The effect of accounting uncertainty and auditor reputation on auditor objectivity

Auditing

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 48-70

  Mayhew, Brian W ^a   Schatzberg, Jeffrey W ^b   Sevcik, Galen R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Auditing; Independence; Objectivity; Reputation

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040675560     PISSN: 02780380     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/aud.2001.20.2.49     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Antle, R. 1984. Auditor independence. Journal of Accounting Research 22 (Spring): 503-527.
2. Calegari, M., J. Schatzberg, and G. Sevcik. 1998. Experimental evidence of differential auditor pricing and reporting strategies. The Accounting Review 73 (April): 255-275.
3. DeAngelo, L. 1981a. Auditor independence, "low balling," and disclosure regulation. Journal of Accounting and Economics (August): 113-127.
4. _. 1981b. Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics (December): 183-200.
5. Dopuch, N., R. King, and D. Wallin. 1989. The use of experimental markets in auditing research: Some initial findings. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory 8 (Supplement): 98-127.
6. _, and _. 1991. The impact of MAS on auditors' independence: An experimental investigation. Journal of Accounting Research 29 (Supplement): 60-98.
7. _, _, and J. Schatzberg. 1994. An experimental investigation of alternative damage-sharing liability regimes with an auditing perspective. Journal of Accounting Research 32 (Supplement): 103-139.
8. _, and _. 1996. The effects of lowballing on audit quality: An experimental markets study. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance: 45-68.
9. _, _, and R. Schwartz. 1999. An experimental investigation of retention and rotation requirements. Working paper, Washington University.
10. Gietzmann, M., and P. K. Sen. 2000. Improving auditor independence through selective mandatory rotation. Working paper, University of Cincinnati.
11. Hackenbrack, K., and M. W. Nelson. 1996. Auditors' incentives and their application of financial accounting standards. The Accounting Review (January): 43-59.
12. Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA). 2000. A framework for independence and objectivity for the internal auditor. Working paper, IIA.
13. King, R. 1996. Reputation formation for reliable reporting: An experimental investigation. The Accounting Review 71 (July): 375-395.
14. Magee, R., and M-C. Tseng. 1990. Audit pricing and independence. The Accounting Review 65 (April): 315-336.
15. Mayhew, B. W. Auditor reputation building. Journal of Accounting Research (forthcoming).
16. Salterio, S., and L. Koonce. 1997. The persuasiveness of audit evidence: The case of accounting policy decisions. Accounting, Organizations and Society 6: 573-587.
17. Schatzberg, J. W., and G. Sevcik. 1994. A multi-period model and experimental evidence of independence and "lowballing." Contemporary Accounting Research 11 (Summer): 137-174.
18. Swieringa, R. J., and K. E. Weick. 1982. An assessment of laboratory experiments in accounting. Journal of Accounting Research 20 (Supplement): 56-101.
19. Teoh, S. 1992. Auditor independence, dismissal threats, and the market reaction to auditor switches. Journal of Accounting Research 30 (1): 1-23.