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
Consumer’s Local-Global Identity and Price-Quality Associations
Zhiyong Yang, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Sijie Sun, University of Texas at Arlington
Ashok K Lalwani, Indiana University, USA
Narayan Janakiraman, University of Texas at Arlington
Featured
Priming & Privacy: How Subtle Trust Cues Online Affect Consumer Disclosure and Purchase Intentions
James A Mourey, DePaul University, USA
Ari Waldman, New York Law School
Featured
Attention to missing information: The effect of novel disclosure methods
Nikolos M Gurney, Carnegie Mellon University, USA
George Loewenstein, Carnegie Mellon University, USA