Omission Bias

Omission prejudice is the belief that the harm caused by inaction is more acceptable than the harm caused by action, even if the result is the same. A study found that parents who did not vaccinate their children were worried that vaccination was more dangerous than not vaccinating, even if the risk of vaccination was lower than the risk of illness. 2 This suggests that supervisory bias may be more likely to lead to acceptance of unreasonable decisions. Instead of correctly weighing the probability of each potential outcome. Omission prejudice is the tendency to place inaction (inaction) above action (action). Inaction prejudice is the tendency of humans to think that harmful behavior is more unethical than inaction, even if both will lead to the same result. [Sources: 0, 7, 12, 14]

Omission bias, cognitive bias, is the tendency to judge public and harmful behavior more strictly than harmful omission. Lack of prejudice describes the tendency of people to put inaction above action, especially when they have to make difficult decisions. The philosopher and ethicist Peter Singer also stated that omission of prejudice also allows us to limit our moral responsibility. If the burden of harmful behavior is heavy, we may be indifferent to the harm caused by our negligence. The prejudice against inaction is the result of our tendency to think that the harmful consequences of action (doing) are worse than the harmful consequences of inaction (inaction). [Sources: 2, 3, 4]

But due to the bias of inaction, people underestimate the possible negative consequences of their inaction. Often people think that harmful results caused by action are worse than equally harmful results caused by inaction. Omission bias stems from the basic view that any direct cause of harm should be avoided, but it is important to note that indirect harm can also be prevented. [Sources: 7]

I hope that these examples of missing bias will open your eyes to this cognitive bias, which can have a negative impact on your thinking and decision-making. The authors investigated the role of this omission bias in parenting decisions to vaccinate children against whooping cough. [Sources: 5, 7]

In some cases, it takes on such a strong form that no action seems to be the best choice, even if it leads to worse consequences. Prejudice is not only manifested when the result of action and inaction is the same. There are often situations where action is actually more harmful than inaction. [Sources: 3, 14]

However, using a choice architecture to design how alternatives are presented can exploit omission-based bias to make better decisions. Omission bias arises for a number of reasons, and there are also plenty of excuses for one situation that seems less harmful than another, but by analyzing the logic it is easy to see why this method of thinking is a cognitive bias. The observed bias towards the status quo is at least in part due to the bias towards omission. All of this suggests that an overlooked way of thinking in a professional environment can impair an organization’s ability to make positive decisions or beneficial changes. [Sources: 7, 11, 12]

However, negligence will result in B (the status quo is about to change), and action is needed to maintain A. However, negligence will result in A, and action needs to be taken to maintain B. vaccine. [Sources: 5, 6]

This decrease in perceived intent for the results of omissions would make the assessment of someone’s behavior less negative. This bias is the opposite effect of action bias, where you feel uncomfortable doing nothing. The only difference is the method in which one causes death by action and the other by inaction. The decision not to act seems like the best moral choice. [Sources: 8, 14]

However, parents choose not to vaccinate their children to avoid possible consequences. Although the difference is small, an action that leads to catastrophic consequences seems more criminal than any action that leads to the same result. Despite this deterioration, at least no one can be blamed for taking action. Although in this case, inaction can lead to death, it creates bogus moral comfort for the brain. [Sources: 4, 14]

As in real life examples, you yourself are a victim of prejudice. SQ-NO, the state of the people did not change and did not take any action; An example of this version is the story of Paul in the scenario described above; CH-ACT, a person’s status has been changed by his own actions; Georges’s script is an example of this version; H-NO, the person’s status was changed without taking an action; Frank’s script is an example of this condition; and SQ-ACT, the person has maintained the status quo through action, as Henry did in the example above. Our Bias Brief series analyzes specific biases one by one, each carefully selected from our long list of ideas. [Sources: 6, 12, 14]

Regardless of the consequences of an action, that is what determines morality. While employees have the opportunity to quit their jobs and start their own businesses, the consequences are daunting. Table 2 Experiment Conditions 2. The current action condition indicates the status quo of the alternative action 1. [Sources: 6, 7, 14]

In one scenario, John, a tennis player, will face a serious opponent in a decisive match the next day. The end result will be the same for all four, but the chain of events leading up to this result will be different. [Sources: 0, 6]

People don’t always know how to assess risks and make rational decisions. To minimize the overall cost of miscarriage of justice, no-loss requires establishing a standard of proof well above 51 percent. [Sources: 1, 10]


— Slimane Zouggari


##### Sources #####