Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
(1985)
Accountants aim to prevent audit failure
M. Gietzmann, R. Quick (1998)
Capping auditor liability: The German experienceAccounting Organizations and Society, 23
(1977)
Uncovering corporate irregularities: are we closing the expectation gap
(1992)
Closing the expectations gap
(1995)
Audit research in Europe. International Audit Judgment Symposium
S. Kaplan, Philip Reckers, K. Reynolds (1986)
An application of attribution and equity theories to tax evasion behaviorJournal of Economic Psychology, 7
T. Mitchell, R. Wood (1980)
Supervisor's responses to subordinate poor performance: A test of an attributional model☆Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25
(1997)
Tide turning for auditors
W. Waller, William Felix (1989)
AUDITORS' CAUSAL JUDGMENTS: EFFECTS OF FORWARD VS BACKWARD INFERENCE ON INFORMATION PROCESSING.Accounting Organizations and Society, 14
A. Eilifsen (1998)
Auditing regulation and the statutory auditor's responsibilities in NorwayEuropean Accounting Review, 7
Washington 0.C, Falph Reaula, N. Mineta, Lee Panetta, E. Bethune (1984)
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
(1987)
Litigation and independent auditors : the role of business failures and management fraud
(1996)
Auditors’ criminal liability: another approach
(1997)
Auditors’ liability and the purchase of shares
(1993)
A Re-examination of the concept of materiality: views of auditors, users, and officers of the court
D. Hirst (1994)
Auditors Sensitivity To Source ReliabilityJournal of Accounting Research, 32
(1981)
Are auditors sufficiently regressive
(1994)
A comparison of auditors’ legal liability in the United States and in Europe
H. Willekens (1995)
Joint liability of auditors and directors, statutory audit requirements and demand for external audit services: A micro-economic analysis
L. Aiken, Stephen West (1991)
Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions
(1997)
Auditor’s liability in negligence to third party lender
(1986)
Extension of remarks on the Financial Fraud and Disclosure Act
(1984)
An analysis of the factors associated with lawsuits against public accountants
A. Schilder (1996)
Research opportunities in auditing in the European UnionAccounting Horizons, 10
S. Kaplan, Philip Reckers, S. Roark (1988)
An attribution theory analysis of tax evasion related judgmentsAccounting Organizations and Society, 13
(1980)
The effect of gifts, discounts, and client size on perceived auditor independence
(1994)
The effects of source-competence information and its timing on auditors’ performance of analytical procedures
(1996)
The role, position, and liability of the statutory auditor within the European Union
Law. What liability crisis? CA Magazine
K. Merchant (1987)
Fraudulent and Questionable Financial Reporting: A Corporate Perspective
C. Arrington, C. Bailey, W. Hopwood (1985)
An Attribution Analysis Of Responsibility Assessment For Audit PerformanceJournal of Accounting Research, 23
Andrew Pincus (1996)
The Reform Act: What CPAs Should KnowJournal of accountancy, 182
W. Knechel, William Messier (1990)
Sequential auditor decision making: Information search and evidence evaluation*Contemporary Accounting Research, 6
Andrea Andrews, G. Simonetti (1996)
Tort Reform RevolutionJournal of accountancy, 182
(1989)
The report of the commission to Study the Public’s Expectations of Audits: a commentary
Sue McKinley, K. Pany, Philip Reckers (1985)
An Examination Of The Influence Of Cpa Firm Type, Size, And Mas Provision On Loan Officer Decisions And PerceptionsJournal of Accounting Research, 23
A vital concern to the international auditing community is the litigation risk created by the ‘expectations gap’, the existence of potential differences between societal views of the scope of auditor responsibility and those of audit professionals. The focus of this study is to investigate the role that factors identified as important in professional audit standards and in the international press play in attributions of auditor responsibility in two important audit contexts: fraud and going concern. With respect to fraud detectability, the factors investigated were collusion and materiality, while those factors related to going concern predictability were evidence reliability and timing of unpredicted events. US auditors and practicing judges participated in the study. Consistent with expectations, the results indicate that auditors' attributions of responsibility were significantly affected by the detectability and predictability variables examined. The effect of the factors on judges' attributions of auditor responsibility was moderated by their general attitudes toward the auditing profession. Specifically, in the absence of mitigating factors, judges with unfavorable attitudes made greater responsibility assessments than those with favorable attitudes. However, in the presence of mitigating factors such as collusion or when the time period between the audit opinion date and bankruptcy was long, judges with unfavorable attitudes made significantly lower responsibility assessments. Lastly, while evidence reliability and materiality significantly affected auditors' attributions, they did not play a role in the attributions of the judges.
International Journal of Auditing – Wiley
Published: Nov 1, 1998
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.