Can simple metaphors be used as decision aids to promote professional skepticism?

This study examines the potential for metaphorical priming to promote professional skepticism. Results of an experiment with 99 senior auditors from two Big 4 audit firms indicate that reading metaphors that are entirely unrelated to audit evidence can promote professional skepticism and influence auditors’ judgments. Relative to auditor participants who did not read a metaphor, participants who read a metaphor related to concerns about the honesty of the sources of information (client-skeptical metaphor) or concerns about one’s own ability to detect problems (self-skeptical metaphor) assessed higher levels of fraud risk. These auditors also perceived that fraud-based explanations were more likely to cause fluctuations in client ratios. Importantly, metaphorical primes improved auditors’ fraud-related actions and caused them to focus on issues that were the most likely explanations for the audit evidence. Results suggest that metaphorical priming may represent a powerful and efficient tool for promoting high-quality and professionally skeptical judgments.