IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v14y1994i2p118-123.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Omission Bias and Pertussis Vaccination

Author

Listed:
  • David A. Asch
  • Jonathan Baron
  • John C. Hershey
  • Howard Kunreuther
  • Jacqueline Meszaros
  • Ilana Ritov
  • Mark Spranca

Abstract

Background: Several laboratory studies have suggested that many people favor potentially harmful omissions over less harmful acts. The authors studied the role of this omission bias in parents' decisions whether to vaccinate their children against pertussis. Methods: Two hundred mail surveys were sent to subscribers to a magazine that had published articles favoring and opposing pertussis vaccination. Subjects were asked about their beliefs about the vaccine and the disease, and whether they had vaccinated their own children or planned to, and they were given test items to identify omission bias in their reasoning. Results: One hundred and three subjects (52%) responded to the survey. Respondents who reported they did not or would not allow their children to be vaccinated (n = 43; 41 %) were more likely to believe that vaccinating was more dangerous than not vaccinating (p

Suggested Citation

  • David A. Asch & Jonathan Baron & John C. Hershey & Howard Kunreuther & Jacqueline Meszaros & Ilana Ritov & Mark Spranca, 1994. "Omission Bias and Pertussis Vaccination," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(2), pages 118-123, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:14:y:1994:i:2:p:118-123
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9401400204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9401400204
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9401400204?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:5:p:385-396 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Koehler, Jonathan J. & Gershoff, Andrew D., 2003. "Betrayal aversion: When agents of protection become agents of harm," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 244-261, March.
    3. Sydney E. Scott & Paul Rozin, 2017. "Are additives unnatural? Generality and mechanisms of additivity dominance," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(6), pages 572-583, November.
    4. Toby Handfield & John Thrasher & Andrew Corcoran & Shaun Nichols, 2021. "Asymmetry and symmetry of acts and omissions in punishment, norms, and judged causality," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(4), pages 796-822, July.
    5. Gärtner, Manja & Sandberg, Anna, 2014. "Is there an omission effect in prosocial behavior?," SSE Working Paper Series in Economics 2014:1, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 03 Dec 2015.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:4:p:796-822 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Gary D. Sherman & Beth Vallen & Stacey R. Finkelstein & Paul M. Connell & Wendy Attaya Boland & Kristen Feemster, 2021. "When taking action means accepting responsibility: Omission bias predicts parents' reluctance to vaccinate due to greater anticipated culpability for negative side effects," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(4), pages 1660-1681, December.
    8. De Sordi, José Osvaldo & Meireles, Manuel & Bitencourt Jorge, Carlos Francisco & Rigato, Carlos & Oliveira, Osvaldo Luiz de, 2020. "Versioning products and services by downsizing digital components: Risks due to consumers' feelings of unfairness," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    9. Heather P. Lacey & Steven C. Lacey & Prerna Dayal & Caroline Forest & Dana Blasi, 2023. "Context Matters: Emotional Sensitivity to Probabilities and the Bias for Action in Cancer Treatment Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(4), pages 417-429, May.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:3:p:287-296 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Kaivanto, Kim & Kwon, Winston, 2015. "The Precautionary Principle as a Heuristic Patch," MPRA Paper 67036, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Yury Shevchenko & Bettina von Helversen & Benjamin Scheibehenne, 2014. "Change and status quo in decisions with defaults: The effect of incidental emotions depends on the type of default," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(3), pages 287-296, May.
    13. Geoboo Song, 2014. "Understanding Public Perceptions of Benefits and Risks of Childhood Vaccinations in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(3), pages 541-555, March.
    14. Böhm, Robert & Betsch, Cornelia & Korn, Lars, 2016. "Selfish-rational non-vaccination: Experimental evidence from an interactive vaccination game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 183-195.
    15. Bruce I. Carlin & David T. Robinson, 2009. "Fear and loathing in Las Vegas: Evidence from blackjack tables," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(5), pages 385-396, August.
    16. Connolly, Terry & Reb, Jochen, 2003. "Omission bias in vaccination decisions: Where's the "omission"? Where's the "bias"?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 186-202, July.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:6:p:572-583 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Polman, Evan, 2012. "Self–other decision making and loss aversion," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 141-150.
    19. Manja Gärtner & Anna Sandberg, 2017. "Is there an omission effect in prosocial behavior? A laboratory experiment on passive vs. active generosity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-21, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:14:y:1994:i:2:p:118-123. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.