A Review of Experimental and Archival Conflicts-of-Interest Research in Auditing

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511610332.004

3 - A Review of Experimental and Archival Conflicts-of-Interest Research in Auditing

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 August 2010

Mark W. Nelson

Edited by

Don A. Moore ,

Daylian M. Cain ,

George Loewenstein and

Max H. Bazerman

Show author details

Mark W. Nelson: Affiliation:
Cornell University
Don A. Moore: Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University, Pennsylvania
Daylian M. Cain: Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University, Pennsylvania
George Loewenstein: Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University, Pennsylvania
Max H. Bazerman: Affiliation:
Harvard University, Massachusetts

Book contents

Get access

Summary

ABSTRACT

I review empirical (archival and experimental) accounting research that has addressed the issue of conflicts of interest, focusing on the audit setting that has received so much recent attention. I start with a brief discussion of the audit function and auditors' incentives, viewing auditors as weighing incentives that favor acceding to client demands against incentives that favor resisting client demands, and also as influenced by psychological and social aspects of audit settings. Then, I discuss various different research approaches to investigating conflicts of interest in this setting. The review is not intended to be exhaustive. Rather, I highlight key strengths and weaknesses of each approach and illustrate each approach with a representative study. I also discuss the main insights provided by each approach. I finish by relating the insights provided by different approaches and suggesting some directions for future research.

The general topic of conflicts of interest has been of particular recent concern in accounting and auditing. Large financial failures and accounting scandals suggest potential conflicts that have reduced the effectiveness of corporate governance, the reliability of financial statements, and ultimately investor confidence. Policy makers have responded with unusual speed by passing numerous new regulations, culminating in passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in July 2002. Yet, many of these regulatory changes have occurred without much consideration of evidence provided by the extant experimental and archival empirical research literatures.

Type: Chapter
Information: Conflicts of Interest
Challenges and Solutions in Business, Law, Medicine, and Public Policy
, pp. 41 - 69

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610332.004 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (1999). Audit Adjustments. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 89. New York: AICPA

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (2000). Audit Committee Communications. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 90. New York: AICPA

Antle, R. (1982). The auditor as an economic agent. Journal of Accounting Research, 20(2): 503–527CrossRef Google Scholar

Antle, R. (1984). Auditor independence. Journal of Accounting Research, 22(1): 1–20CrossRef Google Scholar

Antle, R., and Nalebuff, B. (1991). Conservatism and auditor-client negotiations. Journal of Accounting Research, 29 (supplement): 31–54CrossRef Google Scholar

Antle, R., Gordon, E. A., Narayanamoorthy, G., and Zhou, L. (2002). The joint determination of audit fees, non-audit fees, and abnormal accruals. Working paper, Yale University

Arens, A. A., Elder, R. J., and Beasley, M. S. (2002). Auditing and Assurance Services, An Integrated Approach. Prentice Hall

Ashbaugh, H., LaFond, R., and Mayhew, B. W. (2003). Do non-audit services compromise auditor independence? Further evidence. Working paper, University of Wisconsin–Madison

Bazerman, M. H., Morgan, K. P., and Loewenstein, G. F. (1997). The impossibility of auditor independence. Sloan Management Review (Summer): 89–94Google Scholar

Bazerman, M. H., Loewenstein, G. F., and Moore, D. A. (2002). Why good accountants do bad audits. Harvard Business Review (November): 97–102Google Scholar PubMed

Beattie, V., Brandt, R., and Fearnley, S. (1999). Perceptions of auditor independence: U.K. evidence. Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 8(1): 67–107CrossRef Google Scholar

Beeler, J. D., and Hunton, J. E. (2003). Contingent economic rents: Insidious threats to auditor independence. Working paper, Millsaps College

Bloomfield, R. J. (1995). Strategic dependence and inherent risk assessments. The Accounting Review, 70(1): 71–90Google Scholar

Bloomfield, R. J. (1996). The interdependence of reporting discretion and informational efficiency in labor markets. The Accounting Review, 71(4): 493–511Google Scholar

Braun, K. W. (2001). The disposition of audit-detected misstatements: An examination of risk and reward factors and aggregation effects. Contemporary Accounting Research, 18(1): 71–99CrossRef Google Scholar

Butler, M. B., Leone, A. J., and Willenborg, M. (2002). An empirical analysis of auditor reporting and its association with abnormal accruals. Working paper, University of Rochester

Calegari, M. J., Schatzberg, J. W., and Sevcik, G. R. (1998). Experimental evidence of differential auditor pricing and reporting strategies. The Accounting Review 73(2): 254–275Google Scholar

Chung, H., and Kallapur, S. (2003). Client importance, non-audit services, and abnormal accruals. The Accounting Review 78(4): 931–955CrossRef Google Scholar

Cuccia, A. D., Hackenbrack, K. and Nelson, M. W. (1995). The ability of professional standards to mitigate aggressive reporting. The Accounting Review 70(2): 227–248Google Scholar

DeAngelo, L. E. (1981). Auditor independence, “low balling,” and disclosure regulation. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3(2): 113–127CrossRef Google Scholar

DeFond, M. L., Raghunandan, K., and Subramanyam, K. R. (2002). Do non-audit service fees impair auditor independence? Evidence from going concern audit opinions. Working paper, University of Southern California

Dopuch, N., and King, R. R. (1991). The impact of MAS on auditors independence – An experimental markets study. Journal of Accounting Research, 29: 60–98CrossRef Google Scholar

Dopuch, N., and King, R. R. (1996). The effects of lowballing on audit quality: An experimental markets study. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance: 45–68CrossRef Google Scholar

Dopuch, N., King, R. R., and Schatzberg, J. W. (1994). An experimental investigation of alternative damage-sharing liability regimes with an auditing perspective. Journal of Accounting Research, 32: 103–130CrossRef Google Scholar

Dopuch, N., King, R. R., and Schwartz, R. (2001). An experimental investigation of retention and rotation requirements. Journal of Accounting Research, 39(1): 93–117CrossRef Google Scholar

Farmer, T. A., Rittenberg, L. E., and Trompeter, G. M. (1987). An investigation of the impact of economic and organizational factors on auditor independence. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 7 (1): 1–14Google Scholar

Fellingham, J. C., and Newman, D. P. (1985). Strategic considerations in auditing. The Accounting Review, 60(4): 634–650Google Scholar

Frankel, R. M., Johnson, M. F., and Nelson, K. K. (2002). The relation between auditors' fees for non-audit services and earnings management. The Accounting Review, 77: 71–105CrossRef Google Scholar

Gibbins, M., and Salterio, S. (2002). Modeling the auditor's intended strategy in auditor-client negotiation. Working paper, University of Alberta and University of Waterloo

Gibbins, M., Salterio, S., and Webb, A. (2001). Evidence about auditor-client management negotiation concerning client's financial reporting. Journal of Accounting Research, 39(3): 534–563CrossRef Google Scholar

Goldman, A., and Barlev, B. (1974). The auditor-firm conflict of interests: Its implications for independence. The Accounting Review, 49(4): 707–718Google Scholar

Hackenbrack, K., and Nelson, M. W. (1996). Auditors' incentives and their application of financial accounting standards. The Accounting Review, 71(1): 43–59Google Scholar

Hronsky, J. J. F., and Houghton, K. A. (2001). The meaning of a defined accounting concept: Regulatory changes and the effect on auditor decision making. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26 (2): 123–139CrossRef Google Scholar

Johnstone, K. M., Sutton, M. H., and Warefield, T. D. (2001). Antecedents and consequences of independence risk: Framework for analysis. Accounting Horizons, 15(1): 1–18CrossRef Google Scholar

Jones, J. J. (1991). Earnings management during import relief investigations. Journal of Accounting Research, 29 (Autumn): 193–228CrossRef Google Scholar

Kadous, K., Kennedy, J., and Peecher, M. E. (2003). The effect of quality assessment and directional goal commitment on auditors' acceptance of client-preferred accounting methods. Working paper, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

King, R. R. (1996). Reputation formation for reliable reporting: An experimental investigation. The Accounting Review, 71(3): 375–396Google Scholar

King, R. R. (2002). An experimental investigation of self-serving biases in an auditing trust game: The effect of group affiliation. The Accounting Review, 77 (2): 265–284CrossRef Google Scholar

Kinney, W. R. (2000). Information Quality Assurance and Internal Control for Management Decision Making. McGraw-Hill

Kinney, W. R., and Libby, R. (2002). Discussion of the relation between auditors' fees for non-audit services and earnings management. The Accounting Review, 77: 107–114CrossRef Google Scholar

Kinney, W. R., and Martin, R. D. (1994). Does auditing reduce bias in financial reporting? A review of audit related adjustment studies. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 13(1): 149–156Google Scholar

Kinney, W. R., Palmrose, Z. V., and Scholz. S. (2003). Auditor independence and non-audit services: What do restatements suggest? Working paper, University of Texas at Austin

Kunda, Z. (1990). The Case for Motivated Reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3): 480–498CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Larcker, D. F., and Richardson, S. A. (2003). Corporate governance, fees for non-audit services and accrual choices. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania

Lewis, B. L. (1980). Expert judgment in auditing: An expected utility approach. Journal of Accounting Research, 18 (2): 594–602CrossRef Google Scholar

Libby, R., and Kinney, W. R. (2000). Does mandated audit communication reduce opportunistic corrections to manage earnings to forecasts?The Accounting Review, 75(4): 383–404CrossRef Google Scholar

Libby, R., and Trotman, K. T. (1993). The review process as a control for differential recall of evidence in auditor judgments. Accounting Organizations and Society, 18(6): 559–574CrossRef Google Scholar

Libby, R., Bloomfield, R., and Nelson, M. (2002). Experimental research in financial accounting. Accounting Organizations and Society, 27 (8): 775–810CrossRef Google Scholar

Magee, R. P., and Tseng, M. C. (1990). Audit pricing and independence. The Accounting Review, 65(2): 315–336Google Scholar

Mayhew, B. W. (2001). Auditor reputation building. Journal of Accounting Research, 39(3): 599–617CrossRef Google Scholar

Mayhew, B. W., Schatzberg, J. W., and Sevcik, G. R. (2001). The effect of accounting uncertainty and auditor reputation on auditor objectivity. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory: 49–70CrossRef Google Scholar

Moore, D. A., Loewenstein, G., Tanlu, L., and Bazerman. M. H. (2003). Auditor independence, conflict of interest, and the unconscious intrusion of bias. Working paper, Carnegie Mellon University

Neale, M. A., and Bazerman, M. H. (1991). Cognition and rationality in negotiation. The Free Press

Nelson, M. W. (2003). Behavioral evidence on the effects of principles- and rules-based standards. Accounting Horizons, 17(1): 91–104CrossRef Google Scholar

Nelson, M. W., Elliott, J. A., and Tarpley, R. L. (2002). Evidence from auditors about managers' and auditors' earnings management decisions. The Accounting Review, 77 (Quality of Earnings Conference Issue): 175–202CrossRef Google Scholar

Nelson, M. W., Elliott, J. A., and Tarpley, R. L. (2003). How are earnings managed? Examples from auditors. Accounting Horizons, 17 (Supplement): 17–35CrossRef Google Scholar

Nelson, M. W., and Kinney, W. R. (1997). The effect of ambiguity on auditors' loss contingency reporting judgments. The Accounting Review 72 (2): 257–274Google Scholar

Nelson, M. W., Smith, S. D., and Palmrose, Z.-V. (2003). Quantitative materiality perspectives and auditors' disposition of detected misstatements. Working paper, Cornell University

Nichols, D. R., and Price, K. H. (1976). The auditor-firm conflict: An analysis using concepts of exchange theory. The Accounting Review, 51(2): 335–346Google Scholar

Ng, T. B., and Tan, H. T. (2003). Effects of authoritative guidance availability and audit committee effectiveness on auditors' judgments in an auditor-client negotiation context. Working paper, Nanyang Technological University

Ponemon, L. A. (1995). The objectivity of accountants litigation support judgments. The Accounting Review, 70(3): 467–488Google Scholar

Russo, J. E., Medvec, V. H., and Meloy, M. G. (1996). The distortion of information during decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66(1): 102–110CrossRef Google Scholar

Russo, J. E., Meloy, M. G., and Medvec, V. H. (1998). Predecisional distortion of product information. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(4): 438–452CrossRef Google Scholar

Russo, J. E., Meloy, M. G., and Wilks, T. J. (2000). Predecisional distortion of information by auditors and salespersons. Management Science, 46(1): 13–27CrossRef Google Scholar

Salterio, S., and Koonce, L. (1997). The persuasiveness of audit evidence: The case of accounting policy decisions. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (6): 573–587CrossRef Google Scholar

Schatzberg, J. W., and Sevcik, G. (1994). A multi-period model and experimental evidence of independence and “lowballing.”Contemporary Accounting Research, 11 (Summer): 137–174CrossRef Google Scholar

Solomon, I., Rich, J. S., and Trotman, K. T. (1997). The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(5): 481–505Google Scholar

Teoh, S. H. (1992). Auditor independence, dismissal threats, and the market reaction to auditor switches. Journal of Accounting Research, 30(1): 1–23CrossRef Google Scholar

Thompson, L. (2001). The mind and heart of the negotiator. Prentice Hall

Trompeter, G. (1994). The effect of partner compensation schemes and generally accepted accounting principles on audit partner judgment. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 13: 56–71Google Scholar

Trotman, K., Wright, A., and Wright, S. (2002). Auditor negotiations: An examination of the efficacy of intervention methods. Working paper, University of New South Wales

Wilks, T. J. (2002). Predecisional distortion of evidence as a consequence of real-time audit review. The Accounting Review 77 (1): 51–71CrossRef Google Scholar

Wright, S., and Wright, A. M. (1997). The effect of industry experience on hypothesis generation and audit planning decisions. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 9: 273–294Google Scholar