Abstract ABSTRACT: A significant issue frequently raised in the accounting literature is whether judgments of auditors from large CPA firms vary substantially from those of auditors employed by regional or local firms. This issue has important implications as to the reliability of accounting reports and auditor independence. This article presents the results of an experiment comparing the disclosure attitudes of national and regional/local CPAs on two actual audit cases. Significant differences in preferences were found, with auditors from national firms favoring adjustment while those from smaller firms favored footnote disclosure. Participants demonstrated low consensus in their judgments, especially those from national firms. Reliance on environmental factors was found to vary significantly by CPA-firm size. However, there was no apparent pattern across cases. The perceived weighting on 'various decision factors was similar for both national and regional/local CPAs. The differences in disclosure preferences found should raise concerns for auditing policy-setting bodies. To the extent that preferences mirror reporting decisions, the differences found may result in substantial variations in accounting reports as a function of the size of the auditing firm involved.
Arnold Wright (Fri,) studied this question.