This study examines the effect of independence threats and litigation risk on auditors' evaluation of information and subsequent reporting choices. Using a Web‐based experiment, I tracked auditors' information gathering and evaluation leading to a going‐concern reporting decision. Specifically, 48 audit managers assessed client survival likelihood, gathered additional information, and suggested audit report choices. I found that auditors facing high independence threats (fear of losing the client) evaluated information as more indicative of a surviving client and were more likely to suggest an unmodified audit report, consistent with client preferences. In contrast, auditors facing high litigation risk evaluated information as more indicative of a failing client and were more likely to suggest a modified audit report. In addition, the association between risk and report choice was fully mediated by final information evaluation. This suggests that it is unlikely that different reporting choices resulted from a conscious choice bias, but rather that motivated reasoning during evidence evaluation plays a key role in the effect of risk in auditor decision making.

ABSTRACT We experimentally examine the effects of trait professional skepticism on fraud brainstorming performance. We find that groups with a minority, but not a majority, of high trait skeptics develop more fraud ideas than control groups with no high trait skeptics. Mediation analyses indicate that minority high trait skeptic groups also assess higher fraud risk, in part because they consider more fraud ideas. Low trait skeptics who brainstorm in groups with a minority of high trait skeptics tend to view the minority high trait skeptic as the best member of the group because of that member's unique insights. Their individual, post-brainstorming fraud risk assessments remain high, indicating conversion to the minority (skeptical) viewpoint. Our study contributes to the brainstorming literature by highlighting the importance of group composition. It suggests that firms can promote skeptical team judgments by leveraging individuals' high trait skepticism in thoughtfully composed interacting groups.