Not getting vaccinated or not backing up computer files are examples of passive risk taking: risk brought on or magnified by inaction. We suggest the difficulty in paying attention to absences, together with the reduced agency and responsibility that is associated with passive choices, leads to the perception of passive risks as being less risky than equivalent active risks. Using scenarios in which risk was taken either actively or passively, we demonstrate that passive risks are judged as less risky than equivalent active risks. We find the perception of personal responsibility mediates the differences between the perception of passive and active risks. The current research offers an additional explanation for omission or default biases: The passive nature of these choices causes them to appear less risky than they really are.
AlloyL. B.TabachnikN. (1984). Assessment of co-variation by humans and animals: The joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information. Psychological Review, 91, 112-149.
2.
AndradeE. B.Van BovenL. (2010). Feelings not forgone: Underestimating affective reactions to what does not happen. Psychological Science, 21, 706-711.
3.
AndrewM.CroninC. (1997). Two measures of sensation seeking as predictors of alcohol use among high school males. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 393-401.
4.
BaronJ.RitovI. (2004). Omission bias, individual differences, and normality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94, 74-85.
5.
BatorR. J.CialdiniR. B. (2006). The nature of consistency motivation: Consistency, aconsistency, and anticonsistency in a dissonance paradigm. Social Influence, 1, 208-233.
6.
BenthinA.SlovicP.SeversonH. (1993). A psychometric study of adolescent risk perception. Journal of Adolescence, 16, 153-168.
7.
BlaiseA. R.WeberE. U. (2006). A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) Scale for adult populations. Judgment and Decision Making, 1, 33-47.
8.
BranscombeN. R.OwenS.GarstkaT. A.ColemanJ. (1996). Rape and accident counterfactuals: Who might have done otherwise and would it have changed the outcome?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1042-1067.
9.
CarlinB. I.RobinsonD. J. (2009). Fear and loathing in Las Vegas: Evidence from blackjack tables. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 385-396.
10.
CatellaniP.MilesiP. (2001). Counterfactuals and roles: Mock victims’ and perpetrators’ accounts of judicial cases. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 247-264.
11.
FerrariJ. R.JohnsonJ. J.McCownW. G. (1995). Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment. New York, NY: Plenum.
12.
FoxC. R.TverskyA. (1995). Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 585-604.
13.
GilbertD. (2006). Stumbling on happiness. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
14.
GleicherF.KostK. A.BakerS. M.StrathemA. J.RichmanS. A.ShermanS. J. (1990). The role of counterfactual thinking in judgment and affect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 284-295.
15.
HayashiH. (2015). Omission bias and perceived intention in children and adults. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 33, 237-251.
16.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
17.
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.
18.
HseeC. K.LoewensteinG. F.BlountS.BazermanM. H. (1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 576-590.
19.
JostJ. T.Chaikalis-PetritsisV.AbramsD.SidaniusJ.van der ToornJ.BrattC. (2012). Why men (and women) do and don’t rebel: Effects of system justification on willingness to protest. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 197-208.
20.
JostJ. T.LiviatanI.van der ToornJ.LedgerwoodA.MandisodzaA.NosekB. A. (2010). System justification: How do we know it’s motivated? In BobocelR. C.KayA. C.ZannaM.OlsonJ. (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 173-203). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
KahnemanD.KnetschJ. L.ThalerR. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. The Journal of Economic Perspective, 5, 193-206.
22.
KahnemanD.MillerD. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136-153.
23.
KayA. C.GaucherD.PeachJ. M.LaurinK.FriesenJ.ZannaM. P.SpencerS. J. (2009). Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the status quo: Direct evidence for a motivation to see the way things are as the way they should be. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 421-434.
24.
KeinanR.Bereby-MeyerY. (2012). “Leaving it to chance”—Passive risk taking in everyday life. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 705-715.
25.
LandmanJ. (1987). Regret and elation following action and inaction: Affective responses to positive versus negative outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 524-536.
26.
LernerJ. S.TetlockP. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255-275.
27.
LionR.MeertenzR. M. (2001). Seeking information about a risky medicine: Effects of risk-taking tendency and accountability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 778-795.
28.
MilgramN.TenneR. (2000). Personality correlates of decisional and task avoidant procrastination. European Journal of Personality, 14, 141-156.
29.
MontoyaA. K.HayesA. F. (2017). Two-condition within-participant statistical mediation analysis: A path-analytic framework. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 6-27.
30.
Nario-RedmondM. R.BranscombeN. R. (1996). It could have been better or it might have been worse: Implications for blame assignment in rape cases. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 347-366.
31.
NewmanJ. P.WolffW. T.HearstE. (1980). The feature-positive effect in adult human subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 630-650.
32.
RisenJ. L.GilovichT. (2007). Another look at why people are reluctant to exchange lottery tickets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 12-22.
33.
RisenJ. L.GilovichT. (2008). Why are people reluctant to tempt fate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 93-307.
34.
RitovI.BaronJ. (1990). Reluctance to vaccinate: Omission bias and ambiguity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3, 263-277.
35.
RitovI.BaronJ. (1992). Status-quo and omission bias. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 49-61.
36.
RitovI.BaronJ. (1999). Protective values and omission bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 79-94.
37.
SamuelsonW.ZeckhauserR. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7-59.
38.
SchlenkerB. R.BrittT. W.PenningtonJ.MurphyR.DohertyK. (1994). The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101, 632-652.
39.
SlovicP. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
40.
SlovicP.PetersP.GranaJ.BergerS.DieckG. S. (2007). Risk perception of prescription drugs: Results of a national survey. Theraputic Innovation and Regulatory Science, 41(1), 81-100.
41.
SprancaM.MinskE.BaronJ. (1991). Omission and commission in judgment and choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 76-105.
42.
StuderB.ClarkL. (2011). Place your bets: Psychophysiological correlates of decision-making under risk. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 11, 144-158.
43.
TetlockP. E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Towards a social contingency model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 331-376.
44.
TykocinskiO. (2008). Insurance, risk and magical thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1346-1356.
45.
YechiamE.ErtI. (2011). Risk attitude in decision making: In search of trait-like constructs. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 166-186.
46.
YuR.MobbsD.SeymourB.CalderA. J. (2010). Insula and striatum mediate the default bias. Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 14702-14707.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
