IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infosf/v5y2003i4d10.1023_bisfi.0000005651.93751.4b.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Applications of Belief Functions in Business Decisions: A Review

Author

Listed:
  • Rajendra P. Srivastava

    (The University of Kansas)

  • Liping Liu

    (University of Akron)

Abstract

In this paper, we review recent applications of the Dempster-Shafer theory (DST) of belief functions to auditing and business decision-making. We show how DST can better map uncertainties in application domains than Bayesian theory of probabilities. We review the applications in auditing around three practical problems that challenge the effective application of DST, namely, hierarchical evidence, versatile evidence, and statistical evidence. We review the applications in other business decisions in two loose categories: judgment under ambiguity and business model combination. Finally, we show how the theory of linear belief functions, a new extension to DST, can provide an alternative solution to a wide range of business problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Rajendra P. Srivastava & Liping Liu, 2003. "Applications of Belief Functions in Business Decisions: A Review," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 359-378, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:5:y:2003:i:4:d:10.1023_b:isfi.0000005651.93751.4b
    DOI: 10.1023/B:ISFI.0000005651.93751.4b
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/B:ISFI.0000005651.93751.4b
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/B:ISFI.0000005651.93751.4b?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robin M. Hogarth & Hillel J. Einhorn, 1990. "Venture Theory: A Model of Decision Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(7), pages 780-803, July.
    2. Liu, Liping & Shenoy, Prakash P, 1995. "A Theory of Coarse Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 17-49, July.
    3. Curley, Shawn P. & Golden, James I., 1994. "Using Belief Functions to Represent Degrees of Belief," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 271-303, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rajendra P. Srivastava & Theodore J. Mock & Lei Gao, 2011. "The Dempster-Shafer Theory: An Introduction and Fraud Risk Assessment Illustration," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 21(3), pages 282-291, September.
    2. Wang, Ying-Ming & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling & Chin, Kwai-Sang, 2006. "The evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision analysis using interval belief degrees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(1), pages 35-66, November.
    3. Beynon, Malcolm J. & Andrews, Rhys & Boyne, George A., 2010. "Evidence-based modelling of strategic fit: An introduction to RCaRBS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 886-896, December.
    4. Wang, Ying-Ming & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling, 2006. "Environmental impact assessment using the evidential reasoning approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(3), pages 1885-1913, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Liu, Liping, 1999. "Approximate portfolio analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(1), pages 35-49, November.
    2. Liping Liu, 2004. "A Note on Luce-Fishburn Axiomatization of Rank-Dependent Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 55-71, January.
    3. Rieger, Marc Oliver & Wang, Mei, 2012. "Can ambiguity aversion solve the equity premium puzzle? Survey evidence from international data," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 63-72.
    4. Bosch-Domenech, Antoni & Silvestre, Joaquim, 1999. "Does risk aversion or attraction depend on income? An experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 265-273, December.
    5. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2014. "An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 1-17, February.
    6. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    7. Bouchouicha, Ranoua & Martinsson, Peter & Medhin, Haileselassie & Vieider, Ferdinand M., 2017. "Stake effects on ambiguity attitudes for gains and losses," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 83(1), pages 19-35.
    8. Kilponen, Juha, 2003. "A Positive theory of monetary policy and robust control," Bank of Finland Research Discussion Papers 18/2003, Bank of Finland.
    9. Carmela Di Mauro & Massimo Finocchiaro Castro, 2011. "Kindness, confusion, or … ambiguity?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 611-633, November.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. John Griffin, 2015. "Risk Premia and Knightian Uncertainty in an Experimental Market Featuring a Long-Lived Asset," Fordham Economics Discussion Paper Series dp2015-01, Fordham University, Department of Economics.
    12. Ning Du & David V. Budescu, 2005. "The Effects of Imprecise Probabilities and Outcomes in Evaluating Investment Options," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1791-1803, December.
    13. Zhihua Li & Julia Müller & Peter P. Wakker & Tong V. Wang, 2018. "The Rich Domain of Ambiguity Explored," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(7), pages 3227-3240, July.
    14. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David A., 2021. "On the contribution of the Markowitz model of utility to explain risky choice in experimental research," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 527-543.
    15. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Joaquim Silvestre, 2002. "Reflections on gains and losses: A 2x2x7 experiment," Economics Working Papers 640, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Feb 2005.
    16. Bethany J. Weber & Wah Pheow Tan, 2012. "Ambiguity aversion in a delay analogue of the Ellsberg Paradox," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(4), pages 383-389, July.
    17. Matthew Rabin, 1998. "Psychology and Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 11-46, March.
    18. Laure Cabantous & Denis Hilton & Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2011. "Is imprecise knowledge better than conflicting expertise? Evidence from insurers’ decisions in the United States," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 211-232, June.
    19. Jean Desrochers & J. Francois Outreville, 2013. "Uncertainty, Ambiguity and Risk Taking: an experimental investigation of consumer behavior and demand for insurance," ICER Working Papers 10-2013, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    20. Ernst Fehr & Lorenz Goette, 2007. "Do Workers Work More if Wages Are High? Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 298-317, March.
    21. Gary Colbert & Dennis Murray & Robert Nieschwietz, 2009. "The use of expected value in pricing judgments," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 199-208, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:5:y:2003:i:4:d:10.1023_b:isfi.0000005651.93751.4b. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.