Omission bias

Omission bias is a cognitive bias where individuals tend to judge harmful actions as worse or less morally acceptable than equally harmful omissions (inactions). In simple terms, people often believe that doing something harmful is worse than failing to prevent harm. This bias is a significant concern within the realm of decision-making and ethics, as it can lead to skewed perceptions and judgments.

How it works

Omission bias arises from the difference in perceived responsibility and moral agency attributed to actions versus inactions. When someone commits a harmful act, they are directly responsible and visibly involved in the outcome, triggering stronger emotional responses. In contrast, omissions often go unnoticed or unpunished, as the actor appears passive and detached from the negative consequence, fostering the belief that inaction is less blameworthy. The bias is reinforced by cognitive tendencies, such as memory and repetition, where actions tend to be more salient and memorable than inactions.

Examples

• In a medical context, a physician might perceive administering a treatment with a small risk of side effects as worse than withholding it, even if the patient suffers as a result.
• In sports, a referee might be more criticized for making a wrong call than for failing to notice a foul.
• In everyday decision-making, someone might be judged more harshly for initiating a confrontation rather than avoiding one, even if avoiding leads to greater harm.

Consequences

Omission bias can result in skewed decision-making, where individuals or organizations are disincentivized from taking proactive actions out of fear of judgment or blame. This can lead to a status quo bias, where inaction is preferred even if it results in greater harm, such as policymakers avoiding necessary, albeit unpopular, reforms. In legal systems, it might result in under-punishment for harmful neglect, potentially perpetuating cycles of inaction.

Counteracting

Awareness and education about omission bias can help individuals recognize and address its influence in decision-making. Encouraging a culture that values proactive action and holds inaction accountable is crucial. Introducing clear guidelines and accountability structures can also mitigate the bias's effects, ensuring that both actions and inactions are equally scrutinized and addressed in judgment and decision-making processes.

Critiques

Some critics argue that omission bias may not necessarily reflect a cognitive bias but rather a rational preference for non-interference over intervention, based on cultural or moral values that prioritize individual autonomy and caution. Additionally, others suggest that in many real-world scenarios, differentiating between action and inaction is complex, and the context often dictates the perceived moral weight of an individual's choices.

Fields of Impact

Also known as

Relevant Research

• Reluctance to vaccinate: Omission bias and ambiguity

  Ritov, I., & Baron, J. (1990)

  Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3(4), 263-277

• Omission bias, individual differences, and normality

  Baron, J., & Ritov, I. (2004)

  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94(2), 74-85

• Omission and commission in judgment and choice

  Spranca, M., Minsk, E., & Baron, J. (1991)

  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(1), 76-105