In this study we examine how computer-mediated communication (CMC) changes the content of auditor-client interactions relative to face-to-face (FTF) communication. These practice concerns were made clear in semi-structured interviews with partners, who demonstrate unease regarding the extent that younger staff are using CMC relative to FTF communication. Results from a brief survey conducted with staff auditors, managers, and partners indicate that there are differences regarding perceptions of when to use CMC. While these differences were expected (Bergiel et al., 2008), the results indicate that staff auditors are likely using CMC in their interactions with the client more often than partners would prefer staff to use. Consistent with Social Presence Theory (SPT), results of our experiment suggest that, when communicating electronically, auditors ask fewer follow-up questions of the controller, have shorter overall interactions, and engage in less “back and forth” dialogue during the conversation. Further, auditors engage in fewer relationship-building statements when communicating electronically. Consistent with theory, we also find that auditors communicating electronically request more documentation though they ask fewer questions in general. This application of SPT is an important contribution to accounting literature as technology and alternate forms of communication are increasing in the modern audit environment. For example, firms should be aware of, and perhaps include in training, the large difference occurring in the number of questions and the content of interactions between CMC and FTF. On a more ambiguous audit issue, we also find that nonverbal cues related to deception, such as pauses, “umms,” and higher pitched responses, cause auditors to act more skeptically. It is important to understand that people are not very good at determining deception, but improvement occurs through repeated interactions where deception occurs and is then discovered (Schweitzer, 2005; Vrij & Semin, 1996). While we clustered deception cues around the second and third issues after developing a baseline behavior of the client in the first issue, participants had greater interaction would likely increase skeptical behavior. These issues demonstrate the validity of partners' concerns regarding young staff auditors not spending enough time in personal interactions with the client. However, CMC has consequential advantages as well. Recall a key aspect of SPT is the importance of matching the task with the most appropriate communication mode. One prescriptive contribution of these findings is that firms may want to explicitly consider communication mode for their staff depending on the situation. For example, in areas where the questions to ask are known or simple conveyance of information is the primary goal, FTF communication has little benefit over CMC. Even in situations where CMC is the most appropriate communication medium, prior FTF interactions improve subsequent CMC and make it more effective for a broader range of tasks (Lin, Standing, & Liu, 2008; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004). Our survey results, in combination with findings of Bennett and Hatfield (2013), indicate that staff may choose CMC more often than partners would prefer. Thus, explicit considerations and guidance may need to be given to staff regarding the choice of communication method. Given that we focus on the quality and quantity of interactions between the staff auditor and client, a key concern of audit firms, future research should consider other audit areas where decision quality can be more directly examined. It is important to note that just as telecommunications evolved to improve social presence (Short et al., 1976), CMC is likely evolving as well. For example, Larson (2003) suggest that coming generations are being raised primarily with CMC, through which they have developed ways to communicate emotion and are perhaps better able to discern implicit aspects of communication (e.g., deception). Additionally, they have developed cues outside of nonverbal cues (e.g., typographic) that allow for richer communication than purely the conveyance of text (Larson, 2003). As these generations gain representation in audit firms, the preferences and occurrence of CMC will likely continue to evolve. Research will need to consider how to operate effectively in work environments where CMC is increasingly the norm. FTF interactions are also important in this context as these types of interactions improve one's ability to identify future deception (Vrij & Semin, 1996). Further, meeting FTF results in less deception, simply because people find it harder to deceive in-person (Lee & Welker, 2007; Valley et al., 1998). It is important to note that deception cues can be textual as well, and in fact, recent audit research has demonstrated that auditors can be trained to recognize deceptive cues occurring audibly or only in text (Hobson, Mayew, Peecher, & Venkatachalam, 2017). Firms may also consider prior research that suggests that, even when CMC is the most appropriate communication medium, prior in-person discussions and interactions improve subsequent CMC and make it more effective for a broader range of tasks (Lin et al., 2008; Powell et al., 2004). It is important to interpret this study in relation to Bennett and Hatfield (2013). In Bennett and Hatfield (2013), the client controller's age, knowledge, and tenure were manipulated, creating experimental conditions in which there was a social mismatch between the participants (young staff auditors) and the older, more experienced client. The study finds that staff auditors were more reluctant to make in-person (FTF) requests due to the social mismatch. Yet, when given the option to make the request via email (CMC), staff auditors were more likely to request the needed documents using CMC. This benefit to CMC (i.e., staff auditors collecting additional information they otherwise would not) may be a function of the nature of the request (i.e., a documentation request), which can be better suited for low social presence such as CMC, as it is information that can be made via a simple request instead of anticipating a more complex discussion. However, it cannot always be assumed that staff auditors will use CMC only for simple requests. Audit partners are concerned that without FTF communications, staff auditors may not obtain sufficient evidence and that they are over-relying on CMC as a surrogate for meeting with the client in-person. Exploring the notion that staff auditors are utilizing CMC more than partners would like, the current study examines staff auditors' discussions with management FTF versus CMC in a setting requiring more discussion between the auditor and client to gather the needed information and audit evidence. Thus, we examine the quality of the auditor-client interactions, particularly with regard to the extent of staff auditors' follow-up questions and level of skepticism. We find that given a setting where FTF dialogue is more appropriate to gather sufficient audit evidence, staff auditors using CMC ask fewer questions and are less skeptical in their discussions and questions of the client. While we do not vary the type of task or provide the choice of communication in this study, future accounting research can further our understanding in this area by considering auditors' choice of communication mode(s), and, in turn, the effects their choice has on audit quality. Placing this study in a larger model of auditor/client communication may be helpful to fully interpret the findings of these individual studies. As research develops in this area, there are several interesting opportunities for research to further our understanding of communication and communication medium between auditors and their clients. For example, this study, as well as Bennett and Hatfield (2013), considers how the auditor is affected by characteristics of these discussions, while Saiewitz and Kida (2018) look at how client management is affected by communication medium. These studies necessarily hold one side of the conversation somewhat constant. Future research should consider truly interactive experimental designs that allow auditors and clients to interact, measuring a joint outcome. Additionally, due to the rich context of audit fieldwork and limitations of experiments, this may be an area of auditor/client behavior that is more easily accessed through field research (e.g., Guénin-Paracini, Malsch, & Tremblay, 2015).