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
Less Time, More Procrastination? The Impact of Time Pressure on Task Initiation
Jing Jiang, Renmin University of China
Alisa Yinghao Wu, Columbia University, USA
Featured
The Dark Side of Luxury: The Social Costs of Conspicuous Consumption
Christopher Cannon, Northwestern University, USA
Derek Rucker, Northwestern University, USA
Featured
L6. The Influence of Social Exclusion on Consumers’ Perceptions of and Responses to Consumer-Dense Retail Environments
Veronica Thomas, Towson University
Christina Saenger, Youngstown State University