Search

Copyright of Contemporary Accounting Research is the property of Canadian Academic Accounting Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Research indicates that auditors have an impoverished understanding of trial preparation factors that, independent of audit quality, can significantly elevate audit litigation risk. As the scholarly literature sheds little insight about the nature and implications of these factors, we identify what factors audit litigators consider in trial preparation, how they expect these factors to affect litigation outcomes, and how they attempt to leverage these factors. To do so, we interview 39 audit litigators, who identify factors germane to trial venues, jury pools, and case arguments. Guided by the elaboration likelihood model, we construct a framework that predicts these factors influence litigation outcomes by changing jurors' motivation and/or capability to elaborate. Importantly, we find that litigators who defend (sue) auditors strategically maneuver these factors to increase (decrease) the likelihood of higher juror elaboration, because higher elaboration is favorable to auditors. We discuss implications of our results for practice and research. JEL Classifications: K22; K40; K41; M4; M41; M42. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Contemporary Accounting Research is the property of Canadian Academic Accounting Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Contemporary Accounting Research is the property of Canadian Academic Accounting Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Contemporary Accounting Research is the property of Canadian Academic Accounting Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Contemporary Accounting Research is the property of Canadian Academic Accounting Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Contemporary Accounting Research is the property of Canadian Academic Accounting Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

We present new theory and experimental findings indicating that investors ascribe value to firms that use higher financial reporting quality (FRQ), controlling for the influence of higher FRQ on their estimates of these firms' fundamental value. To guide our investigation, we draw on the cooperation literature in accounting, finance, and psychology. We identify expanded audit reports, particularly auditor commentary, as a mechanism that credibly communicates whether a firm uses higher FRQ. Auditor commentary increases investors' willingness to pay (WTP)more for shares of a firm using higher FRQ than a competing firm using lower FRQ. We also provide process evidence that investors perceive higher FRQ as cooperative behavior by measuring their affective responses and cognitive beliefs, which mediate the influence of audit commentary on investors' increased WTP for higher FRQ. A second experiment bolsters the link between investors' affective and cognitive responses to a firm'sFRQand perceived cooperative behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the study of outcome effects in auditing wherein it uses a hypothesis consisting of conditions under which individuals' judgments of auditor negligence exhibit both outcome effects and reverse outcome bias. The study builds on accounting studies of outcome effects in judging audit quality using adverse outcomes. Bayesian probability of auditor negligence and the individuals' judgments are examined through experiments to acquire results. The experimental findings show outcome bias for relatively low Bayesian probabilities of auditor negligence and reverse outcome bias for relatively high individual Bayesian probabilities.

We experimentally examine determinants of the transferability and durability of an assurer's flagship-service reputation for competence in a multi-service context. Economic and psychology theories agree that transferability will increase when a new service and a flagship service require relatively similar, as opposed to relatively dissimilar, competencies. These theories disagree, however, regarding the durability of an assurer's flagship-service reputation following a performance failure in a new service. Economic theory requires some reciprocity for transferability and durability, and, accordingly, predicts that a new-service failure will inflict more damage on a flagship-service reputation when the new and flagship services require relatively similar, as opposed to relatively dissimilar, competencies. Psychology theory, in contrast, predicts that a new-service failure will tend not to damage the flagship-service reputation, even when the new and flagship services require relatively similar competencies. Thus, unlike economic theory, psychology theory predicts that relatively similar competencies between a new and a flagship service can improve the transferability of an assurer's flagship-service reputation for competence without reciprocally threatening its durability. Experimental findings indicate that reputation transferability increases when the new and flagship services require relatively similar, as opposed to relatively dissimilar, competencies. They also indicate that a new-service failure damages the flagship-service reputation only when, and to a greater degree when, the new and flagship services require relatively dissimilar, as opposed to relatively similar, competencies. Thus, empirically, greater similarity in the competencies required by a new and flagship service simultaneously enhances the transferability and durability of the assurer's flagship-service reputation. These empirical findings are better explained by psychology theory than by economic theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents a discussion of the paper "Audit Review: Managers' Interpersonal Expectations and Conduct of the Review." The author discusses some general aspects of the paper including possible biases due to problems associated with memory, the paper's discussion of manager styles and the complexities of real-time audit reviews. The author praises the paper for analyzing the characteristics that auditors associate with better reviewers as well as the examination of the interpersonal aspects of the auditor/reviewer structure.