Coping With Changing Skill Requirements: Does Disaffirmation Versus Affirmation Affect Auditors' Reliance on AI ‐Supported Advice From Specialists?

Mark E. Peecher et al.

Contemporary Accounting Research2026https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.70040article
FT50AJG 4ABDC A*
Weight
0.50

Abstract

The digital evolution in auditing has triggered a rapid shift in auditors' required skill sets, with audit firms heavily investing in and extolling advanced data analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities. However, this strong emphasis on newly required digital skills can lead many experienced auditors, who perceive these competencies as their weaker areas, to feel disaffirmed in their abilities. We predict and find, across two experiments, that auditors who feel disaffirmed in their digital skills more defensively discount specialist advice that places higher versus lower reliance on AI, but that an intervention in which auditors affirm their traditional audit skills mitigates this defensive reaction. Absent self‐affirmation, higher specialist reliance on AI results in auditors denigrating the competence and quality of advice that specialists provide. These findings suggest that disaffirmation escalates AI aversion, offering important insights into how audit firms can foster less defensive decision‐making in the rapidly evolving audit environment.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.70040

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{mark2026,
  title        = {{Coping With Changing Skill Requirements: Does Disaffirmation Versus Affirmation Affect Auditors' Reliance on AI ‐Supported Advice From Specialists?}},
  author       = {Mark E. Peecher et al.},
  journal      = {Contemporary Accounting Research},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.70040},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Coping With Changing Skill Requirements: Does Disaffirmation Versus Affirmation Affect Auditors' Reliance on AI ‐Supported Advice From Specialists?

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.