Auditors frequently use valuation specialists to help them evaluate fair values, but researchers and regulators know little about how auditors use these specialists. Based on interviews with 28 auditors and 14 valuation specialists, I develop a theoretical framework informed by expert systems and professional competition theories. The interviews suggest that institutional pressures in the fair value environment unevenly impact auditors and specialists, causing tension between auditors' needs for ontological security and jurisdictional claims. This tension leads to one‐sided competition between auditors and specialists and incomplete acceptance of specialists' work. Auditors' competitive behaviors coupled with this incomplete acceptance result in a tendency to make specialists' work conform to auditors' views. Collectively, these findings suggest that auditors use specialists as an institutional mechanism to create comfort, but not insight. This study links expert systems and professional competition theories, and it provides critical insight into some assumptions underlying tenets of each theory. It also informs researchers, regulators, and practitioners interested in understanding and addressing problems related to the use of specialists.

Junior auditors collect the bulk of audit evidence, yet they do not always speak up to communicate potentially important audit issues. Such inappropriate “voice” decisions can endanger audit quality. We examine whether and how staff auditors influence each other in making voice decisions. First, a survey provides descriptive evidence that staff auditors consult their peers for advice on whether to speak up. Next, two experiments provide evidence that voice advice among peers at the staff level can be problematic. We find that staff auditors consistently underestimate the importance of raising issues compared to their supervisors, and they rely on social cues that are not diagnostic of issue importance in giving voice advice to peers. Finally, we predict and find that staff auditors tend to follow peer advice when it confirms their initial stance, and that an expectation of high (versus low) quality supervisor feedback increases their willingness to speak up. Most importantly, we find that contradictory peer advice only influences staff auditors’ willingness to speak up when leadership feedback is not expected to be of high quality. Together these results indicate that staff auditors seek out and follow voice advice from their peers, but appropriate leadership feedback practices can mitigate the negative impact of peer advice on upward communication.