Disclosure Checklists and Auditors’ Judgments of Aggressive Accounting

References

• Amir, E., Guan, Y., & Livne, G. (2010). Auditor independence and the cost of capital before and after Sarbanes-Oxley: The case of newly issued public debt. European Accounting Review, 19(4), 633–664. doi: 10.1080/09638180903503986
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asare, S., & Wright, A. (2004). The effectiveness of alternative risk assessment and program planning tools in a fraud setting. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21(2), 325–352. doi: 10.1506/L20L-7FUM-FPCB-7BE2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashbaugh, H., LaFond, R., & Mayhew, B. W. (2003). Do nonaudit services compromise auditor independence? Further evidence. The Accounting Review, 78(3), 611–639. doi: 10.2308/accr.2003.78.3.611
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babcock, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse: The role of self-serving biases. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(1), 109–126. doi: 10.1257/jep.11.1.109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babcock, L., Loewenstein, G., Issacharoff, S., & Camerer, C. (1995). Biased judgments of fairness in bargaining. American Economic Review, 85(5), 1337–1343.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Backof, A. G., Bamber, E. M., & Carpenter, T. D. (2016). Do auditor judgment frameworks help in constraining aggressive reporting? Evidence under more precise and less precise accounting standards. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 51, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2016.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, T. D. (2015). The effects of client identity strength and professional identity salience on auditor judgments. The Accounting Review, 90(1), 95–114. doi: 10.2308/accr-50863
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bazerman, M., Loewenstein, G., & Morgan, K. (1997). The impossibility of auditor independence. Sloan Management Review, 38(4), 89–94.
   Google Scholar
• Bazerman, M., Loewenstein, G., & Moore, D. (2002). Why good accountants do bad audits. Harvard Business Review, 80(11), 96–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bazerman, M., & Moore, D. (2011). Is it time for auditor independence yet? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(4–5), 310–312. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2011.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonner, S. E., Libby, R., & Nelson, M. (1996). Using decision aids to improve auditors’ conditional probability judgments. The Accounting Review, 71(2), 221–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchman, T., Tetlock, P., & Reed, R. (1996). Accountability and auditors’ judgments about contingent events. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 23(3), 379–398. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5957.1996.tb01128.x
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., Krishnamoorthy, G., & Wright, A. 2010. Corporate governance in the post-Sarbanes-Oxley era: Auditors’ experiences. Contemporary Accounting Research, 27(3), 751–786. doi: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.2010.01026.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collier, P., & Zaman, M. (2005). Convergence in European corporate governance: The audit committee concept. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13(6), 753–768. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2005.00468.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhaliwal, D. S., Lamoreaux, P. T., Lennox, C. S., & Mauler, L. M. (2015). Management influence on auditor selection and subsequent impairments of auditor independence during the post-SOX period. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(2), 575–607. doi: 10.1111/1911-3846.12079
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dowling, C., & Leech, S. (2007). Audit support systems and decision aids: Current practice and opportunities for future research. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 8(2), 92–116. doi: 10.1016/j.accinf.2007.04.001
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2011). Summary of responses. Green paper. Audit policy: Lessons from the crisis. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/docs/2010/audit/summary_responses_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Falk, H., Lynn, B., Mestelman, S., & Shehata, M. (1999). Auditor independence, self-interested behavior and ethics: Some experimental evidence. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 18, 395–428. doi: 10.1016/S0278-4254(99)00012-5
   Google Scholar
• Fiolleau, K., Hoang, K., Jamal, K., & Sunder, S. (2013). How do regulatory reforms to enhance auditor independence work in practice? Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(3), 864–890. doi: 10.1111/1911-3846.12004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gawande, A. (2009). The checklist manifesto: How to get things right. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Griffith, E. E., Hammersley, J. S., Kadous, K., & Young, D. (2015). Auditor mindsets and audits of complex estimates. Journal of Accounting Research, 53(1), 49–77. doi: 10.1111/1475-679X.12066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamilton, R., Vohs, K. D., Sellier, A. L., & Meyvis, T. (2011). Being of two minds: Switching mindsets exhausts self-regulatory resources. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(1), 13–24. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.11.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, V. B., & Patton, J. M. (1997). Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatism in auditors’ fraud judgments. Journal of Accounting Research, 35(2), 227–237. doi: 10.2307/2491362
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurtt, R. K., Brown-Liburd, H., Earley, C. E., & Krishnamoorthy, G. (2013). Research on auditor professional skepticism: Literature synthesis and opportunities for future research. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 32(Suppl. 1), 45–97. doi: 10.2308/ajpt-50361
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). (2014). International ethics standards board for accountants’ handbook of the code of ethics for professional accountants. New York, NY: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Jamal, K., & Tan, H. (2010). Joint effects of principles-based versus rules-based standards and auditor type in constraining financial managers’ aggressive reporting. The Accounting Review, 85(4), 1325–1346. doi: 10.2308/accr.2010.85.4.1325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kadous, K., Kennedy, S. J., & Peecher, M. E. (2003). The effect of quality assessment and directional goal commitment on auditors’ acceptance of client-preferred accounting methods. The Accounting Review, 78(3), 759–778. doi: 10.2308/accr.2003.78.3.759
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy, J. (1993). Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: A framework and experimental results. Journal of Accounting Research, 31(2), 231–245. doi: 10.2307/2491272
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, S., & Trotman, K. T. (2015). The comparative effect of process and outcome accountability in enhancing professional skepticism. Accounting and Finance, 55, 1015–1040. doi: 10.1111/acfi.12084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koch, C., Weber, M., & Wüstemann, J. (2012). Can auditors be independent? Experimental evidence on the effects of client type. European Accounting Review, 21(4), 797–823. doi: 10.1080/09638180.2011.629416
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kochetova-Kozloski, N., Messier, W. F. & Eilifsen, A. (2011). Improving auditors’ fraud judgments using a frequency response mode. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(3), 837–858. doi: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.2011.01067.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishnan, G. V., & Visvanathan, G. (2008). Does the SOX definition of an accounting expert matter? The association between audit committee directors’ accounting expertise and accounting conservatism. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(3), 827–858. doi: 10.1506/car.25.3.7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larrick, R. P. (2004). Debiasing. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 316–337). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Libby, R., Rennekamp, K. M., & Seybert, N. (2015). Regulation and the interdependent roles of managers, auditors and directors in earnings management and accounting choice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 47, 25–42. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2015.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, D., Tanlu, L., & Bazerman, M. (2010). Conflict of interest and the intrusion of bias. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(1), 37–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, M. (2009). A model and literature review of professional skepticism in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 28(2), 1–34. doi: 10.2308/aud.2009.28.2.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Donnell, E., & Schultz, J. J. (2005). The halo effect in business risk audits: Can strategic risk assessment bias auditor judgment about accounting details? The Accounting Review, 80(3), 921–939. doi: 10.2308/accr.2005.80.3.921
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Philips, F. (1999). Auditor attention to and judgments of aggressive financial reporting. Journal of Accounting Research, 37(1), 167–189. doi: 10.2307/2491402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piercey, M. D. (2011). Documentation requirements and quantified versus qualitative audit risk assessments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 30(4): 223–248. doi: 10.2308/ajpt-10171
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pincus, K. (1989). The efficacy of a red flags questionnaire for assessing the possibility of fraud. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 14(1–2), 153–163. doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(89)90039-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pomeroy, B., & Thornton, D. B. (2008). Meta-analysis and the accounting literature: The case of audit committee independence and financial reporting quality. European Accounting Review, 17(2), 305–330. doi: 10.1080/09638180701819832
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasso, J. T. (2015). Construal instructions and professional skepticism in evaluating complex estimates. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 46, 44–55. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2015.03.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sweeney, J. T., & Roberts, R. W. (1997). Cognitive moral development and auditor independence. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22(3–4), 337–352. doi: 10.1016/S0361-3682(96)00025-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 297–332.
   Google Scholar
• Trotman, K. T., Bauer, T. D., & Humphreys, K. A. (2015). Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 47, 56–72. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2015.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Windsor, C. A., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (1995). The effect of client management bargaining power, moral reasoning development, and belief in a just world on auditor independence. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(7–8), 701–720. doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(95)00018-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar