Antecedents and consequences of independence risk: Framework for analysis

Accounting Horizons

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 1-18

  Johnstone, Karla M ^a   Sutton, Michael H ^b   Warfield, Terry D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b The College of William and Mary   (United States)

Author keywords

Auditor; Conceptual framework; Independence risk

Indexed keywords

EID: 34948867491     PISSN: 08887993     EISSN: 15587975     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/acch.2001.15.1.1     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Advisory Panel on Auditor Independence. 1994. Strengthening the Professionalism of the Independent Auditor. Report to the Public Oversight Board of the SEC Practice Section, AICPA. Public Oversight Board (POB). Stamford, CT: POB. (September 13).
2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1972. Codification of Auditing Standards and Procedures. Statements on Auditing Standards No. 1. New York, NY: AICPA.
3. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1983. Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting an Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 47. New York, NY: AICPA.
4. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1999a. Audit Adjustments. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 89. New York, NY: AICPA.
5. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1999b. Audit Committee Communications. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 90. New York, NY: AICPA.
6. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2000. Quality of Accounting Principles-Guidance for Discussions with Audit Committees. Practice Alert 2000-2. (February). New York, NY: AICPA.
7. Antle, R., and B. Nalebuff. 1991. Conservatism and auditor-client negotiations. Journal of Accounting Research (Supplement): 31-59.
8. Blue Ribbon Committee. 1999. Report and Recommendations on Improving the Effectiveness of Corporate Audit Committees. New York, NY: The New York Stock Exchange and The National Association of Securities Dealers.
9. Braun, K. 2001. The disposition of audit detected misstatements: An examination of risk and reward factors and aggregation effects. Contemporary Accounting Research 18-1 (Spring).
10. Brown, P. R., J. A. Calderon. 1996. Heightened SEC disciplinary activity in the 1990s. The CPA Journal 66 (6): 55-58.
11. Brown, H. L., and K. M. Johnstone. 2000. Accountants' integrity, objectivity, and independence: Evidence from SEC enforcement actions. Working paper, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
12. Calegari, M. J., J. W. Schatzberg, and G. R. Sevcik. 1998. Experimental evidence of differential auditor pricing and reporting strategies. The Accounting Review (April): 255-275.
13. Colbert, J. L., M. S. Luehlfing, and C. W. Alderman. 1996. Engagement risk. The CPA Journal (March): 54-56.
14. Committe, B. E. 1989. Independence of accountants and legislative intent. Administrative Law Review (Winter): 33-59.
15. Davis, L. R., and D. T. Simon. 1992. The impact of SEC disciplinary actions on audit fees. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 11 (1): 58-68.
16. DeAngelo, L. E. 1981. Auditor independence, "low balling," and disclosure regulation. Journal of Accounting and Economics 3: 113-127.
17. Dhaliwal, D. S., J. W. Schatzberg, and M. A. Trombley. 1993. An analysis of the economic factors related to auditor-client disagreements preceding auditor changes. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Fall): 22-38.
18. Emerson, J. 1993. KPMG Peat Marwick: Setting the new practice framework standard. Professional Services Review (June): 1.
19. Flory, S. M., T. J. Phillips, R. E. Reidenbach, and D. P. Robin. 1992. A multidimensional analysis of selected ethical issues in accounting. The Accounting Review 67 (2): 284-302.
20. Gibbins, M., S. Salterio, and A. Webb. 2000. Evidence about auditor-client management negotiation concerning client's financial reporting. Working paper, University of Alberta.
21. Hackenbrack, K., and M. W. Nelson. 1996. Auditors' incentives and their application of financial accounting standards. The Accounting Review (January): 43-59.
22. Haynes, C. M., J. G. Jenkins, and S. R. Nutt. 1998. The relationship between client advocacy and audit experience: An exploratory analysis. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Fall): 88-104.
23. Houston, R. W., M. F. Peters, and J. H. Pratt. 1999. The audit risk model, business risk and audit-planning decisions. The Accounting Review 74 (July): 281-298.
24. Independence Standards Board (ISB). 1999. Independence Discussions with Audit Committees. Standard No. 1. New York, NY: ISB. (July 15).
25. Houston, R. W., M. F. Peters, and J. H. Pratt. 2000. A conceptual framework for auditor independence. Discussion Memorandum, DM 00-1. New York, NY: ISB. (February).
26. Johnstone, K. M., S. F. Biggs, and J. C. Bedard. 1996. Framing effects and output interference in a concurring partner review context. Proceedings of the 1996 Deloitte & Touche/University of Kansas Symposium on Auditing Problems. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.
27. Johnstone, K. M., S. F. Biggs, and J. C. Bedard. 2000. Client-acceptance decisions: Simultaneous effects of client business risk, audit risk, auditor business risk, and risk adaptation. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 19 (Spring): 1-26.
28. Johnstone, K. M., S. F. Biggs, and J. C. Bedard. 2000. Risk evaluation and risk adaptation in client acceptance decisions. Working paper, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
29. Johnstone, K. M., J. C. Bedard, and S. F. Biggs. 2000. Generating financial reporting alternatives: Enhancing and inhibiting roles of task knowledge and task environment. Working paper, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
30. Johnstone, K. M., J. C. Bedard, and S. F. Biggs. 2001. Engagement planning, bid pricing and client response in the market for initial attest engagements. The Accounting Review (forthcoming).
31. Kirk, D. J. 2000. Experiences with the Public Oversight Board and corporate audit committees. Accounting Horizons 14 (1): 103-111.
32. Koonce, L., U. Anderson, and G. Marchant. 1995. Justification of decisions in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research 33 (2): 369-384.
33. Krishnan, J., and J. Krishnan. 1996. The role of economic trade-offs in the audit opinion decision: An empirical analysis. Journal of Accounting, Auditing, & Finance (Fall): 565-587.
34. Levitt, A. 1998. The numbers game. Remarks at the New York University Center for Law and Business, New York, NY, September 28.
35. Levitt, A. 1999. Quality information: The lifeblood of our markets. Remarks at the Economic Club of New York, New York, NY, October 18.
36. Levitt, A. 2000a. Renewing the covenant with investors. Remarks at the New York University Center for Law and Business, New York, NY, May 10.
37. Levitt, A. 2000b. A profession at the crossroads. Remarks at the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy, Boston, MA, September 18.
38. Levitt, A. 2000c. The public's profession. Remarks at the Fall Council of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Las Vegas, NV, October 24.
39. Libby, R., and W. Kinney. 2000. Does mandated audit communication reduce opportunistic corrections to manage earnings to forecasts? The Accounting Review (October): 383-404.
40. Loeb, S. E. 1989. Ethics committees and consultants in public accounting firms. Accounting Horizons 3 (4): 1-10.
41. Magee, R., and M. Tseng. 1990. Audit pricing and independence. The Accounting Review (April): 315-336.
42. Mason, A., and M. Gibbins. 1991. Judgment and U.S. accounting standards. Accounting Horizons 5 (2): 14-24.
43. Matsumura, E. M., and R. R. Tucker. 1995. Second partner review: An analytical model. Journal of Accounting, Auditing, & Finance (Winter): 173-200.
44. Mayhew, B. W., J. W. Schatzberg, and G. R. Sevcik. 2000. The effect of accounting uncertainty and auditor reputation on auditor independence. Working paper, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
45. Moore, P. L. 2000. The PWC scandal changes everything. Business Week (February 28): 140-143. New York Times. 2000. S.E.C. inquiry on auditor role. (August 9).
46. Palmrose, Z-V. 1988. An analysis of auditor litigation and audit service quality. The Accounting Review (January): 55-73.
47. Peecher, M. 1996. The influence of auditors' justification processes on their decisions: A cognitive model and experimental evidence. Journal of Accounting Research 34 (1): 125-140.
48. Ponemon, L. A. 1990. Ethical judgments in accounting: A cognitive developmental perspective. Critical Perspectives on Accounting: 191-215.
49. Ponemon, L. A. 1992. Ethical reasoning and selection-socialization in accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 17 (3/4): 239-258.
50. Public Oversight Board (POB). 1999. Annual Report. Stamford, CT: POB.
51. Ponemon, L. A., Panel on Audit Effectiveness. 2000. Report and Recommendations. Stamford, CT: POB.
52. Rich, J. S., I. Solomon, and K. T. Trotman. 1997. The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (5): 481-505.
53. St. Pierre, K. 1984. Independence and auditor sanctions. Journal of Accounting, Auditing, and Finance (Spring): 257-263.
54. Salterio, S. 1994. Researching for accounting precedents: Learning, efficiency and effectiveness. Contemporary Accounting Research 11 (1): 515-542.
55. Salterio, S. 1996. Effect of precedents and client position on auditors' financial accounting policy judgment. Accounting, Organizations and Society 21 (5): 467-486.
56. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 1999a. Materiality. SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99. August 12. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office.
57. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 1999b. Revenue and Recognition in Financial Statements. SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 101. December 3. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office.
58. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2000a. Final Rule: Audit Committee Disclosure. January 31. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office.
59. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2000b. International Accounting Standards. SEC Concept Release. February 16. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office.
60. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2000c. Letter from the Chief Accountant: Issues Related to Independence/Quality Control to SEC Practice Section (III). May 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office.
61. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2000d. All Big 5 Accounting Firms Agree to Participate in Voluntary Program to Address Independence Violations. SEC Press Release 2000-77. June 7. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office.
62. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2000e. Final Rule: Revision of the Commission's Auditor Independence Requirements. November 21. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office.
63. Simunic, D. 1984. Auditing, consulting, and auditor independence. Journal of Accounting Research 22 (Autumn): 679-702.
64. Solomon, I., M. D. Shields, and O. R. Whittington. 1999. What do industry-specialist auditors know? Journal of Accounting Research (Spring): 191-208.
65. Sweeney, J. T., and R. W. Roberts. 1997. Cognitive moral development and auditor independence. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (3/4): 337-352.
66. Trompeter, G. 1994. The effect of partner compensation schemes and generally accepted accounting principles on audit partner judgment. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Fall): 56-68.
67. Turner, L. E. 2000. Shifting paradigms in self-regulation. Remarks at the 27th Anniversary Securities Regulation Institute. Coronado, CA, January 27.
68. United States v. Arthur Young & Co., et al. No. 82-687 (52 U.S.L.W 4355) (1984).
69. Wallman, S. M. H. 1996. The future of accounting, part III: Reliability and auditor independence. Accounting Horizons (December): 76-97.
70. Windsor, C. A., and N. M. Ashkanasy. 1995. The effect of client management bargaining power, moral reasoning development, and belief in a just world on auditor independence. Accounting, Organizations and Society 21 (7/8): 701-720.
71. Wright, A., and S. Wright. 1997. An examination of factors affecting the decision to waive audit adjustments. Journal of Accounting, Auditing, & Finance 12 (Winter): 15-36.
72. Zhang, P. 1999. A bargaining model of auditor reporting. Contemporary Accounting Research (Spring): 167-184.