This paper examines the effect of SAS No. 99 recommended group brainstorming on the auditor's search for potential material misstatements and assessments of fraud risk in the presence of different levels of pressures and opportunities. We argue that there are potential differences in the auditor's evaluation of pressures and opportunities while searching for potential material misstatements and assessing fraud risk, and these differences could be exaggerated when auditors brainstorm in groups. The results of a 2 x 2 x 2 between-subjects experiment (in which pressures and opportunities were manipulated at high and low levels, and brainstorming occurred individually or in three member audit teams) indicate that auditors found a significantly greater number of potential material misstatements when they observed high pressures and low opportunities compared to when they observed low pressures and high opportunities (even though there was an equal number of potential material misstatements across in all the treatments). Furthermore, this difference was significantly increased when auditors performed group brainstorming. Similarly, auditors' assessments of fraud risk were significantly higher when they observed high pressures and low opportunities as compared to when they observed low pressures and high opportunities. Again, this difference was significantly increased when auditors performed group brainstorming.