Do changes in audit actions and attitudes consistent with increased auditor scepticism deter aggressive earnings management? An experimental investigation

Accounting, Organizations and Society

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 95-115

  Chen, Qiu ^a   Kelly, Khim ^b   Salterio, Steven E ^c  

^a CARLETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

^c QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84858296855     PISSN: 03613682     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2011.11.001     Document Type: Article

References (102)

1. American Accounting Association (AAA) (1973). A statement of basic auditing concepts (ASOBAC). Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.
2. Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) (2008). Report to the nation 2008. Austin, TX: ACFE.
3. Agoglia C.P., Brazel J.F., Hatfield R.C., Jackson S.B. How do audit workpaper reviewers cope with the conflicting pressures of detecting misstatements and balancing client workloads?. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 2010, 29(2):27-43.
4. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). Statements on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 1. Due professional care in the performance of work.
5. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). Statements on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 109. Understanding the entity and its environment and assessing the risks of material misstatement.
6. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). Statements on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 110. Performing audit procedures in response to assessed risks and evaluating the audit evidence obtained.
7. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) (1978). Commission on auditors' responsibilities. Report, conclusions and recommendations, New York, AICPA.
8. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). Statements on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 99. Consideration of fraud in a financial statement audit.
9. Albrecht W.S., Albrecht C.C., Albrecht C.O., Zimbelman M. Fraud examination 2009, South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH. 3rd ed.
10. Antle R., Nalebuff B. Conservatism and auditor-client negotiation. Journal of Accounting Research 1991, 29(Suppl.):31-54.
11. Asare S., Wright A. Hypothesis revision strategies in conducting analytical procedures. Accounting, Organizations and Society 1997, 22(8):737-755.
12. Auditing Research Foundation (1989). A framework for auditing research. London, Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
13. Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants and The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia (1994). A research study on financial reporting and auditing - Bridging the expectation gap.
14. Baiman S., Evans J.H., Noel J. Optimal contracts with a utility maximizing auditor. Journal of Accounting Research 1987, 25(2):217-244.
15. Baker S.R., Stephenson D. Prediction and control as determinants of behavioural uncertainty: Effects on task performance and heart rate reactivity. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science 2000, 35(4):235-250.
16. Becker G.S. Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy 1968, 78(2):169-217.
17. Bedard J.C., Mock T.J., Wright A.M. Evidential planning in auditing: A review of the empirical research. Journal of Accounting Literature 1999, 18:96-142.
18. Bell, T. B., Peecher, M. E., & Solomon, I. (2005). The strategic-systems approach to auditing. In T. Bell, & I. Solomon (Eds.), Cases in strategic systems auditing: KPMG and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Business Measurement Case Development and Research Program (pp. 1-34). KPMG LLP.
19. Bloomfield R. Discussion of an experimental investigation of auditor-auditee interaction under ambiguity. Journal of Accounting Research 1999, 37(Suppl.):157-165.
20. Buller D., Strzyzewski K., Comstock J. Interpersonal deception: I. Deceivers' reaction to receivers' suspicions and probing. Communication Monographs 1991, 58:1-24.
21. Burgoon J.K., Buller D.B., Dillman L., Walther J.B. Interpersonal deception IV. Effects of suspicion on perceived communication and nonverbal behaviour dynamics. Human Communication Research 1995, 22(2):163-196.
22. Burgoon J.K., Buller D.B., Ebesu A.S., White C.H., Rockwell P.A. Testing interpersonal deception theory: Effects of suspicion on communication behaviours and perceptions. Communication Theory 1996, 6(3):243-267.
23. Carpenter T. Audit team brainstorming, fraud risk identification, and fraud risk assessment: Implications of SAS No. 99. The Accounting Review 2007, 82(5):1119-1140.
24. Carpenter, T., & Reimers, J. (2009). Professional scepticism: The effects of a partner's influence and the presence of fraud on auditors' fraud judgments and actions. Working paper.
25. Chung J., Monroe G.S. Exploring social desirability. Journal of Business Ethics 2003, 44:291-302.
26. Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) (1988). Report of the commission to study the public's expectations of audits (MacDonald Commission), Toronto, CICA.
27. Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) (2000). Audit enquiry: Seeking more reliable evidence from audit enquiry. Toronto, CICA.
28. Cohen J.R., Pant L.W., Sharp D.J. Measuring the ethical awareness and ethical orientation of Canadian auditors. Behavioral Research in Accounting 1996, 8(Suppl.):98-119.
29. Cohen J.R., Pant L.W., Sharp D.J. Project earnings manipulation: An ethics case based on agency theory. Issues in Accounting Education 2000, 15(1):89-104.
30. Cohen J.R., Pant L.W., Sharp D.J., Holder-Webb L. The effect of perceived fairness on opportunistic behavior. Contemporary Accounting Research 2007, 22(4):1119-1138.
31. Coughlan R., Connolly T. Investigating unethical decisions at work: Justification and emotion in dilemma resolution. Journal of Managerial Issues 2008, 20(3):348-365.
32. Davis D., Follette W.C. Rethinking the probative value of evidence: Base rates, intuitive profiling, and the " postdiction" of behaviour. Law and Human Behavior 2002, 26(2):133-158.
33. Decker S. Advertising against crime: The potential impact of publicity in crime prevention. Criminology & Public Policy 2003, 2(3):525-530.
34. Eagly A.H., Chaiken S. The psychology of attitudes 1993, Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich, Orlando, FL.
35. Eilifsen A., Messier W.F. The incidence and detection of misstatements: A review and integration of archival research. Journal of Accounting Literature 2000, 19:1-43.
36. Epley N., Dunning D. Feeling " holier than thou": Are self-serving assessments produced by errors in self- or social prediction?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2000, 79(6):861-975.
37. Fellingham J., Newman P. Strategic considerations in auditing. The Accounting Review 1985, 60(4):634-650.
38. Fellingham J., Newman P., Patterson E. Sampling information in strategic audit settings. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 1989, 8(2):1-21.
39. Fischer C.M., Wartick M., Mark M.M. Detection probability and taxpayer compliance: A review of the literature. Journal of Accounting Literature 1992, 11:1-46.
40. Fisher R.J. Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research 1993, 20(2):303-315.
41. Fisher R.J., Tellis G.J. Removing social desirability bias with indirect questioning: Is the cure worse than the disease?. Advances in Consumer Research 1998, 15(25):563-567.
42. Foglia W.D. Perceptual deterrence and the mediating effect of internalized norms among inner-city teenagers. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 1997, 34(4):414-442.
43. Glover S.M., Prawitt D.F., Schultz J.J., Zimbelman M.F. A test of changes in auditors' fraud-related planning judgments since the issuance of SAS No. 82. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 2003, 22(2):237-251.
44. Grillon C., Bass J.P., Lissek S., Smith K., Milstein J. Anxious responses to predictable and unpredictable aversive events. Behavioral Neuroscience 2004, 118(5):916-924.
45. Harding, N., & Wong, R. (2009). Evidentiary triangulation in an electronic audit workpaper environment. Working paper.
46. Hurtt, R. K., Eining, M., & Plumlee, D. (2009). Measuring professional skepticism to provide a link to skeptical behaviors. Working paper, Baylor University.
47. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). International standards of auditing (ISA) No. 200. Objective and general principles governing an audit of financial statements.
48. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). International standards of auditing (ISA) No. 240. The auditor's responsibility to consider fraud in an audit of financial statements.
49. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). International standards of auditing (ISA) No. 315. Understanding the entity and its environment and assessing the risks of material misstatement.
50. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). International standards of auditing (ISA) No. 330. Performing procedures in response to assessed risks.
51. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). International standards of auditing (ISA) No. 500. Audit evidence.
52. Jo M.S. Controlling social-desirability bias via method factors of direct and indirect questioning in structural equation models. Psychology and Marketing 2000, 17(2):137-148.
53. Kalbers L.P., Cenker W.J. Organizational commitment and auditors in public accounting. Managerial Auditing Journal 2007, 22(4):354-375.
54. Kizirian T., Mayhew B., Sneathen L.D. The impact of management integrity on audit planning and evidence. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 2005, 24(2):49-67.
55. Knapp C.A., Knapp M.C. The effects of experience and explicit fraud risk assessment in detecting fraud with analytical procedures. Accounting, Organizations and Society 2001, 26(1):25-37.
56. Knechel W., Salterio S., Ballou B. Auditing: Assurance and risk 2007, Cengage Learning, Florence, KY.
57. Kranacher M.J. The battle against fraud: Seeking the accounting profession's support. The CPA Journal 2006, 76(9):16-21.
58. Liu, G. (2011). Gathering evidence through enquiry: A process improvement focus. Ryerson University, Working paper.
59. Lochner L. Individual perceptions of the criminal justice system. American Economic Review 2007, 97(1):444-460.
60. Manfreda, K., & Vehovar, V. (2002). Survey design features influencing response rates in web surveys. The international conference on improving surveys proceedings.
61. Marczewski D., Akers M. CPAs' perceptions of the impact of SAS 99. The CPA Journal 2005, 75(6):38-40.
62. Mautz R.K., Sharaf H.A. Monograph No. 6: The philosophy of auditing 1961, American Accounting Association, Madison, WI.
63. McCracken S., Salterio S., Gibbins M. Auditor-client management relationships and roles in negotiating financial reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 2008, 33(4/5):362-383.
64. McKee T.E. Increase your fraud auditing effectiveness by being unpredictable!. Managerial Auditing Journal 2006, 21(1/2):224-231.
65. Mendes S., McDonald M. Putting severity of punishment back in the deterrence package. Policy Studies Journal 2001, 29(4):588-610.
66. Mock T.J., Turner J.L. Auditor identification of fraud risk factors and their impact on audit programs. International Journal of Auditing 2005, 9:59-77.
67. Mock T.J., Wright A. An exploratory study of auditors' evidential planning judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 1993, 12(2):39-61.
68. Murphy K. Honesty in the workplace 1993, Brooks, Pacific Grove, LA.
69. Nagin D., Pogarsky G. Integrating celerity, impulsivity, and extralegal sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: Theory and evidence. Criminology 2001, 39(4):865-892.
70. Nelson M. A model and literature review of professional scepticism in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 2009, 28(4):1-34.
71. Panel on Audit Effectiveness (PAE) (2000). The panel on audit effectiveness: Report and recommendations. Stamford, CT: Public Oversight Board.
72. Paolillo J.G.P., Vitell S.J. An empirical investigation of the influence of selected personal, organizational and moral intensity factors on ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics 2002, 35(1):65-74.
73. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) (2007). PCAOB Release No. 2007-001 Observations on auditors' implementation of PCAOB standards relating to auditors' responsibilities with respect to fraud. Washington, DC: PCAOB (January 22).
74. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). Auditing Standard (AS) No. 13. The Auditor's Responses to the Risks of Material Misstatement.
75. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) (2008). Release PCAOB Release No. 2008-008: Report on the PCAOB's 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 inspections of domestic annually inspected firms. Washington, DC: PCAOB (December 5).
76. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) (2008). Release PCAOB Release No. 2008-006: Proposed auditing standards related to the auditor's assessment of and response to risk. Washington, DC: PCAOB (October 21).
77. Peecher M.E., Schwartz R., Solomon I. It's all about audit quality: Perspectives on strategic-systems auditing. Accounting, Organizations and Society 2007, 32:463-485.
78. Petty R.E., Wegner D.T., Fabrigar L. Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology 1997, 48:609-647.
79. Phillips F. Auditor attention to and judgments of aggressive financial reporting. Journal of Accounting Research 1999, 37(1):167-189.
80. Ramos M. Auditors' responsibility for fraud detection. Journal of Accountancy 2003, 195(1):28-35.
81. Reidenbach R., Robin D. Towards the development of a multidimensional scale for improving evaluation of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 1990, 9:871-879.
82. Rosenbaum P.R. The consequences of adjustment for a concomitant variable that has been affected by the treatment. Journal of Royal Statistical Society Series A (General) 1984, 147(5):656-666.
83. Rosenthal R., Rosnow R.L., Rubin D.R. Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research: A correlational approach 2000, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
84. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB): No. 99 - Materiality.
85. Scheider M. Deterrence and the base rate fallacy: An examination of perceived certainty. Justice Quarterly 2001, 18(1):63-86.
86. Schneider A., Wilner N. A test of audit deterrent to financial reporting irregularities using the randomized response technique. The Accounting Review 1990, 65(3):668-681.
87. Schonlau M., Fricker R.D., Elliott M.N. Conducting research surveys via e-mail and the web 2002, Rand Corporation, New York, NY.
88. Shaub M.K., Lawrence J.E. Ethics, experience and professional skepticism: A situational analysis. Behavioral Research in Accounting 1996, 8(Suppl.):124-157.
89. Shaub M.K., Lawrence J.E. A taxonomy of auditors' professional skepticism. Research on Accounting Ethics 2002, 8:167-194.
90. Sheehan K. E-mail survey response rates a review. Journal of Computer Mediated Communications 2001, 6(2):1201-1204.
91. Sherwood G.G. Self-serving biases in person perception: A re-examination of projection as a mechanism of defense. Psychological Bulletin 1981, 90(3):445-459.
92. Strelan P., Boeckmann R.J. Why drug testing in elite sport does not work: Perceptual deterrence theory and the role of personal moral beliefs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2006, 36(12):2909-2934.
93. Tourangeau R., Yan T. Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin 2007, 133(5):859-883.
94. Trevino L. Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review 1986, 11:601-617.
95. Trotman, K. T., & Wright, W. F. (2009). Triangulation of audit evidence in fraud risk assessments. Working paper.
96. Uecker W.C., Brief A.P., Kinney W.R. Perception of the internal and external auditor as a deterrent to corporate irregularities. The Accounting Review 1981, 56(3):465-478.
97. US Treasury Department (2008). Advisory committee on the auditing profession final report. US Government, Washington, DC.
98. Weick K.E., Sutcliffe K.M., Obstfeld D. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science 2005, 16(4):409-451.
99. Wells J.T. New approaches to fraud deterrence. Journal of Accountancy 2004, 197(2):72-76.
100. Wilks J., Zimbelman M.F. Decomposition of fraud risk assessments and auditors' sensitivity to fraud cues. Contemporary Accounting Research 2004, 21(3):719-745.
101. Zimbelman M.F. The effects of SAS No. 82 on auditors' attention to fraud risk factors and audit planning decisions. Journal of Accounting Research 1997, 35(Suppl.):75-97.
102. Zimbelman M.F., Waller W.S. An experimental investigation of auditor-auditee interaction under ambiguity. Journal of Accounting Research 1999, 37(Suppl.):135-155.