关于审计（aduiting)里面有一个定义为expextiation gap的含义。求助英文和中文答案。要详细一点的，作业用。最好有four examples of the expectation gap.

审计期望差距是指社会公众对注册会计师审计应起作用的理解与注册会计师行为结果及注册会计师业界自身对审计业绩看法之间的差异.

审计期望差概念由Liggio（1974）首次提出，各国研究人员关于审计期望差的含义及构成要素的观点不尽相同。本文以1988年加拿大麦克唐纳委员会提出的审计期望差概念作为标准定义，即审计期望差是社会公众对审计的需求与公众对目前审计执业的认识之间存在的差距，它是由“公众对审计的不合理期望”、“审计准则的不充分性导致的合理期望差”、“实际执业缺陷导致的合理期望差”和“公众对现行执业质量的认识偏差导致的不合理认识”四个要素构成。

The expectation gap is the gap between the auditors' actual standard of performance and the various public expectations of auditors' performance (as opposed to their required standard of performance).

你要的four examples of the expectation gap：
１．Requirements gap
2.Feasibility gap
3.Performance gap
4.Standards gap

你问题上的单词拼错了，所以查不到，你可以自己改过单词后再搜搜

或者抄这个：

EXPECTATIONS GAP Expectations gap
The expectation gap [fn] is the gap between the auditors' actual standard of performance and the various public expectations of auditors' performance (as opposed to their required standard of performance). Many members of the public expect that:

auditors should accept prime responsibility for the financial statements,
auditors 'certify’ financial statements,
a 'clean’ opinion guarantees the accuracy of financial statements,
auditors perform a 100% check,
auditors should give early warning about the possibility of business failure, and
auditors are supposed to detect fraud. (See Wisconsin Law Journal article entitled Why Didn't Our Auditors Find the Fraud?.)
Such public expectations of auditors, which go beyond the actual standard of performance by auditors, have led to the term 'expectation gap’.

According to the auditing profession, the reality is that:

management, as preparers of the financial statements, is primarily responsible for their content, even though management may request the auditors to prepare them;
an audit only provides reasonable assurance that financial statements are free of material misstatement. (See The CPA Journal entitled The Past and Future of Reasonable Assurance);
an audit is no guarantee of solvency or financial performance;
auditors are only required to test selected transactions - it does not make economic sense, in to-days world, to check all transactions; and
although auditors plan and conduct an audit engagement with an attitude of professional skepticism recognizing that circumstances such as fraud may exist that will cause the financial statements to be materially misstated, an audit does not guarantee that fraud will be detected.
Components of the expectation gap
The expectation gap may be decomposed initially into two components: the requirements gap and the feasibility gap.
Requirements gap. This is the gap between auditors' actual standard of performance and the performance required of them by the current standards of society. The required standard of performance is the standard of performance set out in both professional standards and statutes, the latter being subject to interpretation through courts of law. The requirements gap may be further divided into:

Performance gap: The requirements gap is the gap between the actual standard of performance and the standard of performance determined by reference to professional standards and statutes.
Standards gap: This is the gap between the standard of performance as determined by reference to professional standards and statutes, on the one hand, and society's required standard of performance on the other. Society's required standard of performance, as stated above, is the standard of performance set out in the statutes and professional standards augmented by the decisions handed down in the courts of law.


Feasibility gap. The feasibility gap is the gap between society's required standard of performance and various public expectations (the expected standard of performance). The examples given in the opening paragraphs of this section, including expectations that auditors are responsible for the preparation of the financial statements that auditors 'certify’ financial statements, and the failure to recognize the limitations of an audit [fn], fall into the feasibility gap.

Narrowing the gap
It is in the interests of both the public at large and the auditing profession that the expectation gap be narrowed as much as is practicable [fn]. This may be achieved by individually considering each component of the gap.
Performance gap. The performance gap is caused by the failure to conform with statutory requirements and professional standards. This gap can be narrowed by closer monitoring of auditors’ performance and by improving the professional education of practitioners. Performance monitoring includes peer review (the review of work policies, procedures and work performed in an auditing firm by a member of another auditing firm) and quality reviews or the systematic evaluation and review of the practices and procedures performed within an auditing firm by a committee or task force established within the firm. Finally, improved or more extensive disciplinary procedures assists in promoting greater compliance with statutory and professional requirements.

Standards gap.The standards gap exists where statutes and the professional standards fail to properly reflect the appropriate standard of performance deemed appropriate by the courts of law. This gap may only be narrowed by establishing professional standards and legislation that anticipates the feasible demands of society, as handed down in common law decisions. As this would require both a voluntary extension of auditors' duties and an extraordinary degree of foresight, this gap is unlikely ever to be completely eliminated.

Feasibility gap. The feasibility gap is caused by society’s increasing, and often unrealistic, demands for accountability. One way in which the gap may be narrowed is by improving public education in order to demonstrate to the public that existing professional standards and legislative requirements are adequate. Alternatively, auditors may either accede to society's more reasonable demands or improve the manner in which they communicate their findings to financial statement users. The accounting profession has adopted this approach in the past on a number of occasions and in a number of countries when a revised professional standard was released requiring the content of the standard audit report to be expanded in order to better explain the objectives and limitations of an audit to readers of the report.