Affiliation:
1. University of Texas at Austin.
2. Emory University.
3. The University of Texas at Austin.
Abstract
We conducted an experiment with 113 experienced auditors to examine the influence of two factors on the persuasiveness of a management-provided nonerror explanation for an unexpected fluctuation in revenue. We expected that auditors' evaluations of a management explanation would depend jointly on whether it is quantified (i.e., put into numbers) and the managers' incentives to manage earnings. Instead, we find that the persuasiveness of managers' explanations is determined solely by their incentives. Focus on managers' incentives is consistent with auditors attending to regulators ‘ recent concerns about earnings management. However, such a focus implies that when the likelihood of earnings management appears low, auditors fail to take into account information about sufficiency that is contained in the quantified explanation when they revise their planning judgments.
Publisher
American Accounting Association
Subject
Economics and Econometrics,Finance,Accounting
Reference32 articles.
1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2002. Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 99. New York, NY: AICPA.
2. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
3. Bear Stearns. 2000. Revenue recognition 101. Accounting Issues Report. March 10. New York, NY: Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.
Cited by
53 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献