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
Conflicting Institutional Logics and Eldercare Consumers’ Coping Strategies in Asymmetrical Service Relationships
Ankita Kumar, University of Wisconsin - Madison, USA
Featured
Green Biases: Consumer Evaluations of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy Sources
Nathan Dhaliwal, University of British Columbia, Canada
David Hardisty, University of British Columbia, Canada
Jiaying Zhang, University of British Columbia, Canada
Featured
Situation Neglect Underlies Both Psychological Myopia and Psychological Hyperopia
Sarah Wei, University of Warwick
Christopher Hsee, University of Chicago, USA