Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
The instrument is available from the authors upon request.
Ethics has been identified as an important factor that potentially affects auditors’ professional skepticism. For example, prior research finds that auditors who are more concerned with professional ethics exhibit greater professional skepticism. Further, the literature suggests that professional skepticism may lead the auditor to more vigilantly resist the client’s position in financial reporting disputes. These reporting disputes are generally resolved through negotiations between the auditor and client to arrive at the final reported amounts. To date, the role that professional skepticism potentially plays in the negotiation process has been relatively unexplored. The literature prior to the enactment of Sarbanes–Oxley (SOX) suggests that auditors are more likely to approve a client position when the matter in dispute is relatively ambiguous and when changing the client’s position will result in the client failing to meet analysts’ expectations. However, changes resulting from SOX have led auditors to be more vigilant and therefore results found in the pre-SOX environment may not hold in the current environment where auditors are held more accountable for their actions. Results from an experiment with experienced audit managers and partners suggest that in the post-SOX climate, auditors’ negotiations do not appear to be substantively influenced by management being able to meet or beat forecasts. Moreover, we find that when auditors exhibit heightened professional skepticism, they are more ethical by being conservative and they stand more resolute than when auditors do not exhibit heightened professional skepticism. Finally, although we do not find a main effect for the influence of earnings forecast, we do find a significant interaction between earnings forecast and heightened professional skepticism. Implications for practice and research are then presented.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (1978). Commission on auditors’ responsibility. New York, NY: AICPA.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (1997a). Due care in the performance of work, Statement on auditing standards No. # 1. New York, NY: AICPA.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (1997b). Consideration of fraud in a financial statement audit, Statement on auditing standards No. 82. New York, NY: AICPA.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (2002). Consideration of fraud in a financial statement audit: Statement on auditing standards No. 99. New York, NY: AICPA.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (2006). Understanding an entity and its environment and assessing the risk of material misstatement No. 109. New York, NY: AICPA.
Anderson, U., Kadous, K., & Koonce, L. (2004). The role of incentives to manage earnings and quantification in auditors’ evaluations of management-provided information. Auditing: A Journal of Practice Theory, 23, 11–27. CrossRef
Antle, R., & Nalebuff, B. (1991). Conservatism and auditor-client negotiations. Journal of Accounting Research, 29, 31–54. CrossRef
Australian Accounting Research Foundation (AARF). (1995). AUS 202 objective and general principles governing an audit of a financial report. Melbourne: AARF.
Bame-Aldred, C., & Kida, T. (2006). A comparison of auditor and client negotiation decisions. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(6), 497–511. CrossRef
Bartov, E., & Cohen, D. (2009). Mechanisms to meet/beat analysts’ earnings expectations in the pre- and post-Sarbanes-Oxley eras. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 24(4), 505–534.
Beasley, M., Carcello, J., Hermanson, D., & Neal, T. (2009). The audit committee oversight process. Contemporary Accounting Research, 26(1), 65–122. CrossRef
Bennie, N., & Pflugrath, G. (2009). The strength of an accounting firm’s ethical environment and the quality of auditors’ judgment. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(2), 237–253. CrossRef
Beyer, A. (2008). Financial analysts’ forecast revisions and managers’ reporting behavior. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 46(2–3), 334–348. CrossRef
Brown, H. L., & Johnstone, K. (2009). Resolving disputed financial reporting issues: Effects of auditor negotiation experience and engagement risk on negotiation process and outcome. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 28(2), 65–92.
Brown, H. L., & Wright, A. (2008). Negotiation research in auditing. Accounting Horizons, 22(1), 91–109.
Brown-Liburd, H. L., & Wright, A. (2011). The effect of past client relationship and strength of the audit committee on auditor negotiations. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 30(4), 51–69. CrossRef
Buckless, F., & Ravenscroft, S. (1990). Contrast coding: A refinement of ANOVA in behavioral analysis. The Accounting Review, 65(4), 933–945.
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). (1997). Audit of financial statements, Section 5090 of CICA Handbook. Toronto, Canada: CICA.
Carpenter, T., Durtschi, C., & Gaynor, L. (2003). The role of experience in professional skepticism, knowledge acquisition, and fraud detection. American Accounting Association mid-year auditing meeting.
Cohen, D., Dey, A., & Lys, T. (2008a). Real and accruals-based earnings management in the pre- and post-Sarbanes-Oxley periods. The Accounting Review, 83(3), 757–787. CrossRef
Cohen, J., Holder-Webb, L., Sharp, D., & Pant, L. (2007a). The effects of perceived fairness on opportunistic behavior. Contemporary Accounting Research, 24(4), 1119–1138. CrossRef
Cohen, J., Krishnamoorthy, G., & Wright, A. (2004). The corporate governance mosaic and financial reporting quality. Journal of Accounting Literature, 87–152.
Cohen, J., Krishnamoorthy, G., & Wright, A. (2007b). The impact of roles of the board on auditors’ risk assessments and program planning decisions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 26(1), 71–90.
Cohen, J., Krishnamoorthy, G., & Wright, A. (2008b). Form versus substance: The implications for audit practice and research of alternative perspectives of corporate governance. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 27(2), 181–198.
Cohen, J., Krishnamoorthy, G., & Wright, A. (2010). Corporate governance in the post Sarbanes-Oxley Era: Auditors’ experiences. Contemporary Accounting Research, 27(3), 751–786.
Cohen, J., & Martinov Bennie, N. (2006). The applicability of a contingent factors model to accounting ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(1), 1–18. CrossRef
Davis, L., Soo, B., & Trompeter, G. (2009). Auditor tenure and the ability to meet or beat earnings forecasts. Contemporary Accounting Research, 26(Summer), 517–548. CrossRef
Dechow, P., & Skinner, D. (2000). Earnings management: reconciling the views of accounting academics, practitioners, and regulators. Working paper, University of Michigan Business School.
Farag, M. S., & Elias, R. Z. 2012. The impact of accounting students’ professional skepticism on their ethical perception of earnings management. Working paper, California State Polytechnic University, and California State University.
Farmer, T., Rittenberg, L., & Trompeter, G. (1987). An investigation of the impact of economic and organizational factors on auditor independence. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 7(Fall), 1–14.
Fullerton, R. R., & Durtschi, C. 2004. The effect of professional skepticism on the fraud detection skills of internal auditors. Working paper, Utah State University.
Gibbins, M., Salterio, S., & Webb, A. (2001). Evidence about auditor-client management negotiation concerning client’s financial reporting. Journal of Accounting Research, 39(3), 535–563. CrossRef
Griffith, E. E., Hammersley, J. S., & Kadous, K. (2012). Auditing complex estimates: Understanding the process used and problems encountered. Working paper, University of Georgia and Emory University.
Hackenbrack, K., & Nelson, M. (1996). Auditors’ incentives and their application of financial accounting standards. The Accounting Review, 71(1), 43–59.
Hatfield, R. C., Agoglia, C. P., & Sanchez, M. H. (2008). Client characteristics and the negotiation tactics of auditors: Implications for financial reporting. Journal of Accounting Research, 46(5), 1183–1207.
Healy, P, & Whalen, J. (1999). A review of the earnings management literature and its implications for standard setters. Accounting Horizons, 13(4), 365–383.
Hirst, E. (1994). Auditors’ sensitivity to earnings management. Contemporary Accounting Research, 11, 405–422. CrossRef
Hurtt, R. (2010). Professional skepticism: An audit specific model and measurement scale. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 29(March), 149–171. CrossRef
Hurtt, R., Eining, M., & Plumlee, D. (2011). An experimental examination of professional skepticism. Working paper, Baylor University.
Johnstone, K., Sutton, M., & Warfield, T. (2001). Antecedents and consequences of independence risk: Framework for analysis. Accounting Horizons, 15(1), 1–18. CrossRef
Jones, J. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16, 366–395.
Jones, J., Massey, D., & Thorne, L. (2003). Auditors’ ethical reasoning: Insights from past research and implications for the future. Journal of Accounting Literature, 22, 45–103.
Kadous, K., J. Kennedy and M. Peecher. 2003. Auditors’ judgments of the acceptability of client-preferred accounting methods. The Accounting Review, 78(3), 759–778.
Kaplan, S. E. (2001). Ethically related judgments by observers of earnings management. Journal of Business Ethics, 32, 285–298. CrossRef
Kennedy, J. (1993). Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: A framework and experimental results. Journal of Accounting Research, 31(2), 231–245.
Kerler, W. A, I. I. I., & Killough, L. N. (2009). The effects of satisfaction with a client’s management during a prior audit engagement, trust, and moral reasoning on auditors’ perceived risk of management fraud. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 109–136. CrossRef
Keune, M., & Johnstone, K. (2012). Materiality judgments and the resolution of detected misstatements: The role of managers, auditors, and audit committees. The Accounting Review (forthcoming).
Knechel, W. R. 2007. The business risk audit: Origins, obstacles and opportunities. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32, 383–408.
Levitt, A. (1998). The numbers game. Remarks delivered at the NYU Center for Law and Business, New York.
Libby, R., & Kinney, W. (2000). Does mandated audit communication reduce opportunistic corrections to manage earnings to forecasts? The Accounting Review, 75(4), 383–405. CrossRef
Martinov-Bennie, N., & Pflugrath, G. (2009). The strength of an accounting firm’s ethical environment and the quality of auditors’ judgments. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 237–253. CrossRef
McMillan, J., & White, R. (1993). Auditors’ belief revisions and evidence search: The effect of hypothesis frame, confirmation and professional skepticism. The Accounting Review, 68(3), 443–465.
Merchant, K. A., & Rockness, J. (1994). The ethics of managing earnings: An empirical investigation. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 13, 79–94.
Murnighan, J., & Bazerman, M. (1990). A perspective on negotiation research in accounting and auditing. The Accounting Review, 65(3), 642–657.
Nelson, M. (2009). A model and literature review of professional skepticism in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 28(2), 1–34.
Nelson, M., Elliott, J., & Tarpley, R. (2002). Evidence from auditors about managers’ and auditors’ earnings management decisions. The Accounting Review (Supplement), 175–202.
Nelson, M., Elliott, J., & Tarpley, R. (2003). How are earnings managed? Examples from auditors. Accounting Horizons, 17(Supplement), 17–35. CrossRef
Ng, T. B. P., & Tan, H. T. (2003). Effects of authoritative guidance availability and audit committee effectiveness on auditors’ judgments in an auditor-client negotiation context. The Accounting Review, 78(3, July), 801–818. CrossRef
Popova, V. 2012. Exploration of skepticism, client-specific experiences, and audit judgments. Working paper, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2008). Report on the PCAOB’s 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 inspections of domestic annually inspected firms. Release No. 2008-008. Washington, DC: PCAOB.
Quadackers, L. (2009). A study of auditors’ skeptical characteristics and their relationship to skeptical judgments and decisions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, VU University Amsterdam.
Quadackers, L., Groot, T., & Wright, A. (2011). Auditors’ skeptical characteristics and their relationship to skeptical judgments and decisions. Working paper, VU University Amsterdam and Northeastern University.
Rennie, M., Kopp, L., & Lemon, W. M. (2010). Exploring trust and the auditor-client relationship: Factors influencing the auditor’s trust of a client representative. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 29(May), 279–293. CrossRef
Rose, J. M. 2007. Attention to evidence of aggressive financial reporting and intentional misstatement judgments: Effects of experience and trust. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 19, 215–229.
Sanchez, M., Agoglia, C., & Hatfield, R. (2007). The effect of auditors’ use of reciprocity-based strategy on auditor-client negotiations. The Accounting Review, 82(2), 241–263. CrossRef
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress.
Schipper, K. (1989). Commentary on earnings management. Accounting Horizons, 3, 91–102.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). (2006). Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 108. http://www.sec.gov/interps/account/sab108.pdf.
Shaub, M., & Lawrence, J. (1996). Ethics, experience, and professional skepticism: A situational analysis. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 8(Supplement), 124–157.
Smith, J., & Kida, T. (1991). Heuristics and biases: Expertise and task realism in auditing. Psychological Bulletin, 109(3), 472–489. CrossRef
Trompeter, G. (1994). The effect of partner compensation schemes and generally accepted accounting principles on audit partner judgment. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 13(Fall), 56–68.
Trompeter, G., & Wright, A. 2010. The world has changed—have analytical procedure practices? Contemporary Accounting Research, 27(2), 669–700.
Trotman, K., Wright, A., & Wright, S. (2005). Auditor negotiations: An examination of the efficacy of intervention methods. The Accounting Review, 80(1), 349–367. CrossRef
Turner, L. (1999). Initiative for improving the quality of financial reporting. Insights: The Corporate & Securities Law Advisor, 13(4), 26–31.
Turner, L., & Goodwin, J. (1999). Auditing, earnings management, and international accounting issues at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Accounting Horizons, 13(3), 281–297. CrossRef
Wang, K. J., & Tuttle, B. (2009). The impact of auditor rotation on auditor-client negotiation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(2), 222–243.
Zhang, P. (1999). A bargaining model of auditor reporting. Contemporary Accounting Research, 16, 167–184. CrossRef
- Effects of Earnings Forecasts and Heightened Professional Skepticism on the Outcomes of Client–Auditor Negotiation
Helen L. Brown-Liburd
- Springer Netherlands
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta