REFERENCES
Brazel
J.
,
Agoglia
C.
, and
Hatfield
R.
2004
. Electronic versus face-to-face review: The effects of alternative forms of review on auditors’ performance
. The Accounting Review
79
(4
): 949
–966
.Chi
W.
,
Huang
H.
,
Liao
Y.
, and
Xie
H.
2009
. Mandatory audit partner rotation, audit quality and market perception: Evidence from Taiwan
. Contemporary Accounting Research
26
(2
): 359
–391
.DeFond
M. L.
, and
Subramanyam
K. R.
1998
. Auditor changes and discretionary accruals
. Journal of Accounting and Economics
25
(1
): 35
–67
.DeZoort
T.
,
Harrison
P.
, and
Taylor
M.
2006
. Accountability and auditors’ materiality judgments: The effects of differential pressure strength on conservatism, variability, and effort
. Accounting, Organizations and Society
31
(4–5
): 373
–390
.Eichenseher
J. W.
,
Hagigi
M.
, and
Shields
D.
1989
. Market reaction to auditor changes by OTC companies
. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory
9
(1
): 29
–40
.Johnson
V. E.
, and
Kaplan
S. E.
1991
. Experimental evidence on the effects of accountability on auditor judgments
. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory
10
:
96
–107
.Kennedy
J.
1993
. Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: A framework and experimental results
. Journal of Accounting Research
31
:
231
–245
.Lobo
G.
, and
Zhou
J.
2006
. Did conservatism in financial reporting increase after the Sarbanes-Oxley Act? Initial evidence
. Accounting Horizons
20
(1
): 57
–73
.Menon
K.
, and
Williams
D.
1994
. The insurance hypothesis and market prices
. The Accounting Review
69
(2
): 327
–342
.Teoh
S.
, and
Wong
T.
1993
. Perceived auditor quality and the earnings response coefficient
. The Accounting Review
68
(2
): 346
–366
.
This content is only available via PDF.
American Accounting Association
2009
