Audit firms increasingly employ automated tools and techniques in auditing procedures. The premise of using automation is that it increases audit effectiveness and audit efficiency. For these effectiveness and efficiency gains to materialize, auditors need to use automation in an adequate manner. Regulators, however, have raised concerns that auditors may over- or under-rely on automation. I predict that auditors are subject to an automation bias and use cues from automated tools and techniques as a replacement for vigilant information seeking, thereby reducing professional skepticism when relying on automation. My findings are in line with my predictions. When auditors rely on work conducted by automated tools and techniques, they are less skeptical than when relying on the same work conducted by an audit team member. Based on psychology theory, I employ a counterarguing mindset intervention that alleviates the negative effects of automation on professionally skepticism. Finally, I also test whether a reduction in vigilance caused by automation usage spills over to subsequent tasks. I do not find evidence indicating a spillover effect. Implications for practice and theory are discussed.