Individuals in an organizational context are routinely faced with complex problems that are not well defined and that challenge their cognitive capacities. To deal with such complex issues, decision-makers construct "belief-structures" which in turn create selective perceptions about information and events that prevent them from being overwhelmed by the amount and complexity of information. This study examines the impact of two important contextual variables; pressures and opportunities on auditors' selective perceptions and fraud risk assessments. Research suggests that a situation relevant concept, norm, perspective, or cognitive process that is shared by a majority of the group members, will be exaggerated in a group setting where groups are trying to accomplish a task that does not have a normatively/demonstrably correct answer. In an audit setting, typically there are no normatively correct answers related to the weighting of different levels of pressures and opportunities while assessing fraud risk. Therefore we also examine how individual auditors' selective perceptions affect group decisions. The results indicate that observed differences in individual auditors fraud risk assessments were significantly accentuated during group brainstorming. Thus, our findings suggest that, group brainstorming instead of reducing the influence of contextual characteristics on selective perception, actually accentuates that effect.