Literature DB >> 8826794

Intention and the omission bias: omissions perceived as nondecisions.

J H Kordes-de Vaal1.   

Abstract

People often evaluate a decision to commit an action more negatively than a decision to omit an action, given that both decisions have the same negative consequence. This phenomenon is called the omission bias. In the present experiments, subjects were not asked to justify their judgments in view of doubts about whether the processes underlying decision making are open to introspection. Instead, they were asked to rate an agent's immorality-or the anger evoked by the employer of the agent-as well as the agent's intention, causality, and responsibility for either a commission or an omission version of several scenarios. The results of the three experiments suggest that the basis of the omission bias is a difference in perceived causality, making the outcome of an omission appear less intended than the outcome of a commission. This reduction in perceived intention for outcomes of omissions might make the evaluation of someone's behavior less negative.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8826794     DOI: 10.1016/0001-6918(96)00027-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)        ISSN: 0001-6918


  10 in total

1.  A regret-induced status quo bias.

Authors:  Antoinette Nicolle; Stephen M Fleming; Dominik R Bach; Jon Driver; Raymond J Dolan
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-03-02       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  A costly separation between withdrawing and withholding treatment in intensive care.

Authors:  Dominic Wilkinson; Julian Savulescu
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2012-07-05       Impact factor: 1.898

3.  Values and preferences for oral antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: physician and patient perspectives.

Authors:  Pablo Alonso-Coello; Victor M Montori; M Gloria Díaz; Philip J Devereaux; Gemma Mas; Ana I Diez; Ivan Solà; Mercè Roura; Juan C Souto; Sven Oliver; Rafael Ruiz; Blanca Coll-Vinent; Ignasi Gich; Holger J Schünemann; Gordon Guyatt
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Trolley Dilemma in Papua. Yali horticulturalists refuse to pull the lever.

Authors:  Piotr Sorokowski; Michalina Marczak; Michał Misiak; Michał Białek
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2020-04

5.  Can cognitive psychological research on reasoning enhance the discussion around moral judgments?

Authors:  Michal Bialek; Sylvia Terbeck
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2016-03-25

6.  Inferences about moral character moderate the impact of consequences on blame and praise.

Authors:  Jenifer Z Siegel; Molly J Crockett; Raymond J Dolan
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2017-05-17

7.  Is there an omission effect in prosocial behavior? A laboratory experiment on passive vs. active generosity.

Authors:  Manja Gärtner; Anna Sandberg
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Distinguishing Active and Passive Outgroup Tolerance: Understanding Its Prevalence and the Role of Moral Concern.

Authors:  Levi Adelman; Maykel Verkuyten; Kumar Yogeeswaran
Journal:  Polit Psychol       Date:  2021-11-12

9.  Drivers of partially automated vehicles are blamed for crashes that they cannot reasonably avoid.

Authors:  Niek Beckers; Luciano Cavalcante Siebert; Merijn Bruijnes; Catholijn Jonker; David Abbink
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-28       Impact factor: 4.996

10.  Omissions and byproducts across moral domains.

Authors:  Peter DeScioli; Kelly Asao; Robert Kurzban
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-10-11       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.