Understanding How Role Conflict and Audit Experience Affect Audit Judgment: The Mediating Mechanism of Professional Skepticism

Abstract

Aims: This study seeks to examine the influence of role conflict and audit experience on audit judgment, with professional skepticism serving as a mediating variable among public accountants. Study Design: The sampling process employed purposive sampling techniques, followed by data analysis using path analysis and the Sobel test. Place and Duration of Study: Data were obtained through a questionnaire distributed to 100 public accounting firms (PAFs) across Indonesia. Methodology: This research is an explanatory research with a quantitative approach. Results: The findings reveal that role conflict negatively influences audit judgment, whereas audit experience exerts a positive effect. Additionally, the indirect analysis indicates that role conflict adversely affects audit judgment, while audit experience positively contributes to it, with professional skepticism acting as a mediating factor among public accountants in Indonesia. Conclusion: This indicates that role conflict diminishes auditors’ sense of ease and impairs their capacity to apply professional skepticism throughout the audit process, thereby compromising the quality of their judgment.