An empirical assessment of attitudes toward audit opinions and attitudes toward audit reporting

An expectation gap has been a continual problem for the accounting profession for over twenty-five years. This study indicates the continued existence of the expectation gap and provides evidence that a person's knowledge about the audit process is a factor in this gap.

Data was collected from members of three groups involved with the flow of financial information: Certified Public Accountants, Commercial Loan Officers, and Corporate Controllers. The data collection instrument was a mailed questionnaire. An overall response rate of 45.7 percent was achieved. The Total Design Method developed by Dillman in 1978 contributed to this response rate.

The Fishbein expectancy value model was used to measure attitudes toward audit opinions and attitudes toward audit reporting in general. Then differences in attitudes between the groups were assessed. The groups had significantly different attitudes toward the unqualified audit opinion and toward audit reporting in general.

Next, knowledge of the audit process was added to the analysis as a covariate. Knowledge is a significant covariate with respect to attitude toward the unqualified audit opinion and attitude toward audit reporting in general. With the covariate (knowledge) included in the model the significant differences between the groups' attitudes toward the unqualified audit opinion ceased to exist. This finding coupled with the significance of the covariate indicates that knowledge of the audit process has an influence on an individual's attitude toward certain aspects of auditing.

The main conclusions include that the existence of the expectation gap will continue and that knowledge of the audit process does have an influence on attitudes.

The accounting profession has several options for addressing the problems created by the expectation gap. These include:

1. Better education regarding what the audit process is supposed to accomplish;

2. Better explanation in the audit opinion, especially in the unqualified audit opinion; and

3. A clear statement of the role and responsibilities of the auditor as determined through discussions with users of financial information.