Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
This paper examines whether an appropriate legal system, which is a combination of a legal regime and a damage apportionment rule, effectively enhances auditor independence. Economic and psychological hypotheses derived from a one-period game model in which the auditor may commit either a technical audit failure (resulting from the auditor’s inability to detect true output given a lack of audit effort) or an independence audit failure (resulting from the auditor’s intentional misreporting on false output) are tested. Three major findings are documented. First, auditor independence affects firm investment, which in turn affects audit effort. Under this strategic dependence, no single legal system can provoke audit effort, improve auditor independence, and encourage firm investment simultaneously. To enhance auditor independence and motivate investment, a legal system consisting of both a strict regime and a proportionate rule is preferred. Second, the strict regime induces more auditor independence than the negligence regime, while the proportionate rule induces higher audit effort than the joint-and-several rule. Finally, auditors’ moral reasoning and penalty for misreporting are both positively associated with their independence. In addition, the effect of moral reasoning on auditor independence diminishes as the level of penalty increases. These two results hold only when the legal systems that auditors face are considered.
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. (1999). Auditing standards: Original pronouncements. New York: AICPA.
Bloomfield, R. J. (1997). Strategic dependence and the assessment of fraud risk: A laboratory study. The Accounting Review, 72(October), 517–538.
Bowie, N. E., & Duska, R. (1990). Business ethics (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Business Week. (2002). Accounting in crisis. Business Week, 28, 50–54.
Cushing, B. E. (1990). Discussion of auditor independence judgments: A cognitive-developmental model and experimental evidence. Contemporary Accounting Research, 7(Spring), 252–260. CrossRef
DeFond, M. L., & Francis, J. R. (2005). Audit research after Sarbanes—Oxley. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 24(Supplement), 5–30. CrossRef
Dopuch, N., Ingberman, D. E., & King, R. R. (1997). An experimental investigation of multi-defendant bargaining in ‘joint and several’ and proportionate liability regimes. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 23(3), 189–221. CrossRef
Dopuch, N., & King, R. R. (1992). Negligence versus strict liability regimes in auditing: An experimental investigation. The Accounting Review, 67(January), 97–120.
Dopuch, N., King, R. R., & Schatzberg, J. W. (1994). An experimental investigation of alternative damage-sharing liability regimes with an auditing perspective. Journal of Accounting Research, 32(Supplement), 103–139. CrossRef
Dopuch, N., King, R. R., & Schwartz, R. (2003). Independence in appearance and in fact: An experimental investigation. Contemporary Accounting Research, 20(Spring), 79–119. CrossRef
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall.
Falk, H., Lynn, B., Mestelman, S., & Shehata, M. (1999). Auditor independence, self-interested behavior and ethics: Some experimental evidence. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 18(Winter), 395–428. CrossRef
Fehr, E., & Falk, A. (2002). Psychological foundations of incentives. European Economic Review, 46(May), 687–724. CrossRef
Gaa, J. C. (1992). The philosophy and psychology of auditor independence and objectivity. In R. Srivastava (Ed.), The 1992 Deloitte & Touche University of Kansas symposium of auditing problems. Kansas: University of Kansas.
General Accounting Office. (1996, September). The accounting profession— major issues: Progress and concerns. Report to the Banking Minority Member, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Hillegeist, S. A. (1999). Financial reporting and auditing under alternative damage apportionment rules. The Accounting Review, 74(July), 347–369. CrossRef
Jones, S., & Ponemon, L. (1993). A comment on a multidimensional analysis of selected ethical issues in accounting. The Accounting Review, 68(April), 411–416.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit-seeking: Entitlements in the market. American Economic Review, 76(September), 728–741.
King, R. R. (2002). An experimental investigation of self-serving biases in an auditing trust game: The effect of group affiliation. The Accounting Review, 77(April), 265–284. CrossRef
King, R. R., & Schwartz, R. (1999). Legal penalties and audit quality: An experimental investigation. Contemporary Accounting Research, 16(Winter), 685–710. CrossRef
King, R. R., & Schwartz, R. (2000). An experimental investigation of auditors’ liability: Implications for social welfare and exploration of deviation from theoretical predictions. The Accounting Review, 75(October), 429–451. CrossRef
Kofman, F., & Lawarrée, J. (1993). Collusion in hierarchical agency. Econometrica, 61(May), 629–656. CrossRef
Kohlberg, L. (1958). The development of modes of moral thinking and choice in the years 10 to 16. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages essays on moral development (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Kreps, D. M. (1990). Game theory and economic modeling. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
Loewenstein, G. (1999). Experimental economics from the vantage point of behavioral economics. The Economic Journal, 109(February), F25–F43. CrossRef
Magee, R. P., & Tseng, M. C. (1990). Audit pricing and independence. The Accounting Review, 65(April), 315–336.
Mayhew, B. W., & Pike, J. E. (2004). Does investor selection of auditors enhance auditor independence? The Accounting Review, 79(July), 797–822. CrossRef
Narayanan, V. G. (1994). An analysis of auditor liability rules. Journal of Accounting Research, 32(Supplement), 39–64. CrossRef
Newman, D. P., Patterson, E., & Smith, R. (2001). The influence of potentially fraudulent reports on audit risk assessment and planning. The Accounting Review, 76(1), 59–80. CrossRef
Ponemon, L. A., & Gabhart, D. R. L. (1990). Auditor independence judgments: A cognitive-developmental model and experimental evidence. Contemporary Accounting Research, 7(Winter), 227–251. CrossRef
Ponemon, L. A. & Gabhart, D. R. L. (1994). Ethical reasoning research in the accounting and auditing professions. In J. R. Rest, & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics (pp. 101–119).
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Public Law No. 104–167. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Postconentional moral thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian approach. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ryan, R. G. (2004). SEC enforcement of auditor independence violations: Recent cases and developments. Securities Regulation Law Journal, 32(1), 178–193.
Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002. Public Law No. 107–204. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Schatzberg, J. W., Sevcik, G. R., Shapiro, B. P., Thorne, L., & Wallace, R. S. O. W. (2005). A reexamination of behavior in experimental audit markets: The effects of moral reasoning and economic incentives on auditor reporting and fees. Contemporary Accounting Research, 22(Spring), 229–264. CrossRef
Schwartz, R. (1997). Legal regimes, audit quality and investment. The Accounting Review, 72(July), 385–406.
Securities and Exchange Commission. (2000). Revision of the requirements on auditor independence. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Securities and Exchange Commission. (2003). Strengthening the commission’s requirements regarding auditor independence. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Smith, V. L. (1976). Experimental economics: Induced value theory. American Economic Review, 66(May), 274–279.
Spellmire, G., Baliga, W., & Winiarski, D. (1993). Accountants’ legal liability guide: Prevention and defense. New York: HBJ Publishers.
Windsor, C. A., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (1995). The effect of client management bargaining power, moral reasoning development, and belief in a just world on auditor independence. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(7/8), 701–720. CrossRef
- Legal systems and auditor independence
- Springer US
microm, Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© BBL, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Neuer Inhalt/© hww, Avaloq/© Avaloq Evolution AG, Avaloq/© Avaloq