The application of Dempster-Shafer theory demonstrated with justification provided by legal evidence

In forecasting and decision making, people can and often do represent a degree of belief in some proposition. At least two separate constructs capture such degrees of belief: likelihoods capturing evidential balance and support capturing evidential weight. This paper explores the weight or justifica...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Shawn P. Curley
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Society for Judgment and Decision Making 2007-10-01
Series:Judgment and Decision Making
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journal.sjdm.org/jdm7803.pdf
id doaj-f84680d5ae90463ab31d67f2ae884ea6
record_format Article
spelling doaj-f84680d5ae90463ab31d67f2ae884ea62021-05-02T09:25:14ZengSociety for Judgment and Decision MakingJudgment and Decision Making1930-29752007-10-012NA257276The application of Dempster-Shafer theory demonstrated with justification provided by legal evidenceShawn P. CurleyIn forecasting and decision making, people can and often do represent a degree of belief in some proposition. At least two separate constructs capture such degrees of belief: likelihoods capturing evidential balance and support capturing evidential weight. This paper explores the weight or justification that evidence affords propositions, with subjects communicating using a belief function in hypothetical legal situations, where justification is a relevant goal. Subjects evaluated the impact of sets of 1--3 pieces of evidence, varying in complexity, within a hypothetical legal situation. The study demonstrates the potential usefulness of this evidential weight measure as an alternative or complement to the more-studied probability measure. Subjects' responses indicated that weight and likelihood were distinguished; that subjects' evidential weight tended toward single elements in a targeted fashion; and, that there were identifiable individual differences in reactions to conflicting evidence. Specifically, most subjects reacted to conflicting evidence that supported disjoint sets of suspects with continued support in the implicated sets, although an identifiable minority reacted by pulling back their support, expressing indecisiveness. Such individuals would likely require a greater amount of evidence than the others to counteract this tendency in support. Thus, the study identifies the value of understanding evidential weight as distinct from likelihood, informs our understanding of the psychology of individuals' judgments of evidential weight, and furthers the application and meaningfulness of belief functions as a communication language. http://journal.sjdm.org/jdm7803.pdfbelief functionsevidential weightlikelihoodDempster-Shafer theorylegal evidence.
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Shawn P. Curley
spellingShingle Shawn P. Curley
The application of Dempster-Shafer theory demonstrated with justification provided by legal evidence
Judgment and Decision Making
belief functions
evidential weight
likelihood
Dempster-Shafer theory
legal evidence.
author_facet Shawn P. Curley
author_sort Shawn P. Curley
title The application of Dempster-Shafer theory demonstrated with justification provided by legal evidence
title_short The application of Dempster-Shafer theory demonstrated with justification provided by legal evidence
title_full The application of Dempster-Shafer theory demonstrated with justification provided by legal evidence
title_fullStr The application of Dempster-Shafer theory demonstrated with justification provided by legal evidence
title_full_unstemmed The application of Dempster-Shafer theory demonstrated with justification provided by legal evidence
title_sort application of dempster-shafer theory demonstrated with justification provided by legal evidence
publisher Society for Judgment and Decision Making
series Judgment and Decision Making
issn 1930-2975
publishDate 2007-10-01
description In forecasting and decision making, people can and often do represent a degree of belief in some proposition. At least two separate constructs capture such degrees of belief: likelihoods capturing evidential balance and support capturing evidential weight. This paper explores the weight or justification that evidence affords propositions, with subjects communicating using a belief function in hypothetical legal situations, where justification is a relevant goal. Subjects evaluated the impact of sets of 1--3 pieces of evidence, varying in complexity, within a hypothetical legal situation. The study demonstrates the potential usefulness of this evidential weight measure as an alternative or complement to the more-studied probability measure. Subjects' responses indicated that weight and likelihood were distinguished; that subjects' evidential weight tended toward single elements in a targeted fashion; and, that there were identifiable individual differences in reactions to conflicting evidence. Specifically, most subjects reacted to conflicting evidence that supported disjoint sets of suspects with continued support in the implicated sets, although an identifiable minority reacted by pulling back their support, expressing indecisiveness. Such individuals would likely require a greater amount of evidence than the others to counteract this tendency in support. Thus, the study identifies the value of understanding evidential weight as distinct from likelihood, informs our understanding of the psychology of individuals' judgments of evidential weight, and furthers the application and meaningfulness of belief functions as a communication language.
topic belief functions
evidential weight
likelihood
Dempster-Shafer theory
legal evidence.
url http://journal.sjdm.org/jdm7803.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT shawnpcurley theapplicationofdempstershafertheorydemonstratedwithjustificationprovidedbylegalevidence
AT shawnpcurley applicationofdempstershafertheorydemonstratedwithjustificationprovidedbylegalevidence
_version_ 1721493536541507584