Reducing management's influence on auditors' judgments: An experimental investigation of SOX 404 assessments

Accounting Review

Volumn 83, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 1461-1485

  Earley, Christine E ^a   Hoffman, Vicky B ^b   Joe, Jennifer R ^c  

^a PROVIDENCE COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^c GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Auditor curse of knowledge bias; Auditor judgment; Internal control assessments; Management's influence on auditors

Indexed keywords

EID: 59049103065     PISSN: 00014826     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/accr.2008.83.6.1461     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Anderson, U., and L. Koonce. 1995. Explanation as a method for evaluating client-suggested causes in analytical procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 14 (2): 124-132.
2. Antle, R. 1982. The auditor as an economic agent. Journal of Accounting Research 20 (2): 503-527.
3. Ashbaugh-Skaife, H., D. Collins, and W. Kinney. 2007. The discovery and reporting of internal control deficiencies prior to SOX-mandated audits. Journal of Accounting and Economics 44 (1/2): 166-192.
4. Ashton, R. H., and J. Kennedy. 2002. Eliminating recency with self-review: The case of auditors' 'going concern' judgments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15 (July): 221-231.
5. Banham, R. 2006. Party of three: Outside advisors leap in where auditors fear to tread. CFO 22: 56-64.
6. Barron, K. 2005. The New Auditing Environment. College of Business Communications Feature. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign.
7. BDO Seidman LLP Crowe Chizek and Company LLC, Deloitte & Touche LLP, Ernst & Young LLP, Grant Thornton LLP, Harbinger PLC, KPMG LLP, McGladry and Pullen LLP, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and W F. Messier, Jr. 2004. A framework for evaluating control exceptions and deficiencies (Version 3). White paper. New York, NY. Available at: http://www.kpmg.ca/en/services/audit/ documents/icofrframework.pdf.
8. Biggs, S., and J. Wild. 1985. An investigation of auditor judgment in analytical review. The Accounting Review 60 (October): 607-633.
9. Blay, A. D. 2005. Independence threats, litigation risk, and the auditor's decision process. Contemporary Accounting Research 22 (4): 759-789.
10. Camerer, C., G. Loewenstein, and M. Weber. 1989. The curse of knowledge in economic settings: An experimental analysis. The Journal of Political Economy ( October): 1232-1254.
11. Earley, C. E. 2001. Knowledge acquisition in auditing: Training novice auditors to recognize cue relation-ships in real estate valuation. The Accounting Review 76 (1): 81-97.
12. -. 2002. The differential use of information by experienced and novice auditors in the performance of ill-structured audit tasks. Contemporary Accounting Research 19 (4): 595-614.
13. -. 2003. A note on the use of self-explanation as a training tool for novice auditors: The effects of outcome feedback timing and level of reasoning on performance. Behavioral Research in Accounting 15: 111-124.
14. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 2006. Fair Value Measurements. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157. Stamford, CT: Financial Accounting Standards Board.
15. Fischhoff, B. 1977. Perceived informativeness of facts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Per-ception and Performance ( May): 349-358.
16. Frieswick, K. 2003. How audits must change. CFO 19 (9): 42-50.
17. Ge, W., and S. McVay. 2005. On the disclosure of material weaknesses in internal control after the SarbanesOxley Act. Working paper, University of Michigan.
18. Hackenbrack, K., and M. W. Nelson. 1996. Auditors' incentives and their applications of financial accounting standards. The Accounting Review 71 (January): 43-59.
19. Hobson, J. L., and S. J. Kachelmeier. 2005. Strategic disclosure of risky projects: A laboratory experiment. The Accounting Review 80 (July): 825-846.
20. International Audit Networks. 2006. Global capital markets and the global economy: A vision from the CEO's of the international audit networks. Available at: http:// www.globalpublicpolicysymposium.com.
21. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). 2008. Auditing Accounting Estimates, In-cluding Fair Value Accounting Estimates, and Related Disclosures. International Standard on Auditing 540, revised and redrafted. New York, NY: International Federation of Accountants.
22. Jenkins, K., and C. Haynes. 2003. The persuasiveness of client preferences: An investigation of the impact of preference timing and client credibility. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 22 (March): 143-154.
23. Jonas, G., A. Rosenberg, M. Doss, and G. Cihak. 2005. Section 404 reporting on internal control: Our early experience. Moody's Investor Service Special Comment (April).
24. Kadous, K., S. J. Kennedy, and M. Peecher. 2003. The effect of quality assessment and directional goal commitment on auditors' acceptance of client-preferred accounting methods. The Accounting Review 78 (July): 759-778.
25. Kaplan, S. E., E. O'Donnell, and B. Arel. 2008. The influence of auditor experience on the persuasiveness of information provided by management. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 27 (1): 67-84.
26. Kennedy, J. 1995. Debiasing the curse of knowledge in audit judgment. The Accounting Review 70 (April): 249-273.
27. Kinney, W., and W. Uecker. 1982. Mitigating the consequences of anchoring in auditor judgments. The Accounting Review 62 (January): 55-69.
28. -, R. Martin, and M. Shepardson. 2008. Integrated audits: Promise, pitfalls, and alternatives. Working paper, University of Texas.
29. Koonce, L. 1992. Explanation and counterexplanation during audit analytical review. The Accounting Review 67 (January): 59-76.
30. Kunda, Z. 1990. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 108 (3): 480-498.
31. McDaniel, L. S., and W. R. Kinney, Jr. 1995. Expectation-formation guidance in the auditor's review of interim financial information. Journal of Accounting Research 33 (1): 59-76.
32. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). 2004a. An Audit of Internal Control over Financial Reporting Performed in Conjunction with an Audit of Financial Statements. Auditing Standard No. 2. Washington, D.C.: PCAOB.
33. -. 2004b. Audit Documentation. Auditing Standard No. 3. Washington, D.C.: PCAOB.
34. -. 2007. An Audit of Internal Control over Financial Reporting that is Integrated with an Audit of Financial Statements. Auditing Standard No. 5. Washington, D.C.: PCAOB.
35. Renkl, A. 1997. Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science 21 (1): 1-29.
36. -, R. Stark, H. Gruber, and H. Mandl 1998. Learning from worked-out examples: The effects of example variability and elicited self-explanations. Contemporary Educational Psychology 23: 90-108.
37. Ricchiute, D. N. 1999. The effect of audit seniors' decisions on working paper documentation and on partners' decisions. Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (2): 155-171.
38. Salterio, S., and L. Koonce. 1997. The persuasiveness of audit evidence: The case of accounting policy decisions. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (6): 573-587.
39. U.S. House of Representatives. 2002. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Public Law 107-204 [H.R. 3763]. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.