This paper reports the results of experiments designed to examine whether investor selection of auditors enhances auditor independence. The experimental design enables us to explore the effect on independence of different institutional rules as to who hires and fires auditors and to directly measure independence violations. The results suggest that transferring the power to hire and fire the auditor from managers to investors significantly decreases the proportion of independence violations. Additional analysis suggests that a reduction in independence violations increases the overall economic surplus generated in the markets examined.

We use experimental markets to examine stock-based compensation's impact on the objectivity of participants serving as audit committee members.We compare audit committee member reporting objectivity under three regimes: no stock-based compensation, stock-based compensation linked to current shareholders, and stock-based compensation linked to future shareholders. Our experiments show that student participants serving as audit committee members prefer biased reporting when compensated with stock-based compensation. Audit committee members compensated with current stock-based compensation prefer aggressive reporting, and audit committee members compensated with future stock-based compensation prefer overly conservative reporting. We find that audit committee members who do not receive stock-based compensation are the most objective. Our study suggests that stock-based compensation impacts audit committee member preferences for biased reporting, suggesting the need for additional research in this area.