The expectation gap can be considered as a function of two components. The first component represents the difference between ex ante judgments of auditors and nonauditors who do not have outcome knowledge. The second component depicts the difference between nonauditor judgments that are made with and without negative outcome knowledge. Kinney and Nelson [dy96) suggest that these two components tend to offset each other resulting in little if any expectation gap. We build upon their study and provide a framework that shows that the effects of these two components is dependent upon the type of judgment elicited. Our preliminary framework suggests that if the judgment involves a likelihood or predictive assessment, then the two expectation gap components may be expected to offset each other. However, if the judgment involves performance evaluation, the two components are more likely to compound each other. An understanding of this framework is important so as not to lead to inappropriate conclusions about the expectation gap.
ASJC Scopus subject areas