The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-6902.htm

Investigation of
An investigation of the the expectation
expectation gap in Egypt gap in Egypt
R. Dixon and A.D. Woodhead
Durham University Business School, Durham, UK, and 293
M. Sohliman
Arab Academy, Alexandria, Egypt

Abstract
Purpose – Investors and financial statement users may have differing beliefs about the
responsibility of an independent accounting firm performing an audit of a client’s financial
statements. This study aims to investigate the existence of an audit expectation gap between auditors
and financial statement users in Egypt.
Design/methodology/approach – The research method adopted in this study is identical to that
used by Schelluch, Best et al. and Fadzly and Ahmed.
Findings – The results found evidence of a wide audit expectation gap in Egypt in the areas of
auditor responsibilities for fraud prevention, maintenance of accounting records, and auditor
judgment in the selection of audit procedures. To a lesser extent, an expectation gap was found
concerning the reliability of audit and audited financial statements, and the usefulness of audit.
Research limitations/implications – The different economic and cultural conditions in Egypt
may restrict the generalisability of this study.
Practical implications – In order to reduce the expectation gap and improve decision-making by
financial statement users, the results of this study support the adoption of the long-form audit report,
augmentation of the auditing framework, strengthening of the auditor’s integrity, and finally
educating users on the nature and functions of audit.
Originality/value – This paper contributes to the understanding of the diverse nature of the
expectations gap by examining the different economic and cultural setting of Egypt.
Keywords Auditing, Financial reporting, Expectation, Egypt
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Various studies have confirmed the existence of the audit expectation gap: Gay and
Schelluch (1993) in Australia; Humphrey et al. (1993) in the UK; Frank et al. (2001) in
the US; and Best et al. (2001) in Singapore. The expectation gap was found to be
particularly wide on the issues of the auditors’ responsibilities for fraud prevention and
detection, and the auditors’ responsibilities for maintenance of accounting records and
exercise of judgment in the selection of audit procedures (Best et al., 2001). It is
important to understand which area the public has highest expectations. It has been
argued that in order to reduce the expectation gap, improvement in the wording of the
report will contribute to ensuring the level of assurance provided and the extent of
work performed are clearly communicated (Gay et al., 1998). The quality and
usefulness of an auditors’ report are consequently important topics to be explored. Managerial Auditing Journal
Vol. 21 No. 3, 2006
The main objective of this study is to examine the existence of any expectation gap pp. 293-302
between auditor and users in Egypt. The expectation gap may arise through diverse q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-6902
perceptions of the role of auditors. Egypt is an important location for this study as it DOI 10.1108/02686900610653026
MAJ has undergone significant levels of privatization which may well impact on the
21,3 perception of the auditor. Egypt also has a different cultural background to prior work
in this field.

The expectation gap

Over the last two decades, the Anglo Saxon world has experienced a spate of corporate
294 failures, financial scandals and audit failures, which have placed the audit
expectations, gap debate firmly on the agenda of the accounting profession,
regulators and the public (Dewing and Russell, 2002). There is widespread concern
regarding the existence of an “expectations gap” between the auditing profession and
the public (Lowe, 1994; Koh and Woo, 1998). Prior research on the expectations
problem is substantial. This is not surprising given that the expectations gap between
auditors and financial statement users has existed for the past 100 years although the
term has been introduced to the auditing scene only during the last 20 years or so
(Humphrey et al., 1993).
The definition of the expectations gap varies among researchers. The expectations
gap can be defined as:
. . . the difference between what the public and financial statement users believe auditors are
responsible for and what auditors themselves believe their responsibilities are (AICPA, 1992).
Monroe and Woodliff (1993) defined the audit expectations gap as the difference in
beliefs between auditors and the public about the duties and responsibilities assumed
by auditors and the messages conveyed by audit reports. Jennings et al. (1993), in their
study on the use of audit decision aids to improve auditor adherence to a “standard”,
are of the opinion that the audit expectations gap is the difference between what the
public expects from the auditing profession and what the profession actually provides.
Porter (1993) carried out an empirical study of the audit expectation-performance gap
and defined the expectations gap as the gap between society’s expectations of auditors
and auditors’ performance, as perceived by society. It is seen to comprise two
components:
(1) reasonableness gap (i.e. the gap between what society expects auditors to
achieve and what the auditors can reasonably be expected to accomplish); and
(2) performance gap (i.e. the gap between what society can reasonably expect
auditors to accomplish and what auditors are perceived to achieve).

The performance gap is further subdivided into “deficient standards”, i.e. the gap
between the duties which can reasonably be expected of auditors and auditors’ existing
duties as defined by the law and professional promulgation, and “deficient
performance”, i.e. the gap between the expected standard of performance of
auditors’ existing duties and auditors’ performance, as expected and perceived by
society.
Porter (1993) conducted an empirical study in New Zealand to test the postulated
structure of the audit expectation-performance gap and to establish the composition
and extent of the gap and its constituent parts. Using a mail survey, Porter ascertained
the opinions of interested groups (auditors, officers of public companies, financial
analysts, auditing academics, lawyers, financial journalists and members of the
general public) regarding auditors’ existing duties, the standard of performance of
these duties, and the duties that auditors should perform. The findings from the survey Investigation of
revealed that 50 per cent of the gap is attributable to deficient standards, 34 per cent the expectation
from society holding unreasonable expectations of auditors, and 16 per cent from
perceived sub-standard performance by auditors. gap in Egypt
Humphrey et al. (1993) provide an introduction to the expectations gap literature
and provides a general definition. He defined the expectations gap as:
. . . a representation of the feeling that auditors are performing in a manner at variance with 295
the beliefs and desires of those for whose benefit the audit is carried out.
He also notes that the expectations gap can be defined more narrowly as a
“role-perception gap”, that is, the expectations of users are capable of comparison with
a predetermined notion of what is reasonable to expect auditors to provide. In turn this
leads to the idea of an “ignorance gap”, that is, the expectations gap can be closed (or at
least narrowed) by the education of users. Conversely, Humphrey notes that the
definition can be broadened to embrace wider issues such as the adequacy of auditing
standards and the quality of audit delivery.
The expectations gap exists when auditors and the public hold different beliefs
about the auditor’s duties and responsibilities and the messages conveyed by audit
reports (Wollf et al., 1999; Koh and Woo, 1998; Frank et al., 2001). According to Godsell
(1992):
. . . there is a widespread belief that a person who has any interest in a company
(shareholders, potential investors, take-over bidders, creditors, etc.) should be able to rely on
its audited accounts as a guarantee of its solvency, propriety and business viability. Hence, if
it transpires, without any warning that the company is in serious financial difficulty, it is
widely felt that somebody should be made accountable for these financial disasters, and this
somebody is always perceived to be the auditors.
These misperceptions of the public feed the legal liability crisis facing the accounting
profession (Maccarrone, 1993). The accounting profession argues that one cause of the
expectations gap is the public’s failure to appreciate the nature and limitations of an
audit (Frank et al., 2001). That is, the public in general has come to view audits as
guarantees of the integrity of financial statements and as an insurance policy against
fraud and illegal acts (Epstein and Geiger, 1994). Also, Kelly and Mohrweis (1989)
explained that the expectations gap has been most conspicuous in legal decisions.
Judicial litigants often appear to apply, as a standard, the concept that an audit is a
comprehensive check on a corporation’s financial activities. A business failure is often
interpreted to be an audit failure, regardless of the level of procedures and tests
performed by the auditor. Auditors can perform their audits in strict accordance with
generally accepted auditing standards and still be found negligent in not preventing
risks to financial statement users (Almer and Brody, 2002).

Prior research
Empirical studies confirm the existence of an expectations gap, specifically in areas
such as the nature of the audit function, the perceived performance of auditors, the
auditor’s duties and role, the independence of auditors, and the non-audit services.
For example, Epstein and Geiger (1994) conducted a survey of investors to gather
information on various aspects of financial reporting issues, in particular on the level of
assurance they believed auditors should provide with respect to error and fraud.
MAJ The survey results suggested that investors seek very high levels of financial
21,3 statement assurance and there exists an expectations gap between auditors and
investors on the level of assurance an audit provides.
In the UK, Humphrey et al. (1993) examined the expectations gap by ascertaining
the perceptions of individuals of audit issues through the use of a questionnaire survey
comprising a series of mini-cases. The respondents included chartered accountants in
296 public practice, corporate finance directors, investment analysts, bank lending officers
and financial journalists. The survey revealed a significant difference between auditors
and respondents (representing some of the main participants in the company financial
reporting process) in their views on the nature of auditing. The results confirmed that
an audit expectations gap exists, specifically in areas such as the nature of the audit
function and the perceived performance of auditors.
Schelluch (1996) found that the expectations gap detected in prior research studies
dealing with auditor responsibilities appeared to be reduced over time with the
introduction of the long-form audit report. Differences in beliefs between auditors
and users (company secretaries and shareholders) appeared to be reduced in
areas specifically addressed in the wording of the expanded report. However, the
expectations gap continued to exist after the introduction of the long-form audit report in
relation to financial statement reliability. This finding appears to indicate continued
difficulties being experienced by users in understanding audited financial statements. The
study also appeared to indicate that users were generally unhappy with the role played by
the auditing profession particularly with respect to auditor independence and the level of
value (i.e. credibility) added to the financial statements from the auditing process.

Research method
The research method used in this study is almost identical to that used in Schelluch (1996),
Best et al. (2001) and Fadzly and Ahmed (2004). Schelluch (1996) developed a semantic
differential instrument to measure the messages communicated through audit reports.
Best et al. (2001) used the same approach in measuring the expectation gap in Singapore.
Fadzly and Ahmed (2004) used the same instrument as Schelluch and Best et al., with
minor modifications, in measuring the expectation gap in Malaysia. In this study, in order
to measure the expectation gap in Egypt, the same semantic differential belief statements
were used with some modifications. Questionnaire techniques have been adopted in
collecting primary data process as it provides an efficient way of collecting responses from
a large sample size. The questionnaire has been designed to ensure that the precise data
required would be collected from respondents to achieve the objectives of this study.
The original construction of the questionnaire was retained so that each pair of
statements is evaluated using a seven-point Likert scale. Participants were asked to
choose a number from the scale that identified their level of agreement to either one of the
statements. The questionnaire is divided into two sections. The first section collected
demographic data related to participants’ qualification, experience, and occupation. The
second section contained 16 semantic differential belief statements. As in the Best et al.
(2001) and Fadzly and Ahmed (2004) studies, three factors were measured by these belief
statements: responsibility, reliability, and decision usefulness. Statements 1-7 related to
auditor’s responsibilities, statements 8-13 related to the reliability of audit and audited
financial statements, and statements 14-16 related to usefulness of audited financial
statements.
Participants Investigation of
In this study, survey participants were broken into three groups: auditors, bankers, and the expectation
investors. As in the Best et al. (2001) study, participants in the groups auditors and bankers
were selected using systematic random sampling from appropriate categories of the gap in Egypt
Egyptian business listed telephone directory. The group investors included the general
public, financial analysts, and brokers. Participants in this group were selected using
systematic random sampling from the Egyptian alphabetic telephone directory for the 297
general public participants, and from appropriate categories of the Egyptian business
listed telephone directory for financial analysts’ and stockbroker participants. These
parties were grouped together as proxies for investors. The participants consisted of 100
participants from each of the three groups: auditors, bankers and investors. All participants
were given the survey questionnaire, a cover letter, and a prepaid return envelope.

Results
At the end of the data collection period, response rates from these groups and other
demographic details are shown in Table I.
The results from Table I indicate that an overall response rate of 37 per cent was
received from the participants, which is a creditable result for this type of data collection
method. The qualifications and experience of the respondents in relation to accounting
appear high. These levels of experience appear to indicate that the respondent groups are
very informed about the uses of financial statements and the auditing process per se and
thus any measure of the expectation gap taken from this study should be considered to be
stronger and more reliable than if respondents were largely inexperienced with regard to
these issues. The investors group shows low results with five investors from 33 having
experience in accounting. These findings reflected the nature of the investors in Egypt.
The results from Table II show that occupational experience of respondents was
quite widespread with about 74 per cent of the respondents possessing more than five
years experience in their occupation. Table II provides evidence of the fact that
respondents to the survey had considerable experience in their areas of expertise and
therefore should provide experienced judgments on the issues in the survey. No
evidence was found of any non-response bias for respondents within the same group.
Following the method utilised in Schelluch (1996), Best et al. (2001) and Fadzly and
Ahmed (2004), any significant difference detected in mean test scores between auditor
and non-auditor groups (bankers and investors) indicates the potential existence of the
expectation gap. Tables III-V measure the level and nature of the expectation gap in
Egypt by providing details of the mean responses for each of the respondent groups
both within groups and across groups and by detailing the results of the
Mann-Whitney U-test for significant differences between the three respondent

Accounting Accounting
Response received experience qualification
Group Survey sent n Per cent Yes No Yes No

Auditors 100 45 45 45 0 45 0 Table I.

Bankers 100 34 34 32 2 20 14 Response rates and
Investors 100 33 33 5 28 4 29 demographic details of
Total 300 112 37 82 30 69 43 participants
MAJ groups. The results of these tests indicated that, the distribution of data in the majority
21,3 cases was not normal, as indicated in the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Where significant
differences were found between the three groups within these tables of results, it may
be claimed that an audit expectation gap exists in Egypt and the extent of this gap
depends on the magnitude of these differences.

298 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years Over 15 years

Group n Per cent n Per cent n Per cent n Per cent

Auditors (n ¼ 45) 9 20 18 40 10 22.2 8 17.8

Table II. Bankers (n ¼ 34) 8 23.5 15 44.1 7 20.5 4 11.9
Occupational experience Investors (n ¼ 33) 12 36.4 16 48.4 3 9 2 6.2
of responses Total (n ¼ 112) 29 25.9 49 43.7 20 17.8 14 12.6

Mean responses
Statements Auditors Bankers Investors Across groups

1. The auditor is responsible for detecting all fraud 3.56 2.29 * 2.09 * 2.53
2. The auditor is responsible for the internal control
structure in the entity 4.04 2.24 * 2.06 * 3.20
3. The auditor is responsible for maintaining
accounting records 4.51 4.18 * 3.33 * 4.06
4. Management has responsibility for producing the
financial statements 2.76 3.12 4.39 3.35
5. The auditor is not responsible for preventing fraud 4.44 5.35 * 5.39 * 4.71
6. The auditor is unbiased and objective 1.00 2.35 * 4.61 * 2.17
Table III. 7. The auditor does exercise judgment in the
Comparative mean selection of audit procedures 1.11 2.53 * 4.06 * 2.37
response – responsibility
statements Note: *Significantly different from auditors at p # 0.05

Mean responses
Statements Auditors Bankers Investors Across groups

8. Users can have absolute assurance that the

financial statements contain no material
misstatements 2.24 2.71 * 3.64 * 2.49
9. The auditor does not agree with the accounting
policies used in the financial statements 1.35 4.29 * 3.42 * 2.93
10. The extent of assurances given by the auditor is
clearly indicated 1.78 2.24 3.64 2.46
11. The financial statements give a true and fair view 1.78 2.35 * 4.42 * 2.73
12. The entity is free from fraud 4.27 3.29 * 3.67 * 3.79
Table IV. 13. The extent of audit work performed is clearly
Comparative mean communicated 2.53 2.24 3.64 2.77
response – reliability
statements Note: *Significantly different from auditors at p # 0.05
Auditor’s responsibilities Investigation of
Seven statements on responsibility address the issues of fraud detection and the expectation
prevention, internal control, scope of auditor’s legal responsibility, financial statement
preparation, auditor’s objectivity, and audit procedures. The results in Table III gap in Egypt
indicate significant differences in all responsibility areas except for financial statement
preparation (statement 4), where all three groups were in agreement and had strong
beliefs that management has responsibility for producing financial statements. 299
The results indicate that auditors believe they have little responsibility for fraud
detection and prevention (statements 1 and 5), whilst bankers and investors appeared
to place significant responsibility on auditors for these tasks. This would appear to be
the area of greatest gap in expectations in Egypt. The results of this study agree with
the findings of Best et al. (2001), Schelluch (1996) and Fadzly and Ahmed (2004)
concerning previous evidence of the existence of an expectation gap with regard to
auditor’s responsibility for fraud prevention and detection. The results in Table III
indicate that an audit expectation gap was detected between auditors and users
(bankers and investors) regarding the auditor’s responsibility for the soundness of the
internal controls of the entity (statement 2). This conforms to the findings of Best et al.
(2001) and Fadzly and Ahmed (2004), where investors in Singapore and Malaysia were
also found to believe that auditors are responsible for ensuring sound internal control
in the audited entity. As indicated by Schelluch (1996), this could be reduced by the use
of improved audit report wording.
The results also indicate that auditors believe management is responsible for
maintenance of accounting records, whereas users (bankers and investors) appear to
attribute some responsibility for this issue (statement 3) to auditors. Also, auditors
believe they should exercise considerable judgment in the selection of audit procedures
(statement 7), but users appear to indicate that some of this judgment should be
given to management. An audit expectation gap was also detected between auditors
and users regarding whether the auditor is unbiased and objective (statement 6).
The results of Schelluch (1996) indicate that the adoption of the long-form audit report
in Australia assisted in reducing the audit expectation gap on all of these issues with
the exception of the auditor’s responsibility for fraud prevention.

Reliability of audit and audited financial statements

Statements on reliability deal with issues of the extent of assurance provided by audit,
accounting policies, audited financial statements being true and fair, fraud within the
audited entity, and audit report’s effectiveness in communicating the extent of audit
work performed. Table IV provides details of the results of the mean responses

Mean responses
Statements Auditors Bankers Investors Across groups

14. The audited financial statements are not useful in

monitoring the performance of the entity 5.96 5.35 * 4.42 * 5.32
15. The audited financial statements are not useful
for making decisions 6.49 5.59 * 4.76 5.71 Table V.
16. The entity is well managed 1.78 2.24 3.64 2.46 Comparative mean
response – decision
Note: *Significantly different from auditors at p # 0.05 usefulness statements
MAJ concerning six reliability statements associated with the use of audited financial
21,3 statements.
In this table, no evidence was found of an expectation gap existing in Egypt (i.e. no
significant differences between the groups) concerning the extent of assurances given
by the auditor (statement 10) and the clear communication of the extent of audit work
(statement 13). However, evidence of an expectation gap appeared between auditors
300 and users (bankers and investors) concerning the level of assurance that financial
statements contain no material misstatements (statements 8). Also, the results in
Table IV indicate that evidence of an expectation gap appeared between auditors and
users regarding the auditor’s agreement with the entity’s accounting policies
(statement 9). These finding are contrary to the findings of Best et al. (2001), as they
found that a potential audit expectation gap existed on the issue of assurance and
communication of the extent of audit work. However, Schelluch (1996) found that
respondent groups were in agreement on the issue of accounting policies and extent of
assurances. Also, the results in Table IV indicate that evidence of an expectation gap
appeared between auditors and users regarding whether financial statements give a
true and faire view (statement 11). This finding is contrary to the findings of Schelluch
(1996) who found a significant difference between auditors and investors concerning
this issue. This result may reflect some potential disillusionment with financial
statements in Egypt.
Table IV indicates that auditors had significantly higher beliefs than users with
regard to whether the entity is free from fraud (statement 12). This conforms to the
findings of Schelluch (1996), Best et al. (2001) and Fadzly and Ahmed (2004) regarding
this issue. The difference, however, may not raise a concern over the adverse effect of
the expectation gap, as it shows users’ willingness to accept the fact that an audit may
not provide a guarantee against fraud (Fadzly and Ahmed, 2004). Also, this finding
supports the existence of an expectation gap in Egypt concerning the issue of fraud as
indicated by the finding for statements 1 and 5 in Table I.

Usefulness of audited financial statements

Three statements on usefulness pertain to the use of audited financial statements in
decision-making, performance monitoring, and assessing whether the entity is well
managed. Table V provides details of the results of the mean responses concerning
these issues.
The results in the table indicate that no evidence of an expectation gap was found
on the entity being well managed (statement 16). At the same time, evidence of an
expectation gap appeared between auditors and users (bankers and investors)
concerning whether the audited financial statements are not useful in monitoring the
performance of the entity (statement 14). This finding is contrary to the findings of
Best et al. (2001) and Fadzly and Ahmed (2004) and reinforces the potential
disillusionment with financial statements in Egypt. Related to the issue of whether
audited financial reports are not useful for making decisions (statement 15), Table V
indicates that a significant difference exists between auditors and bankers. The higher
level of agreement among bankers could indicate their high reliance on the auditor’s
opinion for credit decisions. This agrees with the findings of the studies by Schelluch
(1996) and Fadzly and Ahmed (2004).
Conclusion Investigation of
The objectives of this study were to verify the existence of the audit expectation gap in the expectation
Egypt as well as to compare the extent of the gap to the findings of the similar prior
studies. Consistent with the findings of Best et al. (2001) and Fadzly and Ahmed (2004), gap in Egypt
the results revealed substantial evidence of the expectation gap in Egypt particularly
in the relation to the level and nature of auditor’s responsibilities. The expectation gap
was found to be particularly wide on the issue of the auditor’s responsibilities for fraud 301
prevention and detection and the auditor’s responsibility for maintenance of
accounting records, exercise of judgment in the selection of audit procedures,
soundness of internal control, and whether the auditor is unbiased and objective. To a
lesser extent, an expectation gap was found concerning the reliability of audit and
audited financial statements, and the usefulness of audit.
The findings indicate serious concerns for the accounting and auditing profession in
Egypt. Fadzly and Ahmed (2004) explained that the existence of the expectation gap
may eventually lead to a severely tarnished reputation and negative perception of the
value of independent audit. Prior studies have suggested solutions for reducing or
narrowing the expectation gap such as improvement of auditor-user communication
(through audit reports), augmentation of the auditing framework, strengthening of the
auditor’s integrity, and further educating users on the nature and functions of audit.

Limitation
This study suffers from several limitations. The scope of the study was limited to only
300 potential respondents. The survey instrument used in this study was almost
identical to that developed by Schelluch (1996) in Australia, Best et al. (2001) in
Singapore, and Fadzly and Ahmed (2004) in Malaysia. Egypt is an Arabic-speaking
country with different economic and education conditions, so there is a risk that there
may be significant culture differences between these countries and Egypt.
Accordingly, these limitations may limit the generalisability of the results.

References
Almer, E.D. and Brody, R.G. (2002), “An empirical investigation of context-dependent
communications between auditors and bankers”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 17
No. 8, pp. 478-86.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) (1992), “Statement of position
regarding mandatory rotation audit firms of publicly held companies”, SEC Practice
Section, Division for CPA Firms.
Best, P.J., Buckby, S. and Tan, C. (2001), “Evidence of the audit expectation gap in Singapore”,
Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 134-44.
Dewing, I.P. and Russell, P.O. (2002), “UK fund managers, audit regulation and the new
accountancy foundation: towards a narrowing of the audit expectation gap”, Managerial
Auditing Journal, Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 537-45.
Epstein, M.J. and Geiger, M.A. (1994), “Investors views of audit assurance: recent evidence of the
expectation gap”, Journal of Accountancy, Vol. 177 No. 1, pp. 60-4.
Fadzly, M.N. and Ahmed, Z. (2004), “Audit expectation gap: the case of Malaysia”, Managerial
Auditing Journal, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 897-915.
Frank, K.E., Lowe, J.D. and Smith, J.K. (2001), “The expectation gap: perceptual differences between
auditors, jurors and students”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 145-9.
MAJ Gay, G.E. and Schelluch, P. (1993), “The impact of the long-form audit report on users’
perceptions of the auditor’s role”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1-11.
21,3 Gay, G., Schelluch, P. and Baines, A. (1998), “Perceptions of messages conveyed by review and
audit reports”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 472-94.
Godsell, D. (1992), “Legal liability and the audit expectation gap”, Singapore Accountant, Vol. 8,
pp. 25-8.
302 Humphrey, C., Moizer, P. and Turley, S. (1993), “The audit expectation gap in Britain: an
empirical investigation”, Accounting & Business Research, Vol. 23 No. 91A, pp. 359-411.
Jennings, M., Kneer, D.C. and Reckers, P.M. (1993), “The significance of audit decision aids and
pre-case jurist’s attitude on perceptions of audit firm culpability and liability”,
Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 489-507.
Kelly, A. and Mohrweis, L. (1989), “Banker’s and investors’ perception of the auditor’s role in
financial statement reporting: the impact of SAS No. 58”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice &
Theory, Vol. 9, pp. 87-97.
Koh, H.C. and Woo, E. (1998), “The expectation gap in auditing”, Managerial Auditing Journal,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 147-54.
Lowe, D.J. (1994), “The expectation gap in the legal system: perception differences between
auditors and judges”, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 10, pp. 39-44.
Maccarrone, E.T. (1993), “Using the expectation gap to close the legal gap”, CPA Journal, Vol. 63,
pp. 10-16.
Monroe, G.S. and Woodliff, D. (1993), “The effect of education on the audit expectation gap”,
Accounting and Finance, Vol. 33, pp. 61-78.
Porter, B. (1993), “An empirical study of the audit expectation-performance gap”, Accounting &
Business Research, Vol. 24 No. 93, pp. 49-68.
Schelluch, P. (1996), “Long-form audit report massages: further implications for the audit
expectation gap”, Accounting Research Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 48-55.
Wollf, F.M., James, A.T. and Gregory, A. (1999), “Audit disaster futures: antidotes for the
expectation gap”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 14 No. 9, pp. 468-78.

Further reading
Fadzly, M.N. and Ahmed, Z. (2003), “The perceived value of financial statements audit”,
Proceeding of the International Conference on Quality Financial Reporting and Corporate
Governance, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Monroe, G.S. and Woodliff, D. (1994), “An empirical investigation of the audit expectation gap:
Australian evidence”, Accounting and Finance, Vol. 34, pp. 47-74.

Corresponding author
R. Dixon can be contacted at: robert.dixon@durham.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints