Auditors’ Evaluations of Uncertain Audit Evidence: Belief Functions versus Probabilities

  • Keith E. Harrison
  • Rajendra P. Srivastava
  • R. David Plumlee
Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ, volume 88)


Recently, Shafer and Srivastava [1], Srivastava and Shafer [2], Srivastava [3]–[4], and Van den Acker [5] have identified appealing features of belief function evidential networks. These networks can express the support that audit evidence provides for assertions, accounts and financial statements. These networks can also aggregate many pieces of evidence into an overall level of support for a particular assertion, account or an entire set of financial statements.

There is little empirical evidence about the ability of practicing auditors to express their evaluations of the strength of audit evidence in terms of belief functions. Many traditional models assume the use of probabilities. These might be called the traditional type of subjective probabilities. They are additive by definition, i.e. P(a) + P(~a) = 1. Throughout the remainder of this paper they will simply be referred to as probabilities. This study examines the question of expressing the support provided by audit evidence empirically. Auditors are asked to express the level of support that evidence provides for or against an assertion or account and the ignorance that remains about the assertion or account after considering the evidence.

Many auditors who use probabilities to measure risk express ignorance by giving equal weight to support for and support against the objective. Belief functions express ignorance by allocating mass to all elements of the frame (all possible outcomes), an alternative that is distinct from assigning equal mass to each element of the frame. Thus, belief functions show ignorance as an amount separate from the amounts of support for and against the objective.

Forty-nine experienced auditors were asked to estimate the strength of the evidence provided in twenty-eight different audit situations. These auditors were given the opportunity to model their estimates of support and ignorance in ways that were consistent either with belief functions or with Probabilities. In this study, a statistically significant percentage of the auditors represented their estimates in ways that were consistent with belief functions and were inconsistent with probabilities. This suggests that future practitioner decision aids may include belief functions as a way of naturally expressing the ignorance and risk that persist in many audit engagements.


Inherent Risk Belief Function Audit Firm Prob Ability Probability Judgment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    G. Shafer and R. P. Srivastava, (1990) The Bayesian and belief-function formalisms: A general perspective for auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, vol. 9 (Supplement), pp. 110–148.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    R. P. Srivastava and G. R. Shafer, (1992) Belief-function formulas for audit risk. The Accounting Review, vol. 67 (April), pp. 249–283.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    R. P. Srivastava, (1995a) A general scheme for aggregating evidence in auditing: Propagation of beliefs in networks. In Artificial Intelligence in Accounting and Auditing, vol. 3. Miklos A. Vasarhelyi, Ed. Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener PublishersGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    R. P. Srivastava, (1995b) The belief-function approach to aggregating audit evidence. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 10 (March) pp. 329–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    C. Van den Acker, (1999) A Belief-Function Model for the Representation and the Combination of Uncertain Audit Evidence. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, vol. 8 (3), pp. 215–224.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    R. P. Srivastava and H. Lu, (2000) Evidential Reasoning Under Uncertainty Using Belief Functions: A Structural Analysis of Audit Evidence. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    S. K. Dutta, K. E. Harrison and R. P. Srivastava, (1998) The audit risk model under the risk of fraud. Applications of Fuzzy Sets and the Theory of Evidence to Accounting, II (vol. 7 in the Studies in Managerial and Financial Accounting series). Philip H. Siegel, Khursheed Omer, Andre de Korvin and Awni Zebda, Eds. Stamford Connecticut: JAI Press Inc.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    P. R. Gillett, (1996) A Comparative Study of Audit Evidence and Audit Planning Models Using Uncertain Reasoning. Doctoral dissertation. University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    R. P. Srivastava, S. K. Dutta and R. W. Johns, (1996) An Expert System Approach to Audit Planning and Evaluation in the Belief-Function Framework. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, vol. 5, pp. 165–183.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    A. A. Arens and J. K. Loebbecke, (1997) Auditing: An integrated approach. 7 th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, (1983) Statement on Auditing Standards No. 47: Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting an Audit. New York: AICPA.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    T. Mock, A. Wright and R. Srivastava, (1998) Audit Program Planning Using a Belief Function Framework. AUDITING SYMPOSIUM XIV; Proceedings of the 1998 Deloitte Touche/University of Kansas Symposium on Auditing Problems. pp. 115–142.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    G. Shafer, and A. Tversky, (1985) Languages and designs for probability judgment. Cognitive Science, vol. 9, pp. 309–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    G. Shafer, (1990) Perspectives on the theory and practice of belief functions. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, vol. 4 pp. 323–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    S. P. Curley and J. I. Golden, (1994) Using belief functions to represent degrees of belief. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 58, pp. 271–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    G. Krishnamoorthy, T. J. Mock, and M. T. Washington, (1999) A Comparative Evaluation of Belief Revision Models in Auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, vol. 18 (Fall), pp. 104–127.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    R. Dusenbury, J. L. Reimers, and S. Wheeler, (1996) An Empirical Study of Belief-Based and Probability-Based Specifications of Audit Risk. Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, vol. 15 (Fall), pp. 12–28.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    G. Monroe and J. Ng, (2000) The Efficacy of Models of Audit Risk. Belief-Functions in Business Decisions, edited by R. Srivastava and T. Mock.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    G. Shafer, (1976) A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith E. Harrison
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Rajendra P. Srivastava
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • R. David Plumlee
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Truman State UniversityUSA
  2. 2.University of KansasUSA
  3. 3.University of UtahUSA

Personalised recommendations