Reviewers' responses to expectations about the client and the preparer

Accounting Review

Volumn 79, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 497-517

  Rich, Jay S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Cognition; Elaboration; Preparer; Review process; Reviewer

Indexed keywords

EID: 2442687793     PISSN: 00014826     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/accr.2004.79.2.497     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1979. Systems of Quality Control for a CPA Firm. Statement of Quality Control Standards No. 1. As cited in Journal of Accountancy (149): 103-104.
2. _. 2002. Proposed Statement on Auditing Standards: Understanding the Entity and Its Environment and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement. New York, NY: AICPA.
3. Asare, S., and L. S. McDaniel. 1996. The effects of familiarity with the preparer and task complexity on the effectiveness of the audit review process. The Accounting Review 71 (April): 139-160.
4. Ashton, R. 1992. Effects of justification and a mechanical aid on judgment performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 52 (July): 292-306.
5. Bamber, E. M. 1983. Expert judgment in the audit team: A source reliability approach. Journal of Accounting Research 21 (Autumn): 396-412.
6. _, L. Bamber, and J. Bylinski. 1988. A descriptive study of audit managers' working paper review. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 7 (Spring): 137-149.
7. Baron, R., and D. Kenny. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (December): 1173-1182.
8. Brickner, M. A., S. G. Harkins, and T. M. Ostrom. 1986. Effects of personal involvement: Thought-provoking implications for social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (October): 763-770.
9. Cacioppo, J., and R. Petty. 1981. Social psychological procedures for cognitive response assessment: The thought-listing technique. In Cognitive Assessment, edited by T. Merluzzi, C. Glass, and M. Genest. New York, NY: Guilford.
10. Friedlan, J. M. 1994. Accounting choices of issuers of initial public offerings. Contemporary Accounting Research 11 (Summer): 1-31.
11. Gibbins, M., and C. Emby. 1984. Evidence on the nature of professional judgment in public accounting. In Auditing Research Symposium 1984, edited by A. R. Abdel-khalik, and I. Solomon, 181-212. Champaign, IL: College of Commerce and Business Administration.
12. _, and K. Jamal. 1993. Problem-centered research and knowledge-based theory in the professional accounting setting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 18 (July): 451-466.
13. _, and K. Trotman. 2002. Audit review: Managers' interpersonal expectations and conduct of the review. Contemporary Accounting Research 19 (Fall): 411-444.
14. Greenwald, A. G. 1968. Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. In Psychological foundations of attitudes, edited by A. Greenwald, T. Brock, and T. Ostrom, 148-170. New York, NY: Academic Press.
15. Hirst, D. E., and L. Koonce. 1996. Audit analytical procedures. Contemporary Accounting Research 13 (Fall): 457-486.
16. Hogarth, R. M. 1991. A perspective on cognitive research in accounting. The Accounting Review 66 (April): 277-290.
17. Ismail, Z., and K. Trotman. 1995. The impact of the review process in hypothesis generation tasks. Accounting, Organizations and Society 20 (July): 345-357.
18. Kennedy, J., and M. Peecher. 1997. Judging auditors' technical knowledge. Journal of Accounting Research 35 (Autumn): 279-293.
19. Kinney, W. R., Jr. 1987. Attention directing analytical review using accounting ratios: A case study. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 6 (Spring): 59-73.
20. _, and R. Martin. 1994. Does auditing reduce bias in financial reporting? A review of audit related adjustment studies. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 13 (Spring): 149-156.
21. Kline, R. B. 1998. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
22. Koonce, L. 1992. Explanation and counterexplanation during audit analytical review. The Accounting Review 67 (January): 59-76.
23. Lerner, J., and P. Tetlock. 1999. Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin 125 (March): 255-275.
24. Libby, R., and K. Trotman. 1993. The review process as a control for differential recall of evidence in auditor judgments. Accounting, Organizations and Society 18 (June): 559-574.
25. Mautz, R., and H. Sharaf. 1961. The Philosophy of Auditing. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.
26. Maxwell, S., and H. Delaney. 1999. Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A Model Comparison Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
27. Neter, J., W. Wasserman, and M. Kutner. 1985. Applied Linear Statistical Models: Regression, Analysis of Variance and Experimental Designs. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
28. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. 1976. Research Opportunities in Auditing. New York, NY: Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
29. Peecher, M. 1996. The influence of auditors' justification processes on their decisions: A cognitive model and experimental evidence. Journal of Accounting Research 34 (Spring): 125-140.
30. Petty, R., and J. Cacioppo. 1979. Issue-involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (October): 1915-1926.
31. _, and _. 1981. Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers.
32. _, and _. 1986. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
33. Phillips, F. 1999. Auditor attention to and judgments of aggressive financial reporting. Journal of Accounting Research 37 (Spring): 167-190.
34. Rich, J. S., I. Solomon, and K. Trotman. 1997a. The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (July): 481-505.
35. _, _, and _. 1997b. Multi-auditor judgment/decision making research: A decade later. Journal of Accounting Literature 16: 86-126.
36. Sprinkle, G., and R. Tubbs. 1998. The effects of audit risk and information importance on auditor memory during working paper review. The Accounting Review 73 (October): 475-502.
37. Stokes, M. E., C. S. Davis, and G. G. Koch. 2000. Categorical Data Analysis Using the SAS System. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
38. Tan, H., and K. Jamal. 2001. Do auditors objectively evaluate their subordinates' work? The Accounting Review 76 (January): 99-110.
39. Tetlock, P. 1983. Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 (July): 74-83.
40. _, L. Skitka, and R. Boettger. 1989. Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: Conformity, complexity, and bolstering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (October): 632-640.