Omission bias is people’s tendency to evaluate harm done through omission as less morally wrong and less blameworthy than commission when there is harm. However, findings are inconsistent. We conducted a preregistered meta-analysis, with 21 samples (13 articles, 49 effects) on omission-commission asymmetries in judgments and decisions. We found an overall effect of g = 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [0.14, 0.77], with stronger effects for morality and blame than for decisions. Publication bias tests produced mixed results with some indication for publication bias, though effects persisted even after most publication bias adjustments. The small sample of studies included limited our ability to draw definite conclusions regarding moderators, with inconclusive findings when applying different models. After compensating for low power, we found indication for moderation by role responsibility, perspective (self vs. others), outcome type, and study design. We hope this meta-analysis will inspire research on this phenomenon and applications to real-life, especially given the raging pandemic. Materials, data, and code are available on https://osf.io/9fcqm/.
AndersonC. J. (2003). The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 139–167. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.139
3.
AnvariF.OlsenJ.HungW. Y.FeldmanG. (2021). Misprediction of affective outcomes due to different evaluation modes: Replication and extension of two distinction bias experiments by Hsee and Zhang (2004). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 92, 104052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104052
4.
AschD. A.BaronJ.HersheyJ. C.KunreutherH.MeszarosJ.RitovI.SprancaM. (1994). Omission bias and pertussis vaccination. Medical Decision Making, 14, 118–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x9401400204
5.
Bar-EliM.AzarO. H.RitovI.Keidar-LevinY.ScheinG. (2007). Action bias among elite soccer goalkeepers: The case of penalty kicks. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(5), 606–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2006.12.001
6.
BaronJ.HersheyJ. C. (1988). Outcome bias in decision evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 569–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.569
7.
*BaronJ.MillerJ. G. (2000). Limiting the scope of moral obligations to help: A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 703–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031006003
8.
BaronJ.RitovI. (1994). Reference points and omission bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59(3), 475–498. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1070
9.
*BaronJ.RitovI. (2004). Omission bias, individual differences, and normality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94, 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.03.003
10.
BatemanI.KahnemanD.MunroA.StarmerC.SugdenR. (2005). Testing competing models of loss aversion: An adversarial collaboration. Journal of Public Economics, 89(8), 1561–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.06.013
11.
BeggC. B.MazumdarM. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 1088–1101. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533446
12.
*BergstrandK. (2014). The mobilizing power of grievances: Applying loss aversion and omission bias to social movements. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 19, 123–142. https://doi.org/10.17813/maiq.19.2.247753433p8k6643
13.
*BlahunkaN. J. (2014). The impact of intentions and omissions on moral judgments across domains. Boston College.
14.
CharnessG.GneezyU.KuhnM. A. (2012). Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.08.009
15.
ChenJ.ChiuC. Y.RoeseN. J.TamK. P.LauI. Y. M. (2006). Culture and counterfactuals: On the importance of life domains. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 37(1), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105282296
16.
CheonB. K.MelaniI.HongY. Y. (2020). How USA-centric is psychology? An archival study of implicit assumptions of generalizability of findings to human nature based on origins of study samples. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11, 928–937. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620927269
17.
CheungM. W. L. (2019). A guide to conducting a meta-analysis with non-independent effect sizes. Neuropsychology Review, 29, 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-019-09415-6
18.
ChungE. K.KimS. J.SohnY. W. (2014). Regulatory focus as a predictor of omission bias in moral judgment: Mediating role of anticipated regrets. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 17(4), 302–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12060
19.
ConnollyT.OrdóñezL. D.CoughlanR. (1997). Regret and responsibility in the evaluation of decision outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2695
20.
ConnollyT.RebJ. (2001, November). No reason to blame yourself’: Justification in decision-related regret [Paper presentation]. The Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Orlando, FL, United States.
21.
*ConnollyT.RebJ. (2003). Omission bias in vaccination decisions: Where’s the “omission”? Where’s the “bias”?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 186–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-5978(03)00057-8
22.
ConnollyT.RebJ. (2012). Toward interactive, Internet-based decision aid for vaccination decisions: Better information alone is not enough. Vaccine, 30, 3813–3818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.12.094
23.
ConnollyT.ZeelenbergM. (2002). Regret in decision making. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(6), 212–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00203
24.
CurryO. S.RowlandL. A.Van LissaC. J.ZlotowitzS.McAlaneyJ.WhitehouseH. (2018). Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 320–329. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/ytj5s
CushmanF.YoungL.HauserM. (2006). The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment: Testing three principles of harm. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1082–1089. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01834.x
27.
De QuidtJ.HaushoferJ.RothC. (2018). Measuring and bounding experimenter demand. American Economic Review, 108(11), 3266–3302. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20171330
*DeScioliP.BrueningR.KurzbanR. (2011). The omission effect in moral cognition: Toward a functional explanation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32, 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.01.003
DibonaventuraM. D.ChapmanG. B. (2008). Do decision biases predict bad decisions? Omission bias, naturalness bias, and influenza vaccination. Medical Decision Making, 28(4), 532–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X07312723
32.
DuvalS.TweedieR. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x
33.
FeldmanG.AlbarracínD. (2017). Norm theory and the action-effect: The role of social norms in regret following action and inaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.07.009
34.
FeldmanG.KutscherL.YayT. (2020). Omission and commission in judgment and decision making: Linking action-inaction effects using the concept of normality. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 14, Article e12557. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12557
GehannoJ. F.RollinL.DarmoniS. (2013). Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews?BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13, Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-7
38.
GilovichT.WangR. F.ReganD.NishinaS. (2003). Regrets of action and inaction across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(1), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102239155
39.
GinoF.MooreD. A.BazermanM. H. (2009). No harm, no foul: The outcome bias in ethical judgments. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1099464
HauserM.CushmanF.YoungL.Kang-Xing JinR.MikhailJ. (2007). A dissociation between moral judgments and justifications. Mind & Language, 22(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00297.x
42.
*HayashiH. (2015). Omission bias and perceived intention in children and adults. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 33, 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12082
43.
HenmiM.CopasJ. B. (2010). Confidence intervals for random effects meta-analysis and robustness to publication bias. Statistics in Medicine, 29(29), 2969–2983. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4029
44.
HenneP.NiemiL.PinillosÁ.De BrigardF.KnobeJ. (2019). A counterfactual explanation for the action effect in causal judgment. Cognition, 190, 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.05.006
45.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(7302), 29–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a
46.
HigginsJ. P.ThompsonS. G.DeeksJ. J.AltmanD. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327, Article 557. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
47.
Huedo-MedinaT. B.Sánchez-MecaJ.Marín-MartínezF.BotellaJ. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index?Psychological Methods, 11, 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.11.2.193
48.
IrelandM. E.HeplerJ.LiH.AlbarracínD. (2015). Neuroticism and Attitudes Toward Action in 19 Countries. Journal of Personality, 83(3), 243–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12099
49.
IyengarS.GreenhouseJ. B. (1988). Selection models and the file drawer problem. Statistical Science, 3, 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177013012
50.
*JamisonJ.YayT.FeldmanG. (2020). Action-inaction asymmetries in moral scenarios: Replication of the omission bias examining morality and blame with extensions linking to causality, intent, and regret. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 89, 103977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.103977
51.
JanssenS. J.TeunisT.GuittonT. G.RingD. (2015). Do surgeons treat their patients like they would treat themselves?Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®, 473(11), 3564–3572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4304-z
LambdinC.ShafferV. A. (2009). Are within-subjects designs transparent?Judgment and Decision Making, 4(7), 554–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/e722352011-194
56.
MellersB.HertwigR.KahnemanD. (2001). Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science, 12(4), 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00350
57.
MendelR.HamannJ.Traut-MattauschE.BühnerM.KisslingW.FreyD. (2010). “What would you do if you were me, doctor?” Randomised trial of psychiatrists’ personal v. professional perspectives on treatment recommendations. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 197(6), 441–447. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.110.078006
58.
MoreauD.GambleB. (2020). Conducting a meta-analysis in the age of open science: Tools, tips, and practical recommendations. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/t5dwg
59.
MoshontzH.CampbellL.EbersoleC. R.IJzermanH.UrryH. L.ForscherP. S.GraheJ. E.McCarthR. J.MusserE. D.AtfolkJ.CastilleC. M.EvansR. R.FiedlerS.FlakeJ. K.ForeroD. A.JanssenS. M. J.KeeneJ. R.ProtzkoJ.AczelB.. . . ChartierC. R. (2018). The Psychological Science Accelerator: Advancing psychology through a distributed collaborative network. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 501–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918797607
60.
MummoloJ.PetersonE. (2019). Demand effects in survey experiments: An empirical assessment. American Political Science Review, 113(2), 517–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2956147
61.
N’gbalaA.BranscombeN. R. (1997). When does action elicit more regret than inaction and is counterfactual mutation the mediator of this effect?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 324–343. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1996.1322
62.
PrenticeR. A.KoehlerJ. J. (2002). A normality bias in legal decision making. Cornell Law Review, 88, 583–650.
63.
RitovI.BaronJ. (1990). Reluctance to vaccinate: Omission bias and ambiguity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3, 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960030404
64.
RitovI.BaronJ. (1994). Judgements of compensation for misfortune: The role of expectation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24(5), 525–539. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420240502
65.
RitovI.BaronJ. (1995). Outcome knowledge, regret, and omission bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1094
66.
RitovI.BaronJ. (1999). Protected values and omission bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(2), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2839
SeoJ.LimJ. (2018). Trends in influenza vaccination coverage rates in South Korea from 2005 to 2014: Effect of public health policies on vaccination behavior. Vaccine, 36(25), 3666–3673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.05.024
69.
SimonsD. J.ShodaY.LindsayD. S. (2017). Constraints on generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1123–1128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617708630
70.
SimonsohnU.NelsonL. D.SimmonsJ. P. (2014). P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 534–547. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033242
71.
*SprancaM.MinskE.BaronJ. (1991). Omission and commission in judgment and choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 76–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(91)90011-t
72.
StanleyT. D.DoucouliagosH. (2014). Meta-regression approximations to reduce publication selection bias. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(1), 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1095
73.
SterneJ. A.EggerM. (2005). Regression methods to detect publication and other bias in meta-analysis. Publication Bias in Meta-analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments, 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470870168.ch6
74.
TannerC.MedinD. L. (2004). Protected values: No omission bias and no framing effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(1), 185–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03206481
UbelP. A.AngottA. M.Zikmund-FisherB. J. (2011). Physicians recommend different treatments for patients than they would choose for themselves. Archives of Internal Medicine, 171(7), 630–634. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.91
77.
van AssenM. A.van AertR.WichertsJ. M. (2015). Meta-analysis using effect size distributions of only statistically significant studies. Psychological Methods, 20(3), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000025
WalshB.DohertyE.O’NeillC. (2016). Since the start of the vaccines for children program, uptake has increased, and most disparities have decreased. Health Affairs, 35(2), 356–364. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1019
81.
WaltersW. H. (2007). Google Scholar coverage of a multidisciplinary field. Information Processing & Management, 43, 1121–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2006.08.006
ZeelenbergM.van der PligtJ.de VriesN. K. (2000). Attributions of responsibility and affective reactions to decision outcomes. Acta Psychologica, 104, 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-6918(00)00034-2
85.
ZeelenbergM.van DijkW. W.MansteadA. S. (1998). Reconsidering the relation between regret and responsibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74(3), 254–272. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2780
86.
ZellE.SuR.LiH.HoM. H. R.HongS.KumkaleT.StaufferS. D.ZeccaG.CaiH.RoccasS.Arce-MichelJ.SousaC. D.Diaz-LovingR.BoteroM. M.MannettiL.GarciaC.CarreraP.CabaleroA.IkemiM.. . . AlbarracínD. (2013). Cultural differences in attitudes toward action and inaction: The role of dialecticism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(5), 521–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612468774
87.
ZianoI.KongM. F.KimH. J.LiuC. Y.WongS. C.ChengB. L.FeldmanG. (2021). Replication: Revisiting Tversky and Shafir’s (1992) Disjunction Effect with an extension comparing between and within subject designs. Journal of Economic Psychology, 83, 102350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2020.102350
88.
ZianoI.XiaoQ.YeungS. K.WongC. Y. J.CheungM. Y. S.LoJ.YanM.NarendraI.LiW. K.ChowR.ManC. Y.FeldmanG. (2021). Numbing or sensitization? Replications and extensions of Fetherstonhaugh et al. (1997)’s “insensitivity to the value of human life”. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/786JG
89.
Zikmund-FisherB. J.SarrB.FagerlinA.UbelP. A. (2006). A matter of perspective: Choosing for others differs from choosing for yourself in making treatment decisions. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21(6), 618–622. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00410_1.x
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.
