Concession, Contention, and Accountability in Auditor-Client Negotiations

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study investigates how tactics employed by a client during negotiations impact experienced auditors' propensity to waive material adjustments and whether the salience of a strict concurring partner review affects the decision to waive. Different psychological theories predict that auditors may either become more contentious or more concessionary when facing a contentious client. Our results suggest that auditors are more likely to waive material adjustments when clients use contending tactics, but not concessionary tactics. However, we also find that making a strict concurring partner review salient reduces this propensity. Further, we find that a theory not previously applied to this line of research, the level-of-aspiration theory, may predict how auditors react. These results offer additional insights into auditor-client negotiations and reveal that existing quality controls can influence these negotiations.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 16 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.