11 - Audit Fees and Investor Perception

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH IN ACCOUNTING
Vol. 25, No. 2

2013
pp. 7195
American Accounting Association

DOI: 10.2308/bria-50403
Audit Fees and Investor Perceptions of Audit

Characteristics
Allison K. Beck
The Florida State University
Robert M. Fuller
Leah Muriel
The University of Tennessee
Colin D. Reid
Northeastern University
ABSTRACT: We investigate how audit fee disclosures affect investor perceptions of audit
characteristics. We find evidence that when audit fees are presented to investors with
supplementary contextual information indicating that the fees are low, average, or high (as
compared to industry averages), investors perceive audit quality and auditor effort as being
low, average, or high, respectively. When not provided with any additional information
concerning the audit fee (similar to the present state of disclosures), investors assess audit
quality and auditor effort as being average. Surprisingly, we find that while investors
perceive auditor independence as low, average, and high when fees are presented as high,
average, or low, respectively, investors not provided with any relative fee information assess
auditor independence as low, similar to the investors who are presented with high relative
fees. This latter finding provides important insight regarding investors current perceptions of
auditor independence, particularly in the absence of relative or comparative audit fee
information.
Keywords: audit fees; disclosure; investor perception.

Data Availability: Contact the authors.
INTRODUCTION
on and
audited
financial
information
is so crucial
garners substantial
legaltoliability
for auditors
I nvestor
underreliance
the 1933
1934
Securities
Acts. However,
very that
littleitinformation
is provided
the investor
about
the audits performed or the nature of the relationship between
the auditor and client. Although potential investors can observe extreme instances of audit failures
We thank Jack Kiger for allowing us to survey his students. We also thank two anonymous referees and Theresa Libby
(editor) for helpful comments that have greatly improved the paper. All authors contributed equally to the paper and are
listed alphabetically according to last name.
Theresa Libby, Accepting Editor.
Published Online: January 2013
71
72
Beck, Fuller, Muriel, and Reid
characterized by financial restatements, such direct and strong evidence of inferior audit quality
would only be obtained ex post, after an audit opinion is issued and financial statements are filed
with the SEC. Unfortunately, financial statement users have little interim information at their
disposal to develop ex ante expectations about audit quality or other related aspects of an audit
engagement, whose levels typically lie somewhere within a continuum, rather than at an extreme
endpoint.
It is difficult for investors and other external constituents to observe important qualitative
aspects of an audit engagement such as the experience level, technical competence,
conscientiousness, or objectivity of audit personnel. These and similar attributes can be expected
to vary considerably across audit engagements and may ultimately have ramifications for audit
quality. A companys audit quality may, in turn, impact its future riskiness as an investment. Yet,
despite having the potential to be quite heterogeneous, audit quality remains an opaque concept
that can be difficult for investors to assess in the absence of such information.
Currently, the only audit-related disclosures that are routinely made to investors include the
audit fees and the audit report. The typical information presented in the audit report is quite
limited and seldom distinguishes the audit report of one company from that of another. When
faced with decisions about how to allocate their funds across companies, potential investors
should know something about the quality of a companys audit due to potential impacts on the
reliability of the companys financial information (Hodge 2003) and its riskiness as an investment.
Lacking other meaningful information, we anticipate that audit fees can or should provide an
important basis upon which investors form perceptions about an audit.
Previous research affirms the importance of audit fee data, indicating that audit fee disclosures
confer incremental, forward-looking information about a companys future risks and also impact a
companys ex ante cost of capital (Khurana and Raman 2006; Stanley 2011; Hackenbrack et al. 2011).
Numerous archival studies explicitly use audit fees and ratios of audit fees as surrogates for auditrelated attributes such as auditor independence, auditor effort, and financial reporting audit quality
(Ahmed et al. 2006; Hribar et al. 2010; Bentley et al. 2011). Other studies assert that the magnitude of
a companys audit fees is associated with auditor independence, auditor reporting decisions, and a
companys ex post financial reporting quality (Simunic 1984; Davis et al. 1993; Srinidhi and Gul
2007). Several studies conclude that abnormally large fees impair auditor independence, thus adversely
impacting auditor reporting decisions and reducing the quality of reported financial information
(Gunny et al. 2007; Hoitash et al. 2007). Finally, some evidence indicates that unusually low audit fees
are associated with impaired audit quality (Hribar et al. 2010; Gupta et al. 2012; Brandon et al. 2012).
However, despite extensive empirical-archival research that imparts various characteristics to audit fees
and/or documents associations between audit fees and audit-related outcomes, it is unclear what
investors ascertain about an audit engagement based on a given audit fee, and we are unaware of any
prior behavioral research that investigates how investors perceive audit characteristics in light of an
individual companys audit fee.
The objectives of this research are two-fold. First, we investigate whether the provision of
additional referent information about audit fees (percentile rank data relative to other firms in the
industry that establish a comparative benchmark) alters user perceptions of audit characteristics.
This enables us to determine what investors perceive, based on audit fees, about the audit
characteristics, and whether their perceptions coincide with the audit feeaudit characteristic
relationships identified in previous archival research. Second, we contrast the perceptions of
investors who are merely supplied with the total dollar amount of the audit fees with the
perceptions of investors who are told that a companys audit fee is approximately average in
comparison to the audit fees of other companies within the same industry. Making this latter
comparison offers insights as to how investors perceive audit and company characteristics when
lacking additional information, consistent with the current state of audit fee disclosures.
Behavioral Research In Accounting
Volume 25, Number 2, 2013
Audit Fees and Investor Perceptions of Audit Characteristics
73
This study reports the results of an experiment designed to assess the impact of audit fee
disclosures on investor perceptions of audit characteristics. Specifically, we manipulate the
content of audit fee disclosures to examine how investors perceive audit characteristics under
various alternative scenarioswhen the audit fee presented is approximately average, abnormally
high, or abnormally low compared to the industry average, or when no benchmark information is
provided. The five audit characteristics of interest consist of: (1) auditor independence, (2) auditor
effort, (3) financial statement error, (4) audit quality, and (5) business risk.
Study participants were provided with financial information and data indicating the audit fees
paid by a fictitious company. Some of the participants also received additional information that
indicated the relative size of the audit fees compared to similar organizations. This information
was designed to aid investors in assessing the representativeness of the organizations audit fee.
This relative size was indicated as high (96th percentile), average (52nd percentile), or low (6th
percentile) in relation to other companies in the same industry. The dollar amount of the fee
presented to the participants was the same, regardless of the relative size specified to participants.
After reviewing the financial information, participants were then surveyed about their perceptions
of the company, the audit, and the firm performing the audit.
Overall, the results of our study suggest that investors do develop perceptions about a
company and its audit based on audit fees, as we find that providing supplemental audit fee
disclosures indicating the relative magnitude of a companys audit fees significantly influences
investor perceptions of auditor independence, auditor effort, and audit quality. Specifically, we
present evidence that when fees are presented to investors as low, average, or high (as compared
to industry averages), investors commensurately perceive audit quality and auditor effort as being
low, average, or high, respectively. When not provided with any additional information
concerning the audit fee (similar to the present state of disclosures), investors assess audit quality
and auditor effort as being average. However, we find that while investors perceive auditor
independence as low, average, and high when fees are presented as high, average, or low,
respectively, investors not provided with any relative fee information assess auditor independence
1
as low. This latter finding provides important insight into investors current perceptions of
auditor independence, particularly in the absence of relative or comparative information, and
suggests that it might be useful for regulators, when contemplating additional disclosure
requirements, to allocate some attention to disclosures that have the potential to enhance investor
perceptions of auditor independence. The findings of our study contribute to the forum of debate
concerning the current state of audit-related disclosures and their value for investors.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section we discuss the
regulation of audit fee disclosures and other initiatives designed to enhance the information set
available to investors about public company audits. Next, we provide background information on
cognitive biases and magnitude perceptions that may influence investor perceptions of audit
characteristics, and we review the relevant literature about the information content of audit fee
disclosures and formulate our hypotheses. We describe the research undertaken to test the
hypotheses. We then present the results of our analysis, concluding with a discussion of the
implications of this research, its limitations, and opportunities for future research.
INSTITUTIONAL BACKGROUND
Audit Fee Disclosures
Effective in 2001, the SEC implemented a mandatory disclosure requirement for audit fees in
response to fears that the provision of large-scale consulting services, which generated sizeable
1
This is similar to investor perceptions of independence in the high relative fees scenario.
74
streams of revenue for audit firms, might impair auditor independence (Markelevich et al. 2005). The
typical consulting fees derived from a client were often considerably larger in magnitude than the audit
fee revenue an accounting firm generated from the same client, exacerbating concerns that auditors
might cave in to client pressure during an audit, out of fear of losing the consulting relationship. In
order to make the relative magnitudes of audit and non-audit fees more transparent to investors, the
SEC began requiring all registrants to disclose in the proxy statements the dollar amounts of their audit
and non-audit fees, with detailed breakouts of the amounts in specific categories. The new rule was
2
effective for proxy statements filed after February 5, 2001 (SEC 2001). At present, companies must
disclose the dollar magnitudes of their audit fees, subdivided into four categories: audit fees, auditrelated fees, tax fees, and all other fees.
Other Audit-Related Disclosures

While disclosure of the audit firm identity enables financial statement users to observe, at a macro
level, whether an auditor is a Big N auditor (an auditor characteristic commonly associated with higher
quality audits), this auditor attribute is not informative about idiosyncratic engagement-level
characteristics that may also have a bearing on audit quality. Moreover, prior literature indicates that
the quality of Big N audits is not homogeneous (Francis and Yu 2009; Choi et al. 2010a; Reichelt and
Wang 2010), albeit some evidence exists that Big N auditors generally provide higher quality audits
than non-Big N auditors (e.g., Becker et al. 1998; Francis et al. 1999; Francis and Krishnan 1999).
Furthermore, Lawrence et al. (2011) conclude that previously documented differences in audit quality
may be largely attributable not to auditor type, but instead to client characteristics that drive the
selection of auditor type. Thus, the characterization of an auditor as a Big N may or may not
sufficiently inform investors about audit quality, to the extent that other audit engagement attributes or
client characteristics also concurrently influence audit quality.
The audit opinions supplied to investors within the audit report are typically generic and
standard unless the audit report includes an explanatory paragraph or a form of modified opinion
indicating specific problems uncovered during the audit. Consequently, the typical audit report
verbiage seldom distinguishes one companys audit report from another. Thus, audit fees, which
vary considerably in magnitude across organizations, serve as one of the few distinguishing
indicators of the auditorclient relationship that are quantifiable and visible to investors (DeFond
et al. 2002; Kinney et al. 2004; Khurana and Raman 2006; Li 2009), and therefore are the focal
point of our research that examines investor perceptions of audit characteristics.
Recent Regulatory Interventions and Other Initiatives
The SECs initial adoption of the audit fee disclosure rule marked the beginning of a series of
interventions by regulators and initiatives aimed at increasing the reliability of audited financial
data, augmenting the information set available to investors about public company audits, and
ultimately enhancing investor confidence in audited financial information.
In 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act established the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (PCAOB), an organization formed to provide oversight of public company audits, to protect
investors and further the public interest in the preparation of informative, accurate, and independent
audit reports (U.S. House of Representatives 2002). Generally, all public accounting firms that
prepare or furnish audit reports for SEC registrants must register with the PCAOB. Periodically, the
PCAOB inspects a sample of audit engagements performed by its registrants.
Thus, for companies with December 31 year-ends, the 2001 proxy included fee disclosure information for the fiscal
year ending December 31, 2000 (the initial disclosure year).

75
During the inspection process, the PCAOB evaluates the adequacy of the audit tests performed
and, upon conclusion, issues inspection reports documenting any specific instances in which the
auditor failed to adhere to professional standards (e.g., lacked auditor independence, failed to
conduct appropriate or sufficient testing in the circumstances at hand, or arrived at improper
conclusions from the testing performed). Lennox and Pittman (2010) conclude that PCAOB
reports do not significantly impact a clients choice of auditor because they lack disclosure of
3
audit quality control weaknesses and overall audit firm quality.
In 2007, the AICPA voluntarily launched the Center for Audit Quality (CAQ)a self-contained,
autonomous, nonprofit organization whose mission is to enhance investor confidence and help fortify
and stabilize the capital markets vis-a`-vis initiatives to enhance the reliability of financial
information. Recently, the CAQ wrote a letter to the International Auditing and Assurance Standards
Board expressing apprehension about the lack of publicly available information pertaining to audits
4
and the audit process. Overall, these recent initiatives highlight concerns from the public and
regulators about audit quality, auditor independence, related audit characteristics, and the need for
supplemental and enhanced information to be made available to investors.
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

Two streams of research are used to inform and derive the theoretical foundation for this research.
First, research and theory about cognitive biases and magnitude perceptions provide the foundation for
how investors perceive and make sense of data provided to them, particularly in the absence of any
referent data for comparison. Second, the extant literature on audit fees provides a framework for
understanding potential consequences of audit fees and a basis for anticipating how audit fees might
thereby influence investor beliefs about the organizations and the audits to which they correspond.
Together, these two streams of research can suggest how an investor might make attributions about
audit fee magnitudes and how these attributions might then influence other beliefs about both the
organizations providing the data and the audit work supporting the data. An overview of the research
on biases and perceptions follows. Relevant audit fee literature is discussed in the hypothesis
development subsections pertaining to the individual constructs.
Cognitive Bias and Magnitude Perceptions Theories

Prior research about cognitive biases indicates that, in the absence of specific data, individuals
tend to rely on heuristics to simplify, make sense of, and make decisions based on data that have some
level of associated uncertainty (Tversky and Kahneman 1974). The use of heuristics or the existence of
bias in human judgment is not a new phenomenon and helps to explain the lack of rationality often
exhibited by decision makers. Based on an extensive review of the bias literature by Arnott (2006), we
identify two potential biases that can influence perceptions of data by investors, particularly in the
absence of additional data that explain the information.
First, representativeness (Arnott 2006) is a bias leading individuals to erroneously ascribe

certain characteristics or values to objects based on their apparent characteristics or similarity to
other groups. In this situation, individuals may mistakenly take an object (audit fee) and
inaccurately associate that data to another group because they believe the object to share
characteristics of the group. This occurs when there is inadequate information to ascertain that the
3
4
In response to more recent concerns about the lack of audit information available to investors, the PCAOB is currently
considering four potential modifications to the current format of the auditors report.
The letter was dated September 15, 2011, and is available at: http://thecaq.org/publicpolicy/CommentLetter/
CAQCommentLetter-IAASBConsultationPaperonValueofAuditorReporting.pdf
76
object is in fact a member of that group, based on the limited data provided about the group
(Tversky and Kahneman 1974; Arnott 2006). Prior research demonstrates that the representativeness bias can significantly affect decision making, causing individuals to incorrectly base
perceptions on a limited data set and ascribe certain value to it (Uecker and Kinney 1977). Thus,
in the audit fee setting, if individuals perceive an audit fee as being representative of the audit
fees for similar organizations, they may incorrectly ascribe certain characteristics (e.g., average
audit quality) to the audit. In the absence of additional information to suggest that the size of an
audit fee is atypical, we conjecture that investors will, by default, assume that the audit fees
presented and their associated characteristics are about average. If users fail to identify outlier
situations in which a fee is abnormally high or low, they may also consequently fail to associate
such an unusually high or low audit fee with its related consequences, thus assuming that the
levels of various associated audit characteristics are about average.
Second, not only do individuals often unknowingly rely on limited information when
associating objects to groups, but prior research also indicates that individuals are frequently
overconfident in their ability to assess and estimate values due to their inability or unwillingness
to use all available information available to them (Joyce and Biddle 1981). Block and Harper
(1991) find that individuals frequently do not realistically assess their own ability to estimate, and
thereby make poor ascriptions about data. In the presence of information that helps identify the
appropriate base rate for comparison of a value, individuals can make better assessments of a
value (Lim and Benbasat 1997). However, in the absence of additional information, individuals
remain overconfident in their estimates due to an unawareness of the gaps in their available
information, exacerbating the extent of any incorrect inferences about the magnitude of data.
Thus, investors who fail to recognize that they have significant gaps in their knowledge about
audit characteristics may tend to make even less accurate attributions of audit fee data.
Hypotheses
Investors develop perceptions of company and auditor attributes through disclosures provided
in the financial statements, including audit fee disclosures (Khurana and Raman 2006; Ghosh et
al. 2009). At various times, supplementary disclosures have been suggested or mandated to
increase the information set available to investors, magnifying the importance of understanding
how added disclosures might impact investor decision making. The PCAOB recently requested
public comments on proposed modifications to the current audit report format. However, at times,
regulators have actually gravitated away from requirements to present additional disclosures (e.g.,
audit partner signatures). In these situations, it becomes imperative to understand investor
perceptions in the absence of additional information or disclosures. In this section, we develop
hypotheses about how investors will perceive various audit characteristics in light of audit fee
information, both with and without additional relative fee information. These hypothesized
relationships are explained next.
Perceived Auditor Independence
Auditor independence is one audit characteristic that is of utmost concern to both the investing
public and regulators. As Arthur Levitt, chairman of the SEC, stated, It is not enough that the
accountant on an engagement act independently. For investors to have confidence in the quality of the
audit, the public must perceive the accountant as independent (Levitt 2000). The SEC deems that,
an auditors independence is impaired either when there is direct evidence of subjective bias such as
through a confession or some way of recording the auditors thoughts, or when, as in the ordinary case,
the facts and circumstances as externally observed demonstrate, under an objective standard, that an
auditor would not be capable of acting without bias (SEC 2001).
77
Auditor independence is associated with the likelihood that the auditor will report a detected
5
misstatement. Investors cannot directly observe an auditors true state of independence (auditor
independence in fact), and neither can they observe audit failures unless they are made public vis-a`vis financial restatements. Therefore, we examine investor perceptions of auditor independence.
Concerns exist that auditor independence can be impaired when audit fee values are either
extremely high or extremely low. Ex ante, it is difficult to anticipate whether users of the
financial statements will exhibit relatively greater concern about abnormally high fees versus
unusually low fees, or equal concern about both.
The theory of economic rents suggests that high audit fees create an economic bond between the
auditor and the client, thereby impairing auditor independence because the firm becomes less willing to
lose or dismiss clients (Simunic 1984; Davis et al. 1993). Economic bonding may lead auditors to cave
in to pressure from their clients, e.g., not require them to book correcting entries, which can ultimately
impair financial reporting quality (Simunic 1984; Beck et al. 1988). Brandon and Mueller (2006)
provide evidence that jurors perceive auditors to be less objective and more deserving of blame and
punishments in the presence of greater economic dependence on the client, as measured by the ratio of
a clients audit fee to the total audit fees for the audit firm office.
Fortunately, two important factors counteract the incentives created by economic bonding.
First, an auditor must weigh such decisions against the potential reputational costs of being
associated with poor quality work and losing other clients (Weber et al. 2008). Second, auditors
may be subject to lawsuits for malpractice, as they are known for having deep pockets
(DeAngelo 1981).
Archival studies provide mixed evidence concerning which set of objectives outweighs the other.
Hoitash et al. (2007) document a negative relation between abnormal fees and audit quality, concluding
that economic bonding effects outweigh auditor reputational concerns. Ghosh et al. (2009) find that
investor perceptions of auditor independence (measured by earnings response coefficients) are
negatively associated with client importance. However, Larcker and Richardson (2004) find a negative
association between abnormal accruals and audit fees, concluding that reputational concerns prevail.
Ashbaugh et al. (2003) find no association between positive discretionary accruals and audit fees, total
fees, or any fee ratio metric. Chung and Kallapur (2003) draw a similar conclusion.
Reputational concerns notwithstanding, the existence of high audit fees visible in financial
statements suggests a strong economic relationship, which can serve as a cue to the investor that
auditor independence may be impaired. However, given that several archival studies fail to find
evidence that economic bonding outweighs reputational concerns, we hypothesize (in null form):
H1: There is no significant association between perceived auditor independence and audit fee
relative size.
Perceived Auditor Effort
The diligence of an auditor can influence the likelihood with which he/she detects any financial
statement errors present in the financial statements, thus having a substantial impact on the quality of
an audit. However, auditor effort is difficult to measure, particularly in the U.S., where audit hours are
not publicly available information. In a service industry such as the audit industry, costs are largely
driven by the amount of time spent performing the services. Therefore, perceptions of auditor effort
may be strongly associated with audit fee size. As an audit service firm will presumably price its
engagements so as to earn a profit, it can be expected that audit fees increase
The conditional probability of reporting a discovered breach is a measure of an auditors independence from a given
client (DeAngelo 1981).
78
commensurately with auditor effort. A seminal paper by Simunic (1980) finds that audit hours (a
proxy for auditor effort) are the largest cost driver for audit services. More recent archival
research also affirms that audit fees are an increasing function of auditor effort. Schelleman and
Knechel (2010) demonstrate that firms with higher levels of short-term accruals require greater
auditor effort and that this incremental auditor effort is priced into audit fees. Prawitt et al. (2011)
demonstrate that in instances where the internal audit function provides greater assistance to the
external auditor, there is an accompanied reduction in audit fees. Thus, an implicit finding of their
study is that there is a positive structural relation between auditor effort and audit fees. Consistent
with this conclusion, Hammersley et al. (2012) show that firms that neglect to take remedial
action to address material weaknesses in internal controls pay higher audit fees in subsequent
periods. Naturally, the presence of internal control problems would necessitate greater substantive
audit testing efforts. Based on the these findings from previous research, we hypothesize that:
H2: Perceived auditor effort is positively associated with audit fee relative size.
Perceived Financial Statement Error
A primary concern for investors is the possibility that a material financial statement error
remains undetected by the audit or withstands correction by the auditor, resulting in an eventual
financial restatement. As stated in United States v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S. 805 (1984),
the SEC requires the filing of audited financial statements in order to obviate the fear of loss
from reliance on inaccurate information, thereby encouraging public investment in the Nations
industries. It is therefore not enough that financial statements be accurate; the public must also
perceive them as being accurate. In order for a financial statement error to exist in the financial
statements after an audit, the following conditions must be met. First, a financial statement error
must be present in the financial statements prior to the audit, and second, the auditor must be
either unable to detect it or unwilling to require correction of the financial statement error. A lack
of auditor effort could prevent an auditor from detecting a misstatement, and a lack of auditor
independence could result in a detected financial statement error withstanding correction.
Therefore, the likelihood with which a financial statement error prevails in the financial
statements after an audit should be a joint outcome of (1) a companys ex ante accounting
quality, (2) auditor effort, and (3) auditor independence, among other factors.
Earlier, we hypothesized that greater perceived auditor effort would be associated with larger
audit fees. However, based on economic bonding theory, we also hypothesized that investors
would meanwhile perceive reductions in auditor independence as audit fees increase. As these two
effects would appear to exert opposing influences on user perceptions of the level of remaining
financial statement error in a companys financial statements subsequent to an audit, we appeal to
prior literature to develop a hypothesis as to how user perceptions of the level of ex post financial
statement error will vary with audit fees.
Prior archival research finds evidence that unexpectedly large audit fees are associated with
inferior audit quality (Choi et al. 2010b), and that abnormal values for audit fees and total fees are
associated with an increase in the likelihood of a PCAOB-identified audit deficiency or serious
deficiency (Gunny et al. 2007). Choi et al. (2010b) conclude that there is a significant positive
relation between abnormally positive (large) audit fees and the magnitude of companies
discretionary accruals. Kinney et al. (2004) find a positive association between restatements and
fees related to information system design or internal audit, and Feldmann et al. (2009) find that
firms making restatements actually pay greater audit fees (due to increased audit risk). Finally,
Hribar et al. (2010) document a significant positive association between the magnitude of
unexplained audit fees and the likelihood of accounting restatements, indicating that abnormally
high audit fees are associated with undesirable financial reporting outcomes.
79
However, numerous studies provide evidence to refute these conclusions. Stanley and
DeZoort (2007) assert that larger audit fees are associated with a reduced likelihood of a future
financial restatement. Keune and Johnstone (2012) find that in the presence of larger audit fees,
auditors become less likely to waive accounting adjustments for material misstatements.
Schneider (2010) finds no evidence that either audit fees or revenue dependence by the auditor
affects lending decisions, which suggests that external constituents do not perceive a reduction in
the reliability of financial information when there are high audit fees. Together, the findings of
this latter group of studies suggest that financial reporting quality is not impaired in the presence
of high audit fees.
Here, we attempt to measure the extent to which investors associate a perceived likelihood of
uncorrected errors in the financial statements with the size of a companys audit fees. Given that
prior literature has provided mixed results regarding the association between audit fees and
financial statement errors, we do not make a specific directional hypothesis regarding the
association between the level of perceived financial statement error and the relative magnitude of
audit fees. Instead, we present the following null hypothesis:
H3: There is no significant association between perceived financial statement error and audit
fee relative size.
Perceived Audit Quality
Ultimately, audit quality is crucial because it can impact the reliability of a companys
financial statements and its future business riskiness as an investment. As discussed previously,
audits are not performed with equal levels of quality, and we believe that audit fees convey an
important information content that can help or hinder the manner in which investors assess the
overall quality of an audit. Thus, we measure user perceptions of audit quality.
DeAngelo (1981) defines audit quality as the joint probability of detecting and reporting
material misstatements. It is related to audit risk, which is the risk that an auditor may fail to
modify the opinion on financial statements that are materially misstated (AICPA 1994; Watkins
et al. 2004). Audit quality is not directly observable, although prior research has developed a host
of surrogates for it including, but not limited to, a likelihood of receiving a going concern opinion,
abnormal discretionary accruals, meet or beat analysts forecasts, and likelihood of a restatement
(Reynolds and Francis 2000; Romanus et al. 2008; Francis and Yu 2009).
Audit quality may be regarded as an outcome of several inputs that include auditor
independence, auditor effort, and auditor willingness to mandate correction of any financial
statement errors that do exist, among other factors (Caramanis and Lennox 2008; Brandon et al.
2012). User perceptions of audit quality should be partially dependent upon these three attributes.
We previously conjectured that users perceptions of auditor effort would be an increasing
function of audit fees. However, we also presented evidence from prior literature indicating that
auditor independence could be impaired and financial statement error may increase in the
presence of larger audit fees. This could offset any perceived gains in audit quality attributable to
increased effort. Thus, depending on the extent to which individual investors perceive and weight
these issues, their conclusions about audit quality may diverge.
In addition, it is possible that perceptions of post-audit financial statement errors could be
uncorrelated with audit fees. For example, if users assume that a company has low levels of preaudit financial statement errors, they may not perceive audit fees to have any marginal impact on
auditors ability to detect or willingness to correct financial statement errors.
Accordingly, we present a non-directional hypothesis regarding the association between user
perceptions of audit quality and audit fees:
80
H4: There is no significant association between perceived audit quality and audit fee relative
size.
Perceived Business Risk
Finally, we anticipate that in addition to making inferences about the aforementioned audit
characteristics, investors may draw inferences from audit fees about future business risk. Mishra et al.
(2005) conclude that SEC-mandated audit fee disclosures provide important and useful information to
the market for assessing business risk and for making investment and voting decisions. Therefore, we
examine whether audit fee information influences investor perceptions of business risk.
Prior research (Stanley 2011; Hackenbrack et al. 2011) indicates that audit fees provide a
forward-looking indication of the level of a companys future business risks. Numerous studies
indicate that elevated company risk may be a precedent for higher audit fees. Hoitash et al. (2008)
and Munsif et al. (2011) both document that higher audit fees are charged to companies having
previous internal control problems. Similarly, Ashbaugh-Skaife et al. (2009) find that firms with
internal control deficiencies have significantly higher idiosyncratic risk, systematic risk, and cost
of equity, thereby concluding that higher audit fees could be associated with higher risk. Hay et
al. (2006) perform a literature review and meta-analysis, and find that systematic risk is positively
associated with audit fees in the literature. More recently, Hackenbrack et al. (2011) and Stanley
(2011) provide empirical evidence that audit fees are a leading indicator of a companys level of
future business risk. Specifically, Hackenbrack et al. (2011) find that changes in audit fees are
positively associated with various surrogates for a firms idiosyncratic risk, including negative
future stock returns, debt rating downgrades, and lawsuits. Stanley (2011) demonstrates that
changes in operating performance are negatively associated with audit fees over a window up to
five years into the future. Overall, these studies suggest that higher business risk should be
associated with higher audit fees. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
H5: Perceived business risk is positively associated with audit fee relative size.
Absence of Relative Size
As we are unaware of any prior behavioral research directly investigating investor perceptions of
audit fees, we hypothesize, based on the psychology literature previously discussed, that when
investors lack cues to suggest that a value is abnormally high or low, they will take a middle-ofthe-road approach in their assessments, essentially perceiving each of the audit characteristics as
average. They have little basis for assessing the magnitude of an audit fee value. This viewpoint is
consistent with prior literature on cognitive biases which indicates that, in the absence of relative
indicators, individuals will likely assume that a target company is fairly representative of all
organizations and accordingly assume that their financial information is representative of similar
organizations, or average (Tversky and Kahneman 1974). Therefore, we hypothesize:
H6: In the absence of relative indicators, when investors are provided with audit fee data,
they perceive (H6a) auditor independence, (H6b) auditor effort, (H6c) financial
statement error, (H6d) audit quality, and (H6e) business risk as being average.
RESEARCH METHOD
To address our research questions, we utilized a 1 3 4 factorial design, randomly assigning
participants to one of three levels of audit fee relative size or to a control group receiving no additional
relative size indication other than the audit fee itself. The relative magnitude of the audit fee differed
among participants having the additional benchmark information. While one treatment
81
group was presented with a company that had an average audit fee relative to its industry, the
second treatment group was assigned to a company with an abnormally low audit fee, and the
third treatment group was given a company that had an unusually high audit fee. We examine how
the perceptions of participants differ across the treatment groups (3) and also contrast perceptions
of the treatment group having the average relative fee with the perceptions of a control group (1)
that did not receive additional disclosures.
Participants
One hundred and fourteen accounting students were recruited to participate in the experiment.
These students were enrolled in an undergraduate auditing course and were therefore familiar with the
basic premises of auditing. The instrument was administered in two different semesters, but in the same
course. The participants were randomly assigned to groups, and an initial ANOVA verified that there
were no differences between the four groups in terms of age, gender, or investing experience.
Task
The task performed by the participants required them to provide their perceptions about an audit
derived from viewing the financial statements of a fictitious company as part of information presented
in a case. Participants were provided with case materials that included basic financial information
about the company and an audit fee disclosure similar to that which would be found in an annual
financial statement. After reading the information in their case materials and reviewing the audit fee
disclosure, the participants were then surveyed regarding their perceptions of the audit and the
company. Through a series of specific questions, participants were asked to provide their perceptions of
auditor independence, auditor effort, financial statement error, audit quality, and business risk.
Independent Variable
The independent variable is the audit fee relative size in the disclosure information that was
provided to the participants. Each of the four cases had the same financial information for the
scenario company, as well as the same audit fee. The audit fee paid and the financial information
provided about the company were taken from the most recent 10-K filing of a company traded on
the New York Stock Exchange. The relative size for each audit fee as compared to its industry was
arbitrarily created, with the low fee ranking in the 6th percentile, the average fee ranking in the
6
52nd percentile, and the high fee ranking in the 96th percentile. We selected percentiles that were
further from the center than the first and third quartiles for several reasons. First, this design
ensures that if there is no difference in perception between the average (52nd percentile) and the
tails (6th percentile and 96th percentile), we can be confident that we did not fail to detect a
change in perception simply because our rankings were too close together. Second, we
specifically designed our percentiles to be more extreme to force separation among the groups
that were given percentiles. This allows for a better comparison with the group that received no
additional information (no percentiles), which is the primary group of interest. Finally, the goal of
our study is to find differences in perceptions, not to identify the specific fee threshold where
differences in perceptions begin to emerge. Future research may seek to examine at what
percentiles investor perceptions begin to change. The audit fee was taken directly from the 10-K
7
filing so that it would be proportional to the size of the company that we described.
6
The audit fee remained the same in all cases. The only change was the disclosed percentile ranking.
The company whose audit fee we selected is a Fortune 500 company. The average audit fee for Fortune 500 companies
is almost $10M, according to a report by Alvarez & Marsal (2007). The audit fee used of $9.8M is representative.
82
The manipulation of disclosure information was similar to that performed by Dopuch et al. (2003).
While the audit fee dollar amount was the same for all participants, the indication regarding the relative
size of an audit fee in comparison to other companies in the same industry differed across the
treatments. Prior research indicates that the size and complexity of the client are significant cost drivers
in an audit, as they are the largest determinants of the number of hours spent in the auditing process
(Davis et al. 1993; Stein et al. 1994). Similarly, Hay et al. (2006) find that company size alone explains
more than 70 percent of the variation in audit fees. Accordingly, we control for a companys industry
by supplying a percentile ranking for audit fees relative to other firms in the industry whenever
additional audit fee information is presented. We do not explicitly state in our instrument that the
auditor is independent in fact or appearance. The Securities Act of 1933 requires financial statements to
be certified by an independent accountant, so we only explain that this is a Big 4 auditor auditing a
company that is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).
Dependent Variable
The hypotheses make predictions concerning investor perceptions of five characteristics
related to the audit and the company: auditor independence, auditor effort, financial statement
error, audit quality, and business risk. Investor perceptions of these attributes serve as the
dependent variables for our analysis. All variables were measured using items employing a sevenpoint Likert scale (1 Strongly Disagree, 7 Strongly Agree).
Perceived auditor independence is defined as the perception that an auditor is objective
and is not willing to be persuaded by audit fees or a close relationship with the client (SEC 2001).
After viewing the various audit fee relative size indicators, participants were asked questions to
determine their perceived level of auditor independence. The literature often tests auditor
independence based on audit and/or non-audit fee measures (Chung and Kallapur 2003; Kinney et
al. 2004; Larcker and Richardson 2004). Five items were used to measure this perception. The
items focused on investor perceptions of auditor independence (auditor independence in
appearance). The items exhibited adequate reliability for a newly developed measure (alpha
0.64) (DeVellis 1991). Appendix A contains the items for each construct.
Perceived auditor effort is defined as an investors perception of the energy and resources
that the auditor has expended on the execution of the audit. Audit fees are based on the time that
the auditors spend auditing the client. Generally, audit hours should be reflected in the audit fees,
and audit hours are correlated with auditor effort. Furthermore, research has also indicated that
auditors can increase auditor effort by elevating the experience level of the personnel assigned to
an engagement, which also increases fees (Schelleman and Knechel 2010). Fees have served as
the primary proxy for auditor effort in the literature (Liu and Wang 2006). Three items were used
to measure this variable. The items focused on investor perceptions of the amount of auditor effort
expended in the audit. The items exhibited acceptable reliability (alpha 0.86).
Perceived financial statement error is defined as the extent to which financial statement errors
are perceived by an investor to exist in the financial statements and withstand correction by the auditor.
Previous research has examined the relation between audit judgments and financial statement errors
(Kinney 1979; Butt 1988). While participants have no real indication of financial statement error, they
are able to develop perceptions of financial statement error based on the audit fee relative size. Three
items were used to measure participants perception that errors existed in the financial statement
information. The focus of the items was to assess participants perceptions of the financial statements
after the audit has been performed and to assess what impact various audit fee relative size indicators
have on perceptions of error in the financial statements. The items exhibited adequate reliability for a
newly developed measure (alpha 0.67) (DeVellis 1991).
83
Perceived audit quality is defined as the perception that the auditor will both discover a material
misstatement and report it (DeAngelo 1981). Audit quality has frequently been measured using
abnormal accruals, financial statement restatements, or other surrogates for accounting irregularities
developed in the archival literature (Reynolds and Francis 2000; Romanus et al. 2008; Francis and Yu
2009). Four items were used to measure audit quality from a broad perspective. The items focused on
perceptions of the overall quality of the audit. The focus was not the quality of the company or
investment. The items exhibited acceptable reliability (alpha 0.91).
Perceived business risk is defined as the perception that the companys economic condition
will deteriorate in either the short or long term (Huss and Jacobs 1991). The impact of the external
audit function on business risk has been assessed previously (Johnstone 2000; Stanley 2011).
However, our focus is to measure investor perceptions of business risk based on the audit fee
relative size. Four items were used to measure investors perception of business risk. The items
exhibited acceptable reliability (alpha 0.84).
Control Variables
Data collection period was included as a control variable to factor out any differences due to
participants providing data during the two different collection periods. The factor was coded as
1,0, indicating whether the data were collected in the first or second time period.
Invests was also included as a control variable to account for the influence of participant
investing experience on outcomes. This factor was coded as 1,0, indicating whether the participant
had investing experience.
Procedures
Participants were recruited through announcements in an undergraduate auditing course. While no
monetary reward was provided, participants were incented to participate via bonus points in the course.
Participants were awarded points based on participation rather than monetary incentives based on
performance. Our focus is on participant perception, not performance. We did not want to cloud
perceptions by incentivizing some type of performance. Participants were provided with brief
instructions of the study process. They were then provided with an information sheet, the case, and the
corresponding questionnaire all clipped to the front of an envelope. All participants were presented with
the same questions to measure perceptions for each of the five dependent variables. The participants
were instructed that once the questionnaire was completed, it should be placed in the envelope and not
be referenced. Participants were observed while completing the questionnaires to ensure that they did
not deviate from the directive. After reviewing the case and completing the questionnaire, participants
were instructed to complete a separate questionnaire. This second set of items included questions to
determine the participants perceptions of the riskiness of the current stock market, their likelihood of
investing in the market, their perceptions about the role of audits and auditors, as well as a
manipulation check for the independent variable. Participants took approximately 20 minutes to
complete both phases of the study. A time limit was not imposed on the participants.
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
One hundred fourteen participants completed the experiment. To verify the success of the
treatment, participants were asked a manipulation check question to determine whether they had
accurately recognized their treatment group. Only two participants incorrectly identified their treatment
group and were subsequently dropped from the analysis, resulting in 112 cases for analysis. Table 1
displays the number of participants (n) by data collection period, audit fee relative
84
TABLE 1
Between-Subject Factors
n
Data collection period
1
2
None
Low
Average
High
0
1
Audit fee relative size
Invests
49
63
30
26
28
28
64
48
size (treatment), and investing experience (invests). The average age of the participants was 22.8,
and 41.2 percent were female. The majority of the participants were accounting majors (89.4
percent), and 42 percent of the participants reported that they were currently or had been investors
in the stock market. Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics for the dependent variables by
treatment and construct.
The descriptive statistics for auditor independence show the most variation. The participants
assigned to the low relative audit fee group were neutral (mean 19.08, assuming a neutral score of 20
[rating of 4 3 5 items]) when it came to their perceptions of auditor independence. They neither agreed
nor disagreed with the statements assessing auditor independence. However, all other groups were
skeptical of auditor independence. The group with the high relative audit fee was most skeptical of
auditor independence, as its participants indicated that they disagreed that the auditor was independent
(mean 12.00). The group with the average relative audit fee was skeptical of
TABLE 2
Descriptive Statistics
Auditor
Independence
(5 Items)
Auditor
Effort
(3 Items)
Financial
Statement Error
(3 Items)
Audit
Quality
(4 Items)
Business
Risk
(4 Items)
Group
Mean
(SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean
(SD)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
No additional information
12.90
(3.3)
14.77 (3.1)
11.26
(3.1)
17.57 (4.2) 19.50 (3.9)
n 30
Low relative audit fee
19.08
(4.0)
10.77 (4.2)
10.73
(3.0)
14.35 (5.9) 18.54 (4.8)
n 26
Average relative audit fee
14.96
(4.3)
14.29 (3.0)
10.46
(2.6)
17.57 (4.1) 20.46 (3.2)
n 28
High relative audit fee
12.00
(3.6)
15.00 (3.3)
10.75
(3.5)
18.61 (5.1) 19.64 (4.7)
n 28
Descriptive statistics are displayed by group and construct. The audit fee for each group remained unchanged while the
relative range presented in addition to the fixed audit fee did changeno relative range (no additional information), low
relative audit fee, average relative audit fee, and high relative audit fee. The data were coded such that an increase in
magnitude for any construct would indicate an increase in perception of that construct. The mean is calculated by
summing the seven-point scale scores for all observations and dividing by the total observations.

85
TABLE 3
Multivariate ANOVA
Effect
Value
Hypothesis df
Error df
Sig.
Intercept
Group
Invests
0.994
0.498
0.129
0.126
3338.825
4.137
3.013
2.947
5
15
5
5
102
312
102
102
0.000
0.000
0.014
0.016
Multivariate tests were performed to test for significance of the model and for significant differences between groups. The
measured perceptions of the constructs serve as the dependent variable. The independent variable is the fee-level
treatment. The model controls for data collection time as well as investing experience. Both control variables are binary
variables as data were collected only twice and investing experience is a yes or no answer. Value represents the test
statistic for each effect.
auditor independence, but not to the extent of the high relative audit fee group (mean 14.96).
Interestingly, the perceptions of the group that was given no additional information were similar
to those of the group with the high relative audit fee (mean 12.90). These participants indicated
that they disagreed with the statement regarding auditor independence.
Regarding perceptions of auditor effort, Table 2 indicates that the group with no additional
information slightly agreed with items indicating that the auditors exerted sufficient auditor
effort on the engagement (mean 14.77, assuming a neutral score of 12 [rating of 4 3 3 items]).
The group with the low relative audit fee was most skeptical of auditor effort (mean 10.77). As
the relative audit fee levels increased, perceptions of auditor effort increased, as expected.
The statistics for financial statement error are fairly similar across all four groups. The
statistics for each group are just below the neutral value of 12.00 (rating of 4 3 3 items). This
indicates that they did not perceive financial statement error to change as a result of changes in
relative audit fee levels. All groups similarly perceived that the business risk of the company was
higher rather than lower regardless of relative audit fee (all above neutral value of 16.00 [rating of
4 3 4 items]). Finally, all groups other than the low relative audit fee group had a slightly positive
perception of audit quality (above the neutral value of 16.00 [rating of 4 3 4 items]). The low
relative audit fee group had a slightly negative perception of audit quality (mean 14.35).
Multivariate and Univariate Results
To assess the influence of the independent variable, relative fee size, on the dependent
variables (auditor independence, auditor effort, financial statement error, audit quality, and
business risk), we first performed multivariate analyses to test for significance of the model and
for significant differences between the treatment groups. We control for data collection period by
using a binary variable (data collection period) to assign a time to each participant in our sample
since the data were collected on two separate dates. We also control for investor experience by
including a binary variable equal to 1 if the participant had investing experience. Table 3 displays
the results for the multivariate analysis. Based on the multivariate tests, we find that the effect of
the treatment is significant (F(15, 312) 4.137, p 0.000). The significance of the group variable
indicates that there are significant differences between the treatment groups perceptions of the
constructs. Given the significance of the treatment variable, additional examination of the
univariate statistics was performed (see Table 4).
The results of the univariate analyses indicate that there are significant differences between the
treatment groups with respect to perceptions of auditor independence (F(3, 106) 18.352, p 0.000),
86
TABLE 4
Univariate ANOVAs
Source
Corrected model
Group
Invests
Error
Total
Corrected total
Dependent Variable
Type III Sum

of Squares
Auditor independence
Auditor effort
Financial statement error
Audit quality
Business risk
Auditor effort
Audit quality
Business risk
Auditor effort
Audit quality
Business risk
Auditor effort
Audit quality
Business risk
Auditor effort
Audit quality
Business risk
Auditor effort
Audit quality
Business risk
Auditor effort
Audit quality
Business risk
821.973
440.861
49.702
312.552
61.713
0.305
89.219
27.89
9.437
0.241
798.966
331.012
9.077
283.325
42.642
20.676
42.962
10.421
31.012
11.268
1538.277
1132.559
977.361
2497.724
1901.965
26316
22831
14121
35485
44786
2360.25
1573.42
1027.063
2810.277
1963.679
df
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
106
106
106
106
106
112
112
112
112
112
Mean
Square
164.395
88.172
9.94
62.51
12.343
0.305
89.219
27.89
9.437
0.241
266.322
110.337
3.026
94.442
14.214
20.676
42.962
10.421
31.012
11.268
14.512
10.685
9.22
23.563
17.943
F
11.328
8.252
1.078
2.653
0.688
0.021
8.35
3.025
0.401
0.013
18.352
10.327
0.328
4.008
0.792
1.425
4.021
1.13
1.316
0.628
Sig.
0.000
0.000
0.377
0.027
0.634
0.885
0.005
0.085
0.528
0.908
0.000
0.000
0.805
0.010
0.501
0.235
0.047
0.290
0.254
0.430
Univariate tests were performed to test for significant difference between groups by dependent variable. The measured
perceptions of the constructs serve as the dependent variable. The groups are defined by the fee-level treatment. The
ANOVA procedure tests the effect of the group and is based on the linearly independent pair-wise comparisons among the
estimated marginal means.
87
auditor effort (F(3, 106) 10.327, p 0.000), and audit quality (F(3, 106) 4.008, p 0.010).
Given the significant influence of our treatment conditions, we continue hypothesis testing to
evaluate the differences between these constructs across the treatment groups.
Hypothesis Tests, Pair-Wise Comparisons
H1 states that there is no association between perceptions of auditor independence and audit
fee relative size. However, descriptive statistics in Table 2 indicate that as the relative size of audit
fees increases, participants perceive greater impairments in auditor independence. Pair-wise
compar-isons in Table 5 are consistent with the descriptive statistics, as perceptions of auditor
independence were significantly different based on relative audit fee size. Participants presented
with the unusually low audit fees perceived the greatest impairment to independence, followed by
participants assigned the average audit fees and then participants given the high relative audit
fees, respectively. The differences in perceptions between the low and average fee groups and
between the average and high fee groups are both significant, p 0.002 and p 0.017,
respectively. Furthermore, we find a significant difference between low and high fees, p 0.000.
As a result, we reject H1 (null).
H2 states that audit fee relative size is positively associated with greater perceived auditor
effort. Descriptive statistics in Table 2 indicate that as the relative size of the audit fee increases,
participants perceive greater auditor effort. Mean differences support our hypothesis, and pairwise comparisons indicate that there is a significant difference in the perceptions between the low
and high relative audit fee groups (p 0.000), as well as the low and average relative audit fee
groups (p 0.000). There was no significant difference between perceptions of investors
assigned to the average and high relative audit fees. As a result, we find partial support for H2.
H3 states that there is no association between perceptions of financial statement error and
audit fee relative size. Given the lack of a significant treatment effect on perceptions of financial
statement error in the univariate tests, we do not reject H3.
H4 states that there is no association between perceptions of audit quality and audit fee
relative size. Descriptive statistics in Table 2 indicate that as the relative size of audit fees
increases, participants perceive higher audit quality. The pair-wise comparisons indicate that
significant differences exist between the low and average relative size groups (p 0.064), as well
as the low and high relative size groups (p 0.010). However, there is not a significant difference
in perceptions of audit quality between the average and high audit fee relative size groups.
Therefore, we find partial support for H4.
H5 states that audit fee relative size is positively associated with greater perceived business
risk. Given the lack of significance in our model for treatment on business risk in the univariate
tests, we find no support for H5.
H6 states that in the absence of an audit fee relative size indicator, audit fees are associated with
average perceptions of auditor independence, auditor effort, financial statement error, audit quality, and
8
business risk. To test this hypothesis, we examine the pair-wise comparisons to see if there are
significant differences in perceptions of the dependent variables between participants receiving no fee
information and those receiving low or high audit fee relative size information. Again referring to the
pair-wise comparisons in Table 5, we see that perceptions of participants not provided any audit fee
relative size information were not significantly different from those participants presented with higher
or average audit fee relative size information for auditor independence, auditor effort,
Table 5 only provides the pair-wise comparisons for auditor independence, auditor effort, and audit quality. We have no
reason to believe that pairwise comparisons would provide any insight for financial statement error and business risk,
given the lack of significance for these variables in our univariate tests.
88
TABLE 5
Pair-Wise Comparisons
Dependent Variable
Treatment Group
Auditor effort

Audit quality

Comparison
Group
Mean
Difference
Sig.
Low
Average
High
No addl. info
Average
High
No addl. info
_6.119
_2.191
0.958
6.119
3.928
7.078
2.191
0.000
0.191
1.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.191
Low
High
No addl. info
Low
Average
Low
Average
High
No addl. info
Average
High
No addl. info
Low
High
No addl. info
Low
Average
Low
Average
High
No addl. info
Average
High
No addl. info
Low
High
No addl. info
Low
Average
_3.928
3.15
_0.958
_7.078
_3.15
4.101
0.237
_0.14
_4.101
_3.863
_4.241
_0.237
3.863
_0.377
0.14
4.241
0.377
3.299
_0.182
_0.966
_3.299
_3.481
_4.264
0.182
3.481
_0.783
0.966
4.264
0.783
0.002
0.017
1.000
0.000
0.017
0.000
1.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
0.000
1.000
0.077
1.000
1.000
0.077
0.064
0.010
1.000
0.064
1.000
1.000
0.010
1.000
Pair-wise comparisons were performed for each dependent variable that was found to have significant differences within
groups from the univariate ANOVA analysis. The measured perceptions of independence, effort, and quality are presented
along with the groups defined by the fee-level treatment.
and audit quality. However, we find that perceptions by participants not provided the audit fee relative
size information were significantly different from those with lower audit fee relative size for auditor
independence (p 0.000), auditor effort (p 0.000), and audit quality (p 0.077). This provides
partial support for our hypothesis, indicating that the participant perceptions of auditor
89
independence, auditor effort, and audit quality in the absence of relative fee information are
similar to participant perceptions derived from viewing average fees. However, participant
perceptions of auditor independence, auditor effort, and audit quality, in the absence of relative
fee information, are also similar to the perceptions of participants who were provided higherthan-average relative fees. We know from the descriptive statistics that as the audit fee relative
size increases, perceptions of auditor effort and audit quality increase. This indicates a practically
important relationship between perceptions of auditor effort and audit quality, given no additional
fee information. Both auditor effort and audit quality are perceived as average or high in the
absence of relative fee information. We also know from the descriptive statistics that as the audit
fee relative size increases, perceptions of auditor independence decrease. The pairwise
comparisons indicate that those with no additional fee information perceive auditor independence
as low or impaired. This is a critical finding with implications for investor perceptions of auditor
independence given current fee presentations.
Discussion
The results indicate that as the relative size of the audit fee increases from low to high,
perceived auditor effort and perceived audit quality increase, while perceived auditor
independence decreases. More importantly, in the absence of an indication of audit fee relative
size, investors perceive audit effort and audit quality similarly to investors who are told that the
audit fee relative size is average to high, but their perceptions of auditor independence are similar
to those of investors who are told that the audit fee relative size is low.
Participants who were not given any additional information concerning the audit fee
perceived auditor effort similarly to participants provided with the average audit fee size indicator.
In the absence of information, they perceived auditor effort as slightly greater than did the
participants provided with average audit fee relative sizes, but perceived effort as lower than did
participants provided with the high relative audit fee. The same pattern is found with the audit
quality construct. As the relative audit fee increases from low to high, perceptions of audit quality
increased from low to high. This also makes intuitive sense based on the same reasoning as
described for auditor effort. In the case of no information, the perception of audit quality is the
same as it was for participants receiving the average relative audit fee. Like auditor effort, audit
quality is perceived as somewhat average in the absence of additional audit fee information.
Auditor independence was perceived differently, however. Participants perceived the low
relative audit fee as indicating the highest level of auditor independence. Perceived auditor
independence decreased as the relative size of the audit fee increased. This is similar to the
finding of Davis and Hollie (2008), who examine non-audit fee disclosures in an experimental
market and find that as the ratio of non-audit fees to audit fees increases, potential investors
perceive less auditor independence. Interestingly, in our study, in the absence of information,
participants perceive relatively low auditor independence. Based on the findings of the other
constructs, we would expect this group to look somewhat average in its perceptions. This finding
helps supplement our understanding of investor perceptions of auditor independence by showing
that, in the absence of any other data, investors tend to be skeptical of auditor independence.
The other two constructs, business risk and financial statement error, show no results. For the
business risk construct, the mean perceptions do not significantly differ based on the relative size
of the audit fee provided. Even as perceived auditor effort and audit quality increase with higher
relative sizes of audit fees, investors do not perceive similar decreases in business risk. This
suggests that investors only view audit-related risk as a small component of business risk. The
method used to measure perceptions of business risk was more focused on company than audit
risk or financial statement risk. Investors likely properly assessed that high audit quality does not
90
necessarily reduce the inherent business risk faced by the company or the numerous risks that are
external to the company and unaffected by the audit.
The level of perceived financial statement error also did not vary based on the relative size of the
audit fee provided. Table 2 shows that perceptions of financial statement error were not significantly
different across the various relative sizes of audit fee treatments. Given that users, meanwhile,
perceived differences in audit quality, this suggests that users define audit quality in a broader realm
than as a mere absence of financial statement errors after an audit, recognizing that there can be
differences in the quality of companies accounting estimates, even absent accounting treatments that
are blatantly erroneous. Not surprisingly, it seems that other factors may more strongly impact
perceptions of financial statement accuracy than the relative size of audit fees.
Limitations
As in all research, there are some potential limitations to the generalizability of the studys
findings that should be acknowledged. The first limitation is the use of students as subjects. Although
42 percent of the students reported some investing experience, their experience is likely limited and not
representative of that of individuals with more investment experience. However, these students are
likely representative of non-professional investors, who have less time and less knowledge about
financial statements and the ramifications of the information provided through these statements. Elliott
et al. (2007) provide an analysis of the effects of the use of students (M.B.A.) as proxies for nonprofessional investors. The analysis rests on the integrative complexity of the task being performed.
Our participants were merely asked to report their perceptions of given constructs. Given the low level
of integrative complexity of this task, we feel that our participants were fully capable of performing the
tasks. Furthermore, given our interest in the manner in which non-professional investors develop
perceptions about an organization and audit work performed on the basis of financial statement
information, these participants likely go through similar assessment processes to develop these
perceptions and are likely valid representatives of that investing group. We have no reason to believe
that using graduate students or professional investors would have dramatically improved our external
validity given our focus on perceptions. While different groups such as M.B.A.s or analysts may have
resulted in different mean observations by construct, the variations between groups (our primary focus)
should remain unchanged. However, this is certainly an avenue for future research. As our control
variable for investing experience indicates that prior investment experience does influence results,
additional research is warranted to determine the nature of this influence and the extent to which it is
strengthened or weakened with varying degrees of investment experience.
Another limitation is that the participants were mostly accounting majors in an auditing
course. This may have caused them to overweight the importance of the audit fee because they
were more aware of its implications. Our subjects should be at least as informed, if not more so,
than the population to which this study strives to generalize. As a result, the results should be
considered tentatively in regard to generalization of specific portions of the results to the investing
public. However, we feel that the assessment and perceptual processes exhibited by our subjects
are likely similar to the population at large. Again, the participants heightened awareness of the
audit fees may have affected the magnitude of the means tabulated for each construct; however, it
is less likely to affect the differences between groups. Future research could examine the degree to
which various levels of experience with accounting constructs influences investor behavior and
perceptions about the organizations represented in the financial statements they examine.
A limitation of our study, compared to Dopuch et al. (2003) and Davis and Hollie (2008), is that
we do not control for independence in fact. These studies manipulate independence in fact by stating
whether reports provided to participants are biased (unbiased reports indicate that the auditor is
independent in fact). We do not provide any such information because two of the constructs we
91
are examining are investor perceptions of financial statement error and audit quality. To provide
such information would impede our ability to examine these constructs. We do not make any
explicit claims in the instrument regarding independence in order not to bias the participants. We
state that it is a publicly traded company. This subtly implies that the auditor must meet minimum
requirements pertaining to the appearance of independence because the 1933 Securities Act
requires the financial statements to be certified by an independent auditor.
Finally, our task materials were not a complete set of financial statements that an investor
may consult when considering organizations for investment. Given our limited time and our focus
on audit fees, we wanted to ensure that the task could be performed in the time allotted for its
completion, and that there would be some awareness of the audit fee information provided in the
task materials. Although the financial information we presented to participants may have been
somewhat limited, we were interested in the effect that the audit fee relative size information
might have on perceptions of audit performance and organizational business risk. Given that all
participants received the same set of abbreviated financials, we feel confident that the abbreviated
task materials would not have a differential effect on any particular treatment group in the study.
CONCLUSION
This study analyzes investor perceptions of audit engagement attributes based on the
presentation of audit fee relative size. The results indicate that users of financial information make
different assessments of audit quality, auditor effort, and auditor independence based on the way
that an audit fee is presented. Investors perceive commensurate increases in both auditor effort
and audit quality as the relative magnitude of the audit fee increases. Perhaps most importantly,
our study indicates that when additional contextual information is presented to indicate that audit
fees are unusually high, investors exhibit concerns about auditor independence. Interestingly,
when audit fee data are presented in a format that follows current disclosure rules and does not
provide additional benchmark information, investors also appear to exhibit similar concerns about
auditor independence.
This study also contributes to the literature in three primary ways. First, this study adds breadth to
the extant disclosure literature. While some would argue that more disclosure is better, we should
continue to investigate the quality of disclosures and investor perceptions of or reactions to those
disclosures. While we do not necessarily propose a superior framework for disclosure, this issue should
be studied further. Additionally, this paper contributes to existing literature about the information
contained in audit fees. An important conclusion emerges from our study, which is that investors do
appear to make a distinction between overall audit quality and a mere absence of specific financial
statement errors. Audit fees are one of the few proxies that researchers and investors have for various
audit characteristics. The results indicate that investors can use audit fees to gather information about
audit characteristics. Finally, this paper contributes to the auditor independence literature. Auditor
independence is one of the fundamental requirements of a quality audit. Based on the results, when no
additional benchmark data are provided about the magnitude of the audit fee, we find that investors are
skeptical of auditor independence, perceiving it as low. Auditors may want to work with regulators to
provide information to investors that can be more useful for evaluating auditor performance and help
eliminate this bias.
REFERENCES
Ahmed, A. S., S. Duellman, and A. M. Adel-Meguid. 2006. The Sarbanes Oxley Act, Auditor
Independence and Accounting Accruals: An Empirical Analysis. Working paper, Texas A&M
University, Saint Louis University, and Ain Shams University.
92
Alvarez & Marsal. 2007. Trends in Fortune 500 audit and tax spending-implications for corporate tax
departments. Available at: http://hq6sq.x.incapdns.net/trends-fortune-500-audit-and-tax- spendingimplications-corporate-tax-departments
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1994. AICPA Professional Standards as of
June 30, 1994. Chicago, IL: Commerce Clearing House.
Arnott, D. 2006. Cognitive biases and decision support systems development: A design science approach.
Information Systems Journal 16: 5578.
Ashbaugh-Skaife, H., D. W. Collins, W. R. Kinney, and R. Lafond. 2009. The effect of SOX internal control
deficiencies on firm risk and cost of equity. Journal of Accounting Research 47 (1): 143.
Ashbaugh, H., R. LaFond, and B. W. Mayhew. 2003. Do nonaudit services compromise auditor
independence? Further evidence. Accounting Review 78 (3): 611639.
Beck, P. J., T. J. Frecka, and I. Solomon. 1988. A model of the market for MAS and audit services:
Knowledge spillovers and auditor-auditee bonding. Journal of Accounting Literature 7: 5064.
Becker, C. L., M. L. DeFond, J. Jiambalvo, and K. R. Subramanyam. 1998. The effect of audit quality on
earnings management. Contemporary Accounting Research 15 (1): 124.
Bentley, K. A., T. C. Omer, and N. Y. Sharp. 2011. Business Strategy, Audit Effort, and Financial
Reporting Irregularities. Working paper, Texas A&M University.
Block, R. A., and D. R. Harper. 1991. Overconfidence in estimation: Testing the anchoring-and-adjustment
hypothesis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 49: 188207.
Brandon, D. M., and J. M. Mueller. 2006. The influence of client importance on juror evaluations of auditor
liability. Behavioral Research in Accounting 18: 118.
Brandon, D. M., J. J. McMillan, and J. D. Stanley. 2012. Does Lowballing Impair Audit Quality?
Evidence from Client Accruals Surrounding Analyst Forecasts. Paper presented at the AAA
Midyear Auditing Section Conference, Savannah, GA, January.
Butt, J. L. 1988. Frequency judgments in an auditing related task. Journal of Accounting Research 26 (2):
315330.
Caramanis, C., and C. Lennox. 2008. Audit effort and earnings management. Journal of Accounting &
Economics 45 (1): 116138.
Choi, J. H., C. Kim, J. B. Kim, and Y. Zang. 2010a. Audit office size, audit quality, and audit pricing.
Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 29 (1): 7397.
Choi, J. H., J. B. Kim, and Y. Zang. 2010b. Do abnormally high audit fees impair audit quality? Auditing: A
Journal of Practice & Theory 29 (2): 115140.
Chung, H., and S. Kallapur. 2003. Client importance, nonaudit services, and abnormal accruals. The
Accounting Review 78 (4): 931955.
Davis, L. R., D. N. Ricchiute, and G. Trompeter. 1993. Audit effort, audit fees, and the provision of nonaudit
services to audit clients. The Accounting Review 68 (1): 135150.
Davis, S. M., and D. Hollie. 2008. The impact of nonaudit service fee levels on investors perception of
auditor independence. Behavioral Research in Accounting 20 (1): 3144.
DeAngelo, L. E. 1981. Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics 3 (3): 183
199.
DeFond, M. L., K. Raghunandan, and K. R. Subramanyam. 2002. Do non-audit service fees impair auditor
independence? Evidence from going concern audit opinions. Journal of Accounting Research 40
(4): 12471274.
DeVellis, R. F. 1991. Scale Development. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dopuch, N., R. King, and R. Schwartz. 2003. Independence in appearance and in fact: An experimental
investigation. Contemporary Accounting Research 20 (1): 79114.
Elliott, W. B., F. D. Hodge, J. J. Kennedy, and M. Pronk. 2007. Are M.B.A. students a good proxy for
nonprofessional investors? The Accounting Review 82 (1): 139168.
Feldmann, D. A., W. J. Read, and M. J. Abdolmohammadi. 2009. Financial restatements, audit fees, and the
moderating effect of CFO turnover. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 28 (1): 205223.
Francis, J. R., and J. Krishnan. 1999. Accounting accruals and auditor reporting conservatism.
Contemporary Accounting Research 16 (1): 135165.
93
Francis, J. R., and M. D. Yu. 2009. Big 4 office size and audit quality. Accounting Review 84 (5): 1521
1552.
Francis, J. R., E. L. Maydew, and H. C. Sparks. 1999. The role of Big 6 auditors in the credible reporting of
accruals. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 18 (2): 1734.
Ghosh, A., S. Kallapur, and D. Moon. 2009. Audit and non-audit fees and capital market perceptions of
auditor independence. Journal of Accounting Public Policy 28: 369385.
Gunny, K., G. Krishnan, and T. C. Zhang. 2007. Is Audit Quality Associated with Auditor Tenure,
Industry Expertise, and Fees? Evidence from PCAOB Opinions. Working paper, University of
Colorado at Boulder, Lehigh University, and Singapore Management University.
Gupta, P. P., G. Krishnan, and W. Yu. 2012. Do Auditors Allow Earnings Management When Audit Fees
Are Low? Working paper, Lehigh University and The University of Tennessee.
Hackenbrack, K., N. T. Jenkins, and M. Pevzner. 2011. Relevant but Delayed Information in Negotiated
Audit Fees. Working paper, Vanderbilt University and George Mason University.
Hammersley, J. S., L. A. Myers, and J. Zhou. 2012. The failure to remediate previously disclosed material
weaknesses in internal controls. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 31 (2): 73111.
Hay, D. C., W. R. Knechel, and N. Wong. 2006. Audit fees: A meta-analysis of the effect of supply and
demand attributes. Contemporary Accounting Research 23 (1): 141191.
Hodge, F. D. 2003. Investors perceptions of earnings quality, auditor independence, and the usefulness of
audited financial information. Accounting Horizons (17): 3748.
Hoitash, R., U. Hoitash, and J. C. Bedard. 2008. Internal control quality and audit pricing under the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 27 (1): 105126.
Hoitash, R., A. Markelevich, and C. A. Barragato. 2007. Auditor fees and audit quality. Managerial
Auditing Journal (22) 8: 761786.
Hribar, P., T. Kravet, and R. Wilson. 2010. A New Measure of Accounting Quality. Working paper, The
University of Iowa and The University of Texas at Dallas.
Huss, H. F., and F. A. Jacobs. 1991. Risk containment: Exploring auditor decisions in the engagement
process. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Fall): 1632.
Johnstone, K. M. 2000. Client-acceptance decisions: Simultaneous effects of client business risk, audit risk,
auditor business risk, and risk adaptation. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 19 (1): 125.
Joyce, E., and G. Biddle. 1981. Anchoring and adjustment in probabilistic inference in auditing. Journal of
Accounting Research 19 (1): 120145.
Keune, M. B., and K. M. Johnstone. 2012. Materiality judgments and the resolution of detected
misstatements: The role of managers, auditors, and audit committees. Accounting Review 87 (5):
16411677.
Khurana, I., and K. Raman. 2006. Do investors care about the auditors economic dependence on the client?
Contemporary Accounting Research 23 (4): 9771016.
Kinney, W. R. 1979. The predictive power of limited information in preliminary analytical review: An
empirical study. Journal of Accounting Research 17 (Supplement): 148165.
Kinney, W. R., Z. Palmrose, and S. Scholz. 2004. Auditor independence, non-audit services, and
restatements: Was the U.S. Government right? Journal of Accounting Research 42 (3): 561588.
Larcker, D. F., and S. F. Richardson. 2004. Fees paid to audit firms, accrual choices, and corporate
governance. Journal of Accounting Research 42 (3): 625658.
Lawrence, A., M. Minutti-Meza, and P. Zhang. 2011. Can Big 4 versus non-Big 4 differences in audit quality
proxies be attributed to client characteristics? Accounting Review 86 (1): 259286.
Lennox, C., and J. Pittman. 2010. Auditing the auditors: Evidence on the recent reforms to the external
monitoring of audit firms. Journal of Accounting & Economics 49: 84103.
Levitt, A. 2000. Renewing the covenant with investors. Speech by SEC Chair at New York University Center
For Law and Business, May 10.
Li, C. 2009. Does client importance affect auditor independence at the office level? Empirical evidence from
going-concern opinions. Contemporary Accounting Research (26) 1: 201230.
Lim, L. H., and I. Benbasat. 1997. The debiasing role of group support systems: An experimental
investigation of the representativeness bias. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
47 (3): 453471.
94
Liu, C., and T. Wang. 2006. Auditor liability and business investment. Contemporary Accounting
Research 23 (4): 10511071.
Markelevich, A., C. A. Barragato, and R. Hoitash. 2005. The nature and disclosure of fees paid to auditors.
CPA Journal (Special Issue): 610.
Mishra, S., K. Raghunandan, and D. V. Rama. 2005. Do investors perceptions vary with types of nonaudit
fees? Evidence from auditor ratification voting. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (2):
9 25.
Munsif, V., K. Raghunandan, D. V. Rama, and M. Singhvi. 2011. Audit fees after remediation of internal
control weaknesses. Accounting Horizons 25 (1): 87105.
Prawitt, D. F., N. Y. Sharp, and D. A. Wood. 2011. Reconciling archival and experimental research: Does
internal audit contribution affect the external audit fee? Behavioral Research in Accounting 23 (2):
187206.
Reichelt, K. J., and D. Wang. 2010. National and office-specific measures of auditor industry expertise and
effects on audit quality. Journal of Accounting Research 48 (3): 647686.
Reynolds, J. K., and J. R. Francis. 2000. Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office-level
auditor reporting decisions. Journal of Accounting & Economics 30 (3): 375400.
Romanus, R. N., J. J. Maher, and D. M. Fleming. 2008. Auditor industry specialization, auditor changes, and
accounting restatements. Accounting Horizons 22 (4): 389413.
Schelleman, C., and W. R. Knechel. 2010. Short-term accruals and the pricing and production of audit
services. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 29 (1): 221250.
Schneider, A. 2010. Do client dependence and amount of audit fees affect lending decisions? Managerial
Auditing Journal 25 (5): 444457.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 2001. Final Rule: Revision of the Commissions Auditor
Independence Requirements. Release No. 33-7919. Washington, DC: SEC.
Simunic, D. A. 1980. The pricing of audit services: Theory and evidence. Journal of Accounting
Research 18 (1): 161190.
Simunic, D. A. 1984. Auditing, consulting, and auditor independence. Journal of Accounting Research
22 (Autumn): 679702.
Srinidhi, B. N., and F. A. Gul. 2007. The differential effects of auditors nonaudit and audit fees on accrual
quality. Contemporary Accounting Research 24 (2): 595629.
Stanley, J. D. 2011. Is the audit fee disclosure a leading indicator of clients business risk? Auditing: A
Journal of Practice & Theory 30 (3): 157179.
Stanley, J. D., and F. T. DeZoort. 2007. Audit firm tenure and financial restatements: An analysis of industry
specialization and fee effects. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 26: 131159.
Stein, M. T., D. A. Simunic, and T. B. OKeefe. 1994. Industry differences in the production of audit
services. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 13 (1): 128142.
Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185:
11241131.
U.S. House of Representatives. 2002. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Public Law 107-204 [H.R. 3763].
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Uecker, W., and W. R. Kinney. 1977. Judgmental evaluation of sample results: A study of the type and
severity of financial statement errors made by practicing CPAs. Accounting, Organizations and
Society 2 (3): 269275.
United States v. Arthur Young & Co., 465 U.S. 805 (1984).
Watkins, A. L., W. Hillison, and S. E. Morecroft. 2004. Audit quality: A synthesis of theory and empirical
evidence. Journal of Accounting Literature 23: 153193.
Weber, J., M. Willenborg, and J. Zhang. 2008. Does auditor reputation matter? The case of KPMG Germany
and ComROAD AG. Journal of Accounting Research 46 (4): 941972.

95
APPENDIX A
CONSTRUCT QUESTIONS
Construct
Item
I believe that this client is economically important to the audit firm.

I believe that the audit firm would be willing to end its relationship with this
client.
I believe the auditors are independent evaluators of the financial information
for Company X.
The audit firm is reliant upon having Company X as a client.
I believe that the auditors work was not inappropriately impacted by pressure
from the client.
Auditor effort
The auditors put forth sufficient effort to properly audit this client.
Based on the fee information, I believe the auditors spent the sufficient
number of hours to audit this client.
The company is receiving the proper amount of attention from its auditor.
I believe that the financial information presented for Company X is accurate.

Based on the audit fee information, I believe this companys financial
information did not contain errors subsequent to the audit.
Based on the audit fee information, the companys financial information
presented is a fair representation of the companys actual financial
condition.
Audit quality
I believe the company received a quality audit.

The company received an audit that can be relied upon.
The audit of Company X was performed thoroughly.
The audit should have been performed better for the company.
Business risk
This investment is a risky investment.

I feel confident in the continued performance of this investment.
I would keep this stock in my portfolio.
This stock provides a stable return.
Copyright of Behavioral Research in Accounting is the property of American Accounting

Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.

11 - Audit Fees and Investor Perception

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 - Audit Fees and Investor Perception

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH IN ACCOUNTING

Vol. 25, No. 2

American Accounting Association

Audit Fees and Investor Perceptions of Audit

Keywords: audit fees; disclosure; investor perception.

Beck, Fuller, Muriel, and Reid

Audit Fees and Investor Perceptions of Audit Characteristics

Behavioral Research In Accounting

Volume 25, Number 2, 2013

Beck, Fuller, Muriel, and Reid

Other Audit-Related Disclosures

Behavioral Research In Accounting

Audit Fees and Investor Perceptions of Audit Characteristics

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

Cognitive Bias and Magnitude Perceptions Theories

First, representativeness (Arnott 2006) is a bias leading individuals to erroneously ascribe

Behavioral Research In Accounting

Beck, Fuller, Muriel, and Reid

Audit Fees and Investor Perceptions of Audit Characteristics

Behavioral Research In Accounting

Beck, Fuller, Muriel, and Reid

Audit Fees and Investor Perceptions of Audit Characteristics

Volume 25, Number 2, 2013

Beck, Fuller, Muriel, and Reid

Audit Fees and Investor Perceptions of Audit Characteristics

Behavioral Research In Accounting

Volume 25, Number 2, 2013

Beck, Fuller, Muriel, and Reid

Audit Fees and Investor Perceptions of Audit Characteristics

Volume 25, Number 2, 2013

Beck, Fuller, Muriel, and Reid

Audit fee relative size

Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

17.57 (4.2) 19.50 (3.9)

14.35 (5.9) 18.54 (4.8)

17.57 (4.1) 20.46 (3.2)

18.61 (5.1) 19.64 (4.7)

Behavioral Research In Accounting

Audit Fees and Investor Perceptions of Audit Characteristics

Volume 25, Number 2, 2013

Beck, Fuller, Muriel, and Reid

Data collection period

Type III Sum

Behavioral Research In Accounting

Audit Fees and Investor Perceptions of Audit Characteristics

Behavioral Research In Accounting

Volume 25, Number 2, 2013

Beck, Fuller, Muriel, and Reid

Average relative audit fee

High relative audit fee

Low relative audit fee

Average relative audit fee

Low relative audit fee

High relative audit fee

Audit Fees and Investor Perceptions of Audit Characteristics

Volume 25, Number 2, 2013

Beck, Fuller, Muriel, and Reid

Audit Fees and Investor Perceptions of Audit Characteristics

Beck, Fuller, Muriel, and Reid

Audit Fees and Investor Perceptions of Audit Characteristics

Beck, Fuller, Muriel, and Reid

Behavioral Research In Accounting

Audit Fees and Investor Perceptions of Audit Characteristics