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
The Quantity Integration Effect: Integrating Purchase and Quantity Decisions Increases Sales by Providing Closure
Kristen Duke, University of California San Diego, USA
On Amir, University of California San Diego, USA
Featured
M13. Keep Consistency in Good Old Days: The Effect of Nostalgia on Consumers' Consistency Seeking Behavior
Yafeng Fan, Tsinghua University
Jing Jiang, Renmin University of China
Featured
Penny for Your Preferences: Leveraging Self-Expression to Increase Prosocial Giving
Jacqueline R. Rifkin, Duke University, USA
Katherine Crain, Duke University, USA
Jonah Berger, University of Pennsylvania, USA