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
A Salience Theory of Three Novel Exposure Effects
Kellen Mrkva, Columbia University, USA
Leaf Van Boven, University of Colorado, USA
Featured
R11. The Influence of Brand Rituals on Perceived Brand Authenticity
Lijing Zheng, University of Hong Kong
Echo Wen Wan, University of Hong Kong
Zhongqiang (Tak) Huang, University of Hong Kong
Featured
The Interaction Effect of Food Variety and Simulation of Eating on Consumers' Calorie Estimation
Liang Shen, Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Fengyan Cai, Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Ying Yu, Huazhong Agricultural University