Cited by 0Auditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceRobotic Process Automation ApplicationsCorporate Governance and Financial Management

AI RELIANCE AND PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT QUALITY AMONG GOVERNMENT AUDITORS IN ACEH: THE MODERATING ROLE OF PROFESSIONAL SKEPTICISM

Open access
Luthfiar Ramiady, Hendri Bin Muhammad Nur·2026·Sumber Informasi Manajemen Bisnis dan Akuntansi (SIMBAN)

Abstract

The adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in government audit processes, ranging from data analytics to algorithm-based anomaly detection, promises significant efficiency gains, yet raises global concerns regarding automation bias, the tendency of auditors to accept AI output without adequate critical evaluation. This study aims to analyze the effect of AI reliance on the professional judgment quality of government auditors in Aceh, and to test and explore the moderating role of professional skepticism in this relationship. This study employs an explanatory sequential mixed methods design, beginning with a quantitative phase through a survey of 110 government auditors from the Aceh Inspectorate, Regency/City Inspectorates, the Aceh Representative Office of BPKP, and the Aceh Representative Office of BPK RI, analyzed using Moderated Regression Analysis (MRA), followed by a qualitative phase through in-depth interviews with ten selected auditors. The (illustrative) quantitative results reveal a counter-intuitive finding: AI reliance has a significant negative direct effect on professional judgment quality, yet professional skepticism significantly moderates this relationship by buffering (weakening) the negative effect. The qualitative phase reveals the underlying mechanism: auditors with high trait skepticism treat AI as a complementary tool that is still cross-verified, whereas auditors with low skepticism tend to treat AI as a substitutive tool whose output is accepted uncritically, a pattern informants themselves described as 'thinking laziness resulting from excessive trust in machines.' This study offers novelty as one of the first studies to empirically examine the specific construct of AI reliance, rather than general audit technology use, within the context of public-sector auditors in a special-autonomy region such as Aceh, while extending automation bias theory by positioning professional skepticism as a cognitive buffering mechanism. The practical implications underscore the urgency of strengthening professional skepticism training integrated with AI literacy for government auditors, so that the digital transformation of auditing does not come at the expense of professional judgment quality, which remains the core of the audit profession itself.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.65788/simban.v3i2.146

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  2. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
  3. Hurtt, R. K. (2010). Development of a scale to measure professional skepticism. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 29(1), 149-171.
  4. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  5. Muzahid, M., Maulizar, & Wijaya, I. (2018). Pengaruh kompetensi, independensi, dan skeptisisme profesional auditor terhadap kualitas audit pada auditor pemerintah di Kabupaten Aceh Utara. Proceeding Seminar Nasional Politeknik Negeri Lhokseumawe, 2(1), 93-96.
  6. Ningsih, F., & Nadirsyah. (2017). Pengaruh independensi, skeptisisme profesional auditor, penerapan standar audit, dan etika audit terhadap kualitas hasil audit (Studi pada auditor BPK RI Perwakilan Provinsi Aceh). Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Ekonomi Akuntansi, 2(3), 48-58.
  7. Panggabean, K. A. (2022). Pengaruh independensi auditor, skeptisisme profesional, dan objektivitas auditor terhadap kualitas audit. Journal Management, Business, and Accounting, 21(1), 60-73.
  8. Parasuraman, R., & Manzey, D. H. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attributional model. Human Factors, 52(3), 381-410.
  9. Rahayu, R. A. (2020). Pengaruh skeptisisme profesional audit dan keahlian auditor terhadap kualitas audit. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi Terpadu, 13(2), 242-255.
  10. Skitka, L. J., Mosier, K. L., & Burdick, M. (1999). Does automation bias decision-making? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 51(5), 991-1006.
  11. Susilawati, & Salsabilla, A. (2023). Skeptisisme profesional, pengalaman auditor dan kualitas audit. Portofolio: Jurnal Ekonomi, Bisnis, Manajemen dan Akuntansi, 20(1), 42-53.

Authors
Ramiady, L., & Nur, H. B. M.
Affiliations
Universitas Muhammadiyah Aceh (ID)
Venue
Sumber Informasi Manajemen Bisnis dan Akuntansi (SIMBAN)
Published
2026-08-30
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
84-101
ISSN
3123-5956 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7208705912
Cited by
0
References
2
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Sumber Informasi Manajemen Bisnis dan Akuntansi (SIMBAN) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Robotic Process Automation Applications
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Governance and Financial Management
Keywords
AI reliance, professional skepticism, government auditors, public sector auditing, automation bias, artificial intelligence in auditing, moderating effect, AI literacy, Aceh

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review