SUMMARY
Critics argue that audit research rarely impacts practice, in part due to challenges associated with synthesizing and interpreting research. We propose that using the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) as a meta-theoretical framework can help in understanding the collective findings within auditor judgment and decision-making (JDM) research. Our goal is to demonstrate the utility of the ELM by interpreting the results of two samples of studies on client cooperation and auditors' moods. Our synthesis of client cooperation studies suggests cooperation on a current issue affects auditors' judgments only when auditors lack motivation to think carefully about the task. In contrast, a history of client cooperation tends to bias even highly motivated auditors' judgments. Our synthesis of mood studies suggests motivational interventions are necessary, but not sufficient, to mitigate mood's effects on judgments. Our ELM interpretations offer theoretical explanations for seemingly unrelated predictions and findings that can inform future research and practice.