ABSTRACT Prior research shows that individuals benefit from abstract construals when performing broader high-level assurance tasks. We extend this research by studying the effects of different construal mindsets on skepticism and performance in a low-level assurance task setting. Using a sample of 195 online participants, we find that individuals benefit from concrete (versus abstract) mindsets when performing low-level assurance tasks because concrete construals better allow them to focus on detailed evidence that may contradict client assertions. Specifically, we show that assurance providers who utilize a concrete (abstract) construal mindset when performing a low-level task display better (worse) skeptical judgments and actions. Taken together with findings from past research, our results support the notion that assurance providers should utilize the construal mindset that best matches the characteristics of the task at hand. Exploratory analysis suggests that client retention incentives may moderate the relationship between skeptical judgment and skeptical action in our context. Data Availability: Data are available from the authors upon request.