
-0.528  
-0.646  
-0.447  
0.838  
0.683  
0.769  
0.850  
0.587  
0.831  
From table 5, the Fornell Larcker test show a good result that the square root of the Average Variance Extracted  
(AVE) is greater than its correlation with any other construct in the model. For example, the square root of the  
Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for a construct of AP is 0,833 greater than its correlation variable ES, II,  
RC, and SE. Also, for the ES, II, RC, and SE square root of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) is greater  
than its correlation variable, so it can be concluded that so it can be concluded that the requirements for  
discriminant validity have been met.  
3.)Inner Model  
The inner model test is carried out to test the research hypothesis, namely by looking at the significance of the  
relationship between variables. The relationship is considered significant if the P-values is <0.05 and the t-  
statistic is >1.96 (Hair et al., 2011). The following table 6 presents the results of testing the inner model for this  
study.  
Table 6 Path Coefficient  
Original Sample Standard  
T statistics  
P
sample  
(O)  
mean deviation  
(|O/STDEV|) values  
(M)  
(STDEV)  
RC (X1) -> AP (Y)  
SE (X2) -> AP (Y)  
ES (X3) -> AP (Y)  
0.271  
0.231  
0.252  
0.235  
-0.121  
0.084  
0.107  
0.078  
3.220 0.001  
2.156 0.031  
1.734 0.083  
-0.135  
II (Z) x RC (X1) ->  
AP (Y)  
II (Z) x SE (X2) ->  
AP (Y)  
II (Z) x ES (X3) ->  
AP (Y)  
0.060  
-0.157  
-0.057  
0.063  
-0.149  
-0.063  
0.113  
0.081  
0.126  
0.530 0.298  
1.933 0.027  
0.452 0.326  
Table 7 below present an analysis of the impact of independent variable Role Conflict, Self-Efficacy, Ethical  
Sensitivity to the dependent variable Auditor Performance also the impact of independent variable to dependent  
variable with moderating variable Intellectual Intelligence. The relationships were evaluated based on the  
Page 3180  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
original sample (O), sample mean (M), standard deviation (STDEV), T statistics, and P-values. A T-statistic  
below 1.96 and a P-value above 0.05 indicates non- significance.  
Table 7 Result of Hypothesis analysis  
Table 8 presents R-square values for one construct which is Auditor Performance. The R-Square value is 0.706  
indicating that 70.6% of the variability in this construct is explained by the model while the other 29.4% is  
explained by other variables outside this model. The value categorized strong as it is greater than 0.75.  
Table 8 R-Square  
R-square  
Percentage  
AP (Y)  
0.706  
70,6%  
Table 9 F-Square  
AP (Y)  
AP (Y)  
ES (X3)  
II (Z)  
0.032  
0.061  
0.096  
0.068  
RC (X1)  
SE (X2)  
II (Z) x RC (X1)  
II (Z) x SE (X2)  
II (Z) x ES (X3)  
0.002  
0.052  
0.003  
Table 9 presents the F-square values for the independent to dependent and moderating variables in relation to  
the dependent variable, Auditor Performance (AP). The F-square value is a measure of effect size, where a value  
of 0.02 is a small effect, 0.15 is a medium effect, and 0.35 is a large effect. The results indicate that all the  
variables have a small or very small effect. Specifically, the independent variables Role Conflict (RC), Self-  
Efficacy (SE), Intellectual Intelligence (II), and Ethical Sensitivity (ES) have F-square values of 0.096, 0.068,  
0.061, and 0.032, respectively, all of which indicate a small effect size on Auditor Performance. Similarly, the  
moderating effects of Intellectual Intelligence (II) on Self-Efficacy (SE), Ethical Sensitivity (ES), and Role  
Conflict (RC) have f-square values of 0.052, 0.003, and 0.002, respectively. Those values indicate that the  
moderating effects are extremely minor, and they don't have a meaningful impact on the model's ability to predict  
outcomes.  
DISCUSSION  
The findings offer insightful implications for both theory and practice in the field of auditing. The result showed  
that role conflict does not significantly affect auditor performance means that, based on the data analyzed, the  
presence of conflicting demands or expectations in an auditor's role does not lead to a measurable, statistically  
significant change in how well they perform their tasks. This implies that despite facing potential internal  
Page 3181  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
contradictions or pressures, auditor performance remains stable and unaffected in a meaningful way. This finding  
appears to contradict several theoretical frameworks, particularly role theory, which suggests that conflicting  
expectations create stress and tension, potentially decreasing job performance (Kahn et al., 1964). Indeed, many  
studies have found that role conflict negatively and significantly impacts auditor performance by causing stress,  
reducing motivation, increasing role tension, and disrupting focus (Sangkala, 2024; Anggraeni, 2024; Sijabat &  
Martanto, 2024). However, this result can also be seen as a positive outcome for auditors. It suggests they are  
resilient and adaptable, possessing coping mechanisms that neutralize the negative effects of role conflict. These  
mechanisms could include strong ethical standards, professional training, or effective time management. In  
practice, this resilience suggests that recruitment processes should prioritize candidates who demonstrate high  
adaptability and the ability to navigate ambiguous instructions during behavioral interviews. Furthermore, some  
research notes that role conflict can sometimes be positively related or even serve as a motivator under specific  
conditions, pushing auditors to resolve ambiguities or manage responsibilities more effectively (Sesa, 2023).  
This could help explain the non-significant or positive effects observed in certain contexts. The finding therefore  
highlights the complexity of role conflict, suggesting its effects are not uniform. Instead of always being harmful,  
certain types of conflict may even spur problem-solving or adaptive behavior, ultimately not diminishing but  
potentially enhancing an auditor's performance.  
The significant positive effect of self-efficacy on auditor performance means that auditors who strongly believe  
in their capability to execute audit tasks tend to perform better. This results in higher quality, more accurate, and  
more confident audit outcomes. This relationship aligns with established psychological and organizational  
theories and has been verified in diverse empirical studies across various auditing contexts. This finding is  
grounded in Bandura’s social cognitive theory, which posits that an individual’s belief in their ability to succeed  
in specific tasks influences their motivation, persistence, effort, and ultimately, their actual performance  
(Bandura, 1997). This theory helps explain why auditors with high self-efficacy would approach complex audit  
judgments and risk assessments with confidence and resilience, leading to better decision-making and stricter  
adherence to professional standards. Recognizing self-efficacy as a key driver of performance highlights the  
importance of building an auditor's confidence through training, mentoring, and support, which reliably enhances  
audit outcomes. For instance, audit firms might restructure their training programs to include not just technical  
skill drills but also mentorship tracks where senior partners actively validate the decision-making of junior staff  
to build this critical self-belief. The result is both theoretically consistent and empirically supported, indicating  
a clear pathway by which cognitive beliefs translate into greater effort, persistence, and quality judgments.  
Furthermore, emphasizing self-efficacy encourages professional growth and resilience in auditors, which is  
highly beneficial for long-term audit quality and organizational success.  
The result that ethical sensitivity does not significantly affect auditor performance means that, in the data  
analyzed, an auditor's ability to recognize and respond to ethical issues does not translate into a statistically  
measurable impact on their overall job performance. While this outcome may seem counterintuitive given the  
theoretical importance of ethics in auditing, it aligns with some nuanced perspectives in existing research.  
Theoretically, a higher level of ethical sensitivity should enhance an auditor's performance by promoting  
adherence to professional ethical standards, reducing misconduct, and improving audit quality (Forsyth, 1980;  
Ismail & Rasheed, 2019). However, several factors may explain why this relationship isn't always significant.  
One of these factors is that ethical dilemmas in auditing often require balancing conflicting interests and making  
complex judgments under uncertainty. The presence of high ethical sensitivity may create awareness but not  
directly lead to performance improvements without the support of clear organizational standards or decision-  
making frameworks (Ismail & Rasheed, 2019; Gusti et al., 2018). Consequently, firms should focus on creating  
distinct channels for ethical consultation, ensuring that an auditor’s sensitivity is supported by a robust  
infrastructure that allows them to act on their awareness without disrupting their workflow. Moreover, ethical  
sensitivity is a complex, multi-dimensional concept that can be challenging to measure precisely. Survey or  
experimental measures may not fully capture its effects or reflect real-world ethical dilemmas that impact  
performance (Dharmadiaksa, 2022). This outcome, therefore, acknowledges that simply having an awareness of  
ethical issues does not automatically translate into better performance, especially given the many competing  
pressures and complex realities that auditors face.  
Intellectual intelligence does not weaken the negative relationship between role conflict and auditor performance  
means that despite auditors' cognitive abilities and intellectual capacity, these do not significantly buffer or  
Page 3182  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
reduce the negative impact that role conflict has on their job performance. In other words, even auditors with  
higher intellectual intelligence still experience performance declines when faced with role conflict. Many studies  
suggest intellectual intelligence should moderate the negative effects of role conflict by helping auditors process  
information more efficiently, resolve cognitive conflicts, anticipate consequences, and maintain rational  
decision-making under pressure (Partridge & Medda, 2020; Paciello et al., 2013). This would theoretically  
reduce performance impairment caused by role conflict. However, empirical findings reveal that intellectual  
intelligence sometimes does not moderate or weaken the role conflict-performance link (as in this case). This is  
because intellectual intelligence primarily supports task-related cognitive processing but may not fully address  
the emotional and interpersonal strain caused by role conflict (Sangkala, 2024). From a workload management  
perspective, this implies that assigning high-IQ staff to high-conflict projects is not a sufficient mitigation  
strategy; instead, firms must implement emotional intelligence training or wellness programs to address the stress  
that cognitive brilliance cannot fix. Role conflict often triggers emotional stress, anxiety, and role ambiguity,  
which intellectual intelligence alone does not directly mitigate. Emotional intelligence, resilience, or  
organizational support may play more critical moderating roles for these emotional and relational elements.  
The result that intellectual intelligence strengthens the positive relationship between self-efficacy and auditor  
performance means that auditors with higher intellectual intelligence are better able to leverage their belief in  
their capabilities (self-efficacy) to achieve superior performance. In essence, intellectual intelligence acts as a  
catalyst or enhancer, boosting the influence of self-efficacy on actual job outcomes. Studies show intellectual  
intelligence positively moderates the self-efficacy-performance link by enhancing problem-solving speed,  
adaptability, and error detection, which are critical to audit quality (Rosady et al., 2023; Amri Amir et al., 2023).  
They suggest the value of simultaneous development of auditors’ confidence (self-efficacy) and cognitive skills  
(intellectual intelligence) for optimal performance gains. In training environments, this could involve simulation-  
based learning where auditors must utilize rapid problem-solving skills in high-stakes scenarios, thereby  
reinforcing their confidence through intellectual application. Intellectual intelligence as a moderator increases  
the predictive accuracy of self-efficacy on performance, providing clearer guidance for performance  
enhancement. This relationship highlights that auditors with strong intellect and confidence are likely to engage  
in deeper analysis and produce more reliable audit outcomes. High intellectual intelligence might sometimes  
result in overthinking or analytical paralysis if not balanced with effective confidence and decision-making skills.  
The strengthening effect may differ across auditing contexts and task complexity; intellectual intelligence might  
play a smaller role in routine or standardized audits.  
Studies show that intellectual intelligence strengthens the positive relationship between self-efficacy and auditor  
performance. This is because it enhances critical skills for audit quality, such as problem-solving speed,  
adaptability, and error detection (Rosady et al., 2023; Amri Amir et al., 2023). Consequently, this finding  
suggests the value of the simultaneous development of auditors’ confidence and their cognitive skills for optimal  
performance gains. Furthermore, by acting as a moderator, intellectual intelligence increases the predictive  
accuracy of self-efficacy on performance, which provides clearer guidance for performance enhancement. This  
relationship also highlights that auditors who possess strong intellect and confidence are more likely to engage  
in deeper analysis and produce more reliable audit outcomes.  
The result that intellectual intelligence does not strengthen the positive relationship between ethical sensitivity  
and auditor performance indicates that, while ethical sensitivity positively contributes to auditor performance,  
intellectual intelligence does not enhance or amplify this effect. In other words, an auditor’s cognitive abilities  
do not significantly influence how their ethical sensitivity translates into better performance. This is likely  
because ethical sensitivity primarily relates to recognizing ethical issues and moral awareness, which are often  
influenced more by emotional intelligence, moral development, and organizational culture than by pure cognitive  
ability (Lase et al., 2021; Brody et al., 2020). Intellectual intelligence may not add value in this specific context  
because ethical sensitivity involves emotional and social cognition that goes beyond intellectual problem-  
solving. While intellectual intelligence may positively influence ethical behavior on its own (Andreana & Putri,  
2020), its interaction with ethical sensitivity in affecting performance appears to be minimal or overshadowed  
by other factors, such as emotional intelligence, ethical training, or professional norms (Sangkala, 2024). This  
highlights that cognitive intelligence and ethical sensitivity may function through largely independent processes  
in producing ethical and performance outcomes. This suggests that organizations might be better off improving  
ethical performance by focusing on emotional intelligence, ethical culture, and training rather than only on  
Page 3183  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
cognitive enhancement. Recruitment strategies should therefore distinguish between cognitive testing and ethical  
screening, ensuring that high IQ scores are not mistakenly used as a proxy for ethical readiness. It also counters  
the common assumption that higher IQ always leads to better ethical behavior and performance, emphasizing  
the complex, multidimensional nature of ethics. It is also worth noting that the moderating role of intellectual  
intelligence might vary by the complexity of the situation or ethical scenario, meaning findings could be context-  
specific or sample-dependent.  
CONCLUSIONS  
The results of this study indicate that role conflict did not have a significant effect on auditor performance. This  
suggests that while auditors may experience conflicting demands and pressures inherent in their roles, these conflicts  
do not necessarily translate into poorer job performance in this study context. It is possible that auditors have  
developed coping mechanisms or adaptive strategies that allow themto manage role conflicts effectively, preventing  
these challenges from adversely affecting their work outcomes. Self-efficacy had a significant positive effect on  
auditor performance. Highlighting confidence's role in task execution and resilience during challenging  
engagements. Auditors with higher self-efficacy are more likely to persist through difficulties, resulting in  
higher-quality audit outcomes and greater efficiency.  
Ethical sensitivity did not have a significant effect on auditor performance in this study. This indicates that,  
although ethical sensitivity is important for recognizing ethical issues and dilemmas, it may not directly translate  
into measurable improvements in auditors' performance outcomes in this context. The lack of significance could  
suggest that other factors, such as organizational culture, pressure from clients, or external regulations, might  
influence or overshadow the effect of ethical sensitivity on performance.  
Intellectual intelligence has not weakened the negative relationship between role conflict and auditor  
performance. It indicates that, having higher intellectual intelligence does not significantly reduce the adverse  
effects of role conflict on auditors’ work outcomes. Despite the theoretical expectation that intellectual  
intelligence through enhanced problem-solving and cognitive abilities would help auditors manage conflicting  
demands more effectively and mitigate stress, the findings show that this cognitive capability alone may not be  
sufficient to buffer the negative impact of role conflicts.  
Intellectual intelligence strengthens the positive relationship between self- efficacy and auditor performance  
means that auditors who combine strong self- confidence in their abilities (self-efficacy) with high intellectual  
intelligence tend to perform better in their audit tasks. Intellectual intelligence enables auditors to more  
effectively apply their confidence and skills to handle complex audit challenges, make informed decisions, and  
adapt to changing situations.  
The conclusion that intellectual intelligence has not strengthen the positive relationship between ethical  
sensitivity and auditor performance indicates that, having higher intellectual intelligence does not significantly  
enhance the impact of ethical sensitivity on auditors' work outcomes. Although ethical sensitivity is important  
for recognizing and addressing ethical issues, the ability to translate this sensitivity into better performance does  
not appear to be influenced by the level of intellectual intelligence.  
The model explains 70.6% of variance in auditor performance, emphasizing psychological factors' importance  
for audit quality. These findings contribute to cognitive accounting theory by illustrating how internal beliefs  
and cognitive abilities interact to shape professional outcomes in auditing.  
Implications  
This study highlights the importance of self-efficacy and intellectual intelligence in enhancing auditor  
performance, while role conflict and ethical sensitivity have lesser impacts. The findings suggest that auditors  
can manage conflicting demands effectively, indicating the need for training programs focused on building  
resilience, stress management, and confidence. Firms should also consider incorporating intellectual intelligence  
assessments in recruitment and professional development to boost critical thinking and problem-solving skills.  
Despite ethical sensitivity not significantly impacting performance, fostering an ethical culture remains essential.  
Page 3184  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Future research could explore how role conflict varies across sectors and investigates other psychological factors,  
like emotional intelligence, to further refine auditing practices. These insights contribute to improving auditor  
training, recruitment, and performance management.  
Limitations  
The sample of 143 auditors is limited to Jakarta public accounting firms, reducing generalizability to other  
regions or different city. This geographic restriction may overlook cultural or regulatory differences that  
influence auditor behavior elsewhere. Data relies on self-reported questionnaires, which measured by Likert-  
Scale only, risking bias from subjective responses or social desirability effects where participants might overstate  
positive traits like self-efficacy. Some hypotheses show inconsistencies between expected and actual moderating  
directions, possibly due to unmeasured variables like emotional intelligence.  
Suggestions  
For future research, researcher may expand sample size including auditors from diverse regions or sectors for  
broader insights into how variables interact across contexts. Researcher may adopt mixed methods for deeper  
qualitative data, such as interview method to explore why role conflict had a positive effect and examine  
additional moderators like emotional or cultural intelligence to refine the model.  
Practically, audit firms should improve employees’ self-efficacy and intellectual intelligence through workshops  
on confidence-building and critical thinking, implement programs to manage role conflict clear role definitions,  
regular feedback, and stress management resources to prevent burnout. Audit firms should encourage ethical  
sensitivity training integrated with intellectual development to ensure balanced decision-making. Firms could  
use these insights for better hiring by assessing these traits in recruitment.  
REFERENCES  
1. Abbott, L. J., Parker, S., Peters, G. F., & Raghunandan, K. (2016). Auditor Independence and Audit  
Quality: A Literature Review. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Policy, 29(4), 502–  
519. https://doi.org/10 .1016/j.jaccpubpol.2016  
2. Abdo, M., Feghali, K., & Zgheib, M. A. (2022). The Role of Emotional Intelligence and Personality on  
The Overall Internal Control Effectiveness: Applied on Internal Audit Team Member’s Behavior in  
Lebanese  
Companies.  
Asian  
Journal  
of  
Accounting  
Research,  
7(2),  
195–207  
https://doi.org/10.1108/AJAR-04-2021  
3. Afifah, U., Sari, R. N., Anugerah, R., & Sanusi, Z. M. (2015). The Effect of Role Conflict, Self-Efficacy,  
Professional Ethical Sensitivity on Auditor Performance with Emotional Quotient as Moderating  
Variable. Procedia. Economics and Finance, 31, 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)  
4. Alfraih, M. & Almutairi, A. (2020). The Effect of Auditor Competence on The Quality of Auditing in  
Different Legal Environments. Journal Of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 10(1), 2–26.  
https://doi.org/10 .1108/JAEE -03–2020  
5. Amir, A., Rahayu, S. A., & Setiawati, R. (2023). Models of Intellectual Intelligence, Emotional  
Intelligence and Emphasizing the Role of Auditor Performance with Spiritual Intelligence as Moderating  
Variables (Empirical Study of Inspectorate of Riau Province). 1(2), 159–182.  
https://doi.org/10.55927/ijems.v1i2.3935  
6. Ay, T. S. (2018). Pengaruh Kecerdasan Intelektual, Kecerdasan Emosional, Dan Kecerdasan Spiritual  
Terhadap Kinerja Karyawan (Studi Kasus Pada Pondok Pesantren Darunnajah Jakarta). Undergraduate  
thesis, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta]. Institutional Repository.  
7. Badera, I. D. N., & Jati, I. K. (2020). Moral Reasoning, Whistleblowing Intention, and Audit Judgement  
Moderate the Effect of Ethical Sensitivity on Internal Audit Quality. International Research Journal of  
Management, IT and Social Sciences, 7(6), 42–53. https://doi.org/10.21744/IRJMIS.V7N6.1004  
8. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-Efficacy: Toward A Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological  
Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033- 295X.84.2.191  
9. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman.  
10. Brody, R. G., Gupta, G., & Salter, S. B. (2020). The Influence of Emotional Intelligence on Auditor  
Page 3185  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Performance. Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems, 19(3).  
https://doi.org/10.24818/jamis.2020.03005  
11. Brown, T., & Green, R. (2024). Fostering Ethical Sensitivity in Auditors: A Training Perspective. Journal  
of Business Ethics, 162(3), 567-580.  
12. Coyne, M., Massey, D., & Thibodeau, J. (2005). Raising Students’ Ethical Sensitivity with a Value  
Relevance Approach. Advances in Accounting Education: Teaching and Curriculum Innovations, 7, 171-  
205.  
13. Davis, L., & White, J. (2025). The Role of Ethical Sensitivity in Audit Quality: A Comprehensive  
Review. Accounting Horizons, 39(1), 1-20.  
14. De Zoort, F.T. & Harrison, P. (2016). The Impact of Supervisory Influences on Auditors’ Ethical  
Decision-Making. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112(4), 2472–2481. https://doi.org/10  
.1016/j.jclepro.2015  
15. Dewi, I. G. A. A. P., & Dewi, P. P. (2018). Big Five Personality, Ethical Sensitivity, And Performance  
of Auditors. International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences, 5(2), 195–209.  
16. Dina Inawati (2023). Pengaruh Ketidakjelasan Peran, Kelebihan Peran Dan Konflik Peran Terhadap  
Perilaku Disfungsional Audit dan Dampaknya Terhadap Kinerja Auditor. Bachelor Thesis, UIN Syarif  
Hidayatullah Jakarta.  
17. Gao, J., Greenberg, R., & Wong-On-Wing, B. (2015). Whistleblowing Intentions of Lower- Level  
Employees: The Effect of Reporting Channel, Bystanders, And Wrongdoer PowerStatus. Journalof  
Business  
Ethics, 126(1),85–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1953  
18. Gao, Q. & Zhang, J. (2020). The Effect of Auditors’ Work Experience on Audit Quality and Earnings  
Management in China. Journal Of Applied Accounting Research, 21(3), 389–405. https://doi.org/10  
.1108/JAOC -11–2019 –0194  
19. Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). "Why G Matters: The Complexity of Everyday Life," Which Posits That  
General Intelligence (G) Is Critical in Dealing with Cognitive Complexity, Relevant to Moderating  
Workplace Performance and Decision-Making Relationships.  
20. 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.  
21. Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011) PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. Journal of Marketing  
Theory and Practice, 19, 139-151. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202  
22. Husain, H., Wawo, A., & Anwar, P. H. (2022). Pengaruh Role Conflict Dan Role Ambiguity Terhadap  
Kinerja Auditor Dengan Kecerdasan Emosional Sebagai Variabel Moderasi. 3(1), 40–53.  
https://doi.org/10.24252/isafir.v3i1.29148  
23. Ismail, A. H., Iskandar, T. M., Sanusi, Z. M., & Shukor, Z. A. (2016). Auditor’s Ethical Judgements:  
Assessing The Effect of Ethical Sensitivity and Ethical Climate. 15(2), 185–207.  
https://doi.org/10.24191/MAR.V15I2.595  
24. Johnson, M., & Lee, K. (2025). Ethical Sensitivity and Auditor Performance: Evidence From The Field.  
International Journal of Auditing, 29(2), 123-145.  
25. Juni, B., & Nurwulan, L. L. (2023). Pengaruh Kecerdasan Emosional, Kecerdasan Intelektual Dan  
Kecerdasan Spiritual Auditor Terhadap Kualitas Audit. https://doi.org/10.23969/brainy.v4i1.47  
26. Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational Stress:  
Studies In Role Conflict and Ambiguity. John Wiley & Sons.  
27. Kaptein, M., Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., & Knippenberg, D. van. (2015). Toward Effective Codes:  
Testing The Relationship with Unethical Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(1), 41–55.  
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2106-z  
28. Sekaran, U., & Fisher, G. (2020). The Role of Communication in Promoting Ethical Work Climates.  
Journal of Business Research, 118, 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.002  
29. Kerr, B. A., Wright, J. D., Huffman, J. M., Birdnow, M., Reder, M., Stull, O. A., & Malmsten, R. N.  
(2021). Cognitive Ability, Personality, And Privilege: A Trait- Complex Approach to Talent  
Development. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56869-6_12  
30. Khairat, H., Anisma, Y., & Rofika, R. (2017). Pengaruh Kecerdasan Emosional, Kecerdasan Intelektual,  
Kecerdasan Spritual Dan Komitmen Organisasi Terhadap Kinerja Auditor. 4(1), 323–337.  
31. Kharisma, D. A. N., & Budiartha, I. K. (2022). Self-Efficacy Dan Pengalaman Auditor Terhadap Kualitas  
Audit Yang Dimoderasi Oleh Kecerdasan Emosional. E-Jurnal Akuntansi, 32(2), 3736.  
Page 3186  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
https://doi.org/10.24843/eja.2022.v32.i02.p11  
32. Kirana, I. B. W., & Suprasto, H. B. (2019). Pengaruh Independensi Auditor, Pemahaman Good  
Governance Dan Self Efficacy Terhadap Kinerja Auditor Pada KAP Bali. E- Jurnal Akuntansi, 1839.  
https://doi.org/10.24843/EJA.2019.V27.I03.P08  
33. Krishnan, G.V. & Krishnan, J. (2020). Auditor Perceptions of The Importance of Compliance and Ethical  
Issues. Journal Of Applied Accounting Research, 21(4), 565–580.  
34. Li, Y. (2020). How Does The Competition Among Accounting Firms Affect Audit Quality? Evidence  
From China. International Journal of Accounting, 55(4), 311–327. https://doi.org/10  
.1016/j.intacc.2020.08.004  
35. Lase, E., Hwee, T. S., & Edward, Y. R. (2021). The Effect of Role Conflict and Ethical Sensitivity on  
Auditor Performance with Moderation of Emotional Intelligence. Journal of Economics, Business, and  
Accountancy | Ventura, 24(2), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.14414/jebav.v24i2.2743  
36. Lase, E., Hwee, T. S., & Edward, Y. R. (2021). The Effect of Role Conflict and Ethical Sensitivity on  
Auditor Performance with Moderation of Emotional Intelligence. Journal of Economics, Business, &  
Accountancy Ventura, 24(2), 326-338.  
37. Layn, Y. Y., & Atarwaman, R. J. D. (2020). The Influence of Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity and Role  
Overload on Auditor Performance (Empirical Study at The BPK Representative Office of The Republic  
of Indonesia in Maluku Province). 1, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.31098/IC-SMART.V1I1.26  
38. Lismawati, L., Marietza, F., & Yuliana, C. D. (2022). Pengaruh Konflik Peran Terhadap Kinerja Auditor  
Dengan Stres Kerja Sebagai Variabel Mediasi. https://doi.org/10.37676/ekombis.v10is1.1989  
39. Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2020). Psychological Capital: An Evidence- Based  
Approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7, 1-24.  
40. Lützen, K., Dahlqvist, V., Eriksson, S., & Norberg, A. (2006). Developing The Concept of Moral  
Sensitivity in Health Care Practice. Nursing ethics, 13(2), 187-196.  
41. Maradipta, N., & Tannar, O. (2024). Pengaruh Self-Efficacy, Tekanan Ketaatan, Kompleksitas Tugas  
Dan Pengalaman Auditor Terhadap Audit Judgment Pada BPK RI Perwakilan  
Timur. AL-KHARAJ. https://doi.org/10.47467/alkharaj.v6i9.2706  
Provinsi  
Jawa  
42. Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2007). Self-Efficacy of College Intermediate French Students:  
Relation to Achievement and Motivation. Language Learning, 57(3), 417–442.  
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00421.x  
43. Ndruru, F. A., Hardi, H., & Wiguna, M. (2019). Pengaruh Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, Self Efficacy,  
Dan Spiritual Quotient Terhadap Kinerja Auditor. Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Keuangan, 8(2), 1-8.  
44. Ndruru, F. A., Hardi, H., & Wiguna, M. (2019). The Effect of Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, Self  
Efficacy, And Spiritual Quotient on Auditor Performance. Journal of  
Accounting and Finance,  
8(2), 1–8. https://ejournal.unisi.ac.id/index.php/jak/article/view/913  
45. Noviana, M. A. P., & Rahmawati, N. (2018). Pengaruh Independensi, Role Stress, Dan Burnout Terhadap  
Efektivitas Auditor Internal (Studi Kasus Pada Kantor Badan Pengawasan Keuangan Dan Pembangunan  
(BPKP) Provinsi Jawa Tengah). Indonesian Treasury Review Jurnal Perbendaharaan Keuangan Negara  
Dan Kebijakan Publik, 3(2), 155–168.  
46. O'Leary, C., & Stewart, J. (2023). Understanding Ethical Sensitivity in Auditing: A Conceptual  
Framework. Journal of Accounting Research, 61(1), 89-110.  
47. Pancawati, N. P. W., & Sujana, I. K. (2024). Examining the Impact of Core Self-Evaluations Personality  
Model and Leadership Styles on Auditor Performance. E-Jurnal Akuntansi, 34(9).  
https://doi.org/10.24843/eja.2024.v34.i09.p08  
48. Pekdemir, I., Karaibrahimoglu, Y., & Arikan, E. E. (2012). Role Stressors and Job Outcomes: The  
Moderating Role of Emotional Intelligence for Internal Auditors. Managerial  
Auditing  
Journal,  
27(1), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686901211192568  
49. Prasetyo, M. A. M., & Anwar, K. (2021). Karakteristik Komunikasi Interpersonal Serta Relevansinya  
Dengan Kepemimpinan Transformasional. Jurnal Komunikasi Pendidikan, 5(1), 25.  
https://doi.org/10.32585/jkp.v5i1.1042  
50. Pratiwi, A., Kartini, K., & Inrijawati, A. (2022). Pengaruh Role Conflict Dan Role Ambiguity Terhadap  
Kinerja Auditor Dengan Kecerdasan Intelektual Sebagai Variabel Moderasi. Riset Dan Jurnal Akuntansi,  
7(1), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.33395/owner.v7i1.1355  
51. Pratiwi, N. L. Y., & Suryanawa, I. K. (2020). Pengaruh Kecerdasan Intelektual, Kecerdasan Emosional,  
Page 3187  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025  
Kompetensi Dan Lingkungan Kerja Pada Kinerja Auditor. E-Jurnal Akuntansi, 30(7), 1738.  
https://doi.org/10.24843/EJA.2020.V30.I07.P10  
52. Purba, S. F., & Nuryatno, M (2019). Kecerdasan Emosional Sebagai Pemoderasi Pengaruh Skeptisme  
Profesional, Independensi, Time Pressure, Locus of Control Terhadap Kemampuan Auditor Dalam  
Mendeteksi  
Kecurangan.  
Jurnal  
Akuntansi  
Trisakti,  
6(2),  
325–344.  
https://doi.org/10.25105/jat.v6i2.5495  
53. Putri, N. W. Y., & Latrini, M. Y. (2024). The Effect of Self-Efficacy and Obedience Pressure on Audit  
Judgment Using Task Complexity and Moral Reasoning as Moderating Variables. E-Jurnal Akuntansi,  
34(9). https://doi.org/10.24843/eja.2024.v34.i09.p19  
54. Putus, S., Adhitama, K., & Ramantha, W. (2023). Kompetensi, Kompleksitas Tugas, Stress Kerja Dan  
Kinerja  
Auditor  
BPK  
RI  
Perwakilan  
Provinsi  
Bali.  
E-Jurnal  
Akuntansi.  
https://doi.org/10.24843/eja.2023.v33.i08.p20  
55. Rahman, M. M., et al. (2023). The Influence of Self-Efficacy on Auditor Performance: Evidence from  
Public Accounting Firms. Journal of Accounting Research, 61(2), 345-367.  
56. Ramadiani (2010). Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) As A Second-Generation Analysis Technique  
for Hypothesis Testing.  
57. Rastina, R., Hasiah, H., & Arsyad, M. (2020). Pengaruh Konflik Peran, Ketidakjelasan Peran, Dan  
Kelebihan Peran Terhadap Kinerja Auditor Internal. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Penelitian &  
Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat, 4(1), 305–310.  
58. Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. Praeger.  
59. Saddiqa, A., & Malik, S. (2024). An Investigation on Effects of University Students’ Cognitive Ability  
on Their Academic Achievement. Journal of Social Research Development, 5(03), 66–83.  
https://doi.org/10.53664/jsrd/05-03-2024-07-66-83  
60. Sangkala, M., Hasan, M., & Rum, M. (2024). The Effect of Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, And Ethical  
Sensitivity on Auditor Performance with Intellectual Intelligence as A Moderating Variable. ATESTASI:  
Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi, 7(1), 148-173. https://doi.org/10.57178/atestasi.v7i1.758  
61. Sari, N. P. E. R. S., & Suryanawa, I. K. (2016). Konflik Peran, Ketidakjelasan Peran, Dan Kelebihan  
Peran Terhadap Kinerja Auditor Dengan Tekanan Waktu Sebagai Pemoderasi. E-Jurnal Akuntansi  
Universitas Udayana, 15, 1392–1421.  
62. Sari, N., Septiano, R., & Zulvia, D. (2019). Pengaruh Etika Profesi Dan Kecerdasan Intelektual Terhadap  
Pengambilan Keputusan Bagi Auditor (Studi Kasus Kantor Akuntan Publik (KAP) Di Kota Padang).  
63. Sari, R., et al. (2023). Task Complexity and Self-Efficacy: Implications for Auditor Performance.  
International Journal of Auditing, 27(1), 45-62.  
64. Schepers, J. J., Nijssen, E. J., & Van der Heijden, G. A. (2016). Innovation In The Frontline: Exploring  
the Relationship Between Role Conflict, Ideas for Improvement, And Employee Service Performance.  
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(4),797-817.  
65. Sekerka, L. E., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2019). Virtue Ethics in Business and The Capabilities Approach: A  
Framework for Empirical Research. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(3), 659–674.  
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3810-y  
66. Seran, M., & Herwiyanti, E. (2019). Theoretical Review of Internal Auditors: Professional Ethics,  
Intellectual Intelligence, And Emotional Intelligence. Journal of Accounting, 13(1), 54–71.  
67. Smith, A., et al. (2024). The Relationship Between Ethical Sensitivity and Audit Integrity. Accounting  
Education: An International Journal, 33(2), 150-165.  
68. Thompson, R., et al. (2023). Team Dynamics And Ethical Sensitivity in Auditing: Implications for  
Practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 162(4), 789-802.  
69. Waddington, J. (2023). Self-Efficacy. ELT Journal, 77(2), 237-240.  
70. Weaver, K. (2007). Ethical Sensitivity: State Of Knowledge and Needs for Further Research. Nursing  
ethics, 14(2), 141-155.  
71. Wiguna, M. (2014). Pengaruh Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, Self-Efficacy, Sensitifitas Etika Profesi,  
Gaya Kepemimpinan Terhadap Kinerja Auditor Dengan Emotional Quotient Sebagai Variabel  
Moderating. Jurnal Ilmiah Ekonomi dan Bisnis (e- journal), 11(2).  
72. Zhang, Y., et al. (2024). Enhancing Audit Quality Through Self-Efficacy: A Study of Training  
Interventions. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 33(1), 78- 95.  
Page 3188  
www.rsisinternational.org