When Taking Action Means Accepting Responsibility: Omission Bias Predicts Reluctance to Vaccinate Due to Greater Anticipated Culpability For Negative Side Effects
This research implicates individual differences in omission bias as a driver of decreased vaccine intentions and provider trust resulting from a heightened anticipation of moral culpability for action versus inaction. The findings highlight a novel source of patient vulnerability—concerns about the potential moral culpability that comes with taking action.
Citation:
Gary Sherman, Stacey R Finkelstein, Beth Vallen, Paul M Connell, and Kristen Feemster (2018) ,"When Taking Action Means Accepting Responsibility: Omission Bias Predicts Reluctance to Vaccinate Due to Greater Anticipated Culpability For Negative Side Effects", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 46, eds. Andrew Gershoff, Robert Kozinets, and Tiffany White, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 309-313.
Authors
Gary Sherman, Stony Brook University
Stacey R Finkelstein, Stony Brook University
Beth Vallen, Vilanova University, USA
Paul M Connell, Stony Brook University
Kristen Feemster, Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, USA
Volume
NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 46 | 2018
Share Proceeding
Featured papers
See MoreFeatured
Felt Ambivalence: Exploring the Storage Structure and Role of Situational Relevance on the Accessibility of Dominant and Conflicting Reactions
Amit Surendra Singh, Ohio State University, USA
H. Rao Unnava, University of California, Davis
Featured
Exiting Etsy? When Collaboration Among Market Co-Creators Come Undone
daiane scaraboto, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
Eileen Fischer, York University, Canada
Featured
D2. When a Negative Review Can Help the Company: the Role of the Unfairness and Empathy
Maria Alice Pasdiora, UFRGS
Cristiane Pizzutti, UFRGS
Natalia Englert, UFRGS