CONCURRING PARTNER REVIEW: DOES INVOLVEMENT IN AUDIT PLANNING AFFECT OBJECTIVITY?

Research in Accounting Regulation

Volumn 16, Issue C, 2003, Pages 185-195

  Schneider, Arnold ^a   Church, Bryan K ^a   Ramsay, Robert J ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645735475     PISSN: 10520457     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1052-0457(02)16011-5     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. AICPA, Division for CPA Firms SEC Practice Section (1986). SECPS manual. New York: AICPA.
2. Brockner, J. (1992). The escalation of commitment to a failing course of action: Toward theoretical progress. Academy of Management Review (January), 39-61.
3. Brody, R. G., & Kaplan, S. E. (1996). Escalation of commitment among internal auditors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (Spring), 1-15.
4. Church, B. K. (1991). An examination of the effect that commitment to a hypothesis has on auditors' evaluation of confirming and disconfirming evidence. Contemporary Accounting Research (Spring), 513-534.
5. Church, B. K., & Schneider, A. (1993). Auditor objectivity: The effect of prior involvement in audit programme design. Accounting and Finance (November), 61-78.
6. Dribbin, E., & Brabender, V. (1979). The effect of mood inducement upon audience receptiveness. Journal of Social Psychology (February), 135-136.
7. General Accounting Office (1996). The accounting profession. United States General Accounting Office.
8. Guy, D. M., Alderman, C. W., & Winters, A. J. (1990). Auditing. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
9. Jamal, K., Johnson, P. E., & Berryman, R. G. (1995). Detecting framing effects in financial statements. Contemporary Accounting Research (Fall), 85-105.
10. Johnson, P. E., Jamal, K., & Berryman, R. G. (1991). Effects of framing on auditor decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (October), 75-105.
11. Kalton G.J., and Schuman H. The effect of the question on survey responses: A review. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 145 1 (1982) 42-73
12. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin (November), 480-498.
13. Leuhlfing, M. S., Copley, P. A., & Shockely, R. A. (1995). An examination of the relationship between audit-related risks and the second partner review. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance (Winter), 43-70.
14. Matsumura, E. M., & Tucker, R. R. (1995). Second partner review: An analytical model. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance (Winter), 173-200.
15. Mautz, R. K., & Matusiak, L. W. (1988). Concurring partner review revisited. Journal of Accountancy (March), 56-63.
16. Public Oversight Board (1993). A special report by the Public Oversight Board of the SEC Practice Section, AICPA. Stamford, CT: Public Oversight Board.
17. Public Oversight Board (1999). Annual Report 1999. Stamford, CT: Public Oversight Board.
18. Sternthal, B., Dholakia, R., & Leavitt, C. (1978). The persuasive effect of source credibility: Tests of cognitive response. Journal of Consumer Research (March), 252-260.
19. Tan, H.-T. (1995). Effects of expectations, prior involvement, and review awareness on memory for audit evidence and judgment. Journal of Accounting Research (Spring), 113-135.
20. Treadway Commission (1987). Report of the National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting. National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting.
21. Tucker, R. R., & Matsumura, E. M. (1997). Second partner review: An experimental economics investigation. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Spring), 79-98.
22. Zajonc R. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9 2 Pt 2 (1968) 1-27
23. Zajonc R. Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist 36 (1980) 151-175