IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/intjaf/v3y2011i1p87-107.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is there a difference between well-informed laypersons' and auditors' perceptions of auditor independence? Hong Kong evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Philip Law
  • Adrian Lei

Abstract

Perceptions of auditor independence have become fundamental to public confidence in financial reporting and audit assurances. The lack of research on this issue in the Hong Kong auditing environment motivates the empirical study. The enactment of appropriate auditing standards in the marketplace could suitably serve the public interest and regulate the profession. Results show that provision of non-audit services (NAS) and high competition could have a negative affect on perceptions of independence. There is no difference in perception ratings between CPA-certified auditors and trainee auditors. Auditors perceive that NAS provision has a significantly more adverse influence on independence than laypersons do. Results imply that the theory of audit expectation gap still exists in the post-Enron audit environment. The Hong Kong regulatory body should consider professional reforms, such as the prohibition of NAS. Internationally, the study would be of interest to those doing business in China and Hong Kong.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip Law & Adrian Lei, 2011. "Is there a difference between well-informed laypersons' and auditors' perceptions of auditor independence? Hong Kong evidence," International Journal of Accounting and Finance, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(1), pages 87-107.
  • Handle: RePEc:ids:intjaf:v:3:y:2011:i:1:p:87-107
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=42222
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:intjaf:v:3:y:2011:i:1:p:87-107. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=231 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.