In decision-making, the omission bias manifests as a curious inclination to perceive inaction as less morally reprehensible than taking deliberate action that leads to unfavorable outcomes. From real-life scenarios to legal and societal frameworks, the omission bias influences our choices and perceptions in complex ways. In this article, we will explore the nature of the omission bias, its implications, and its challenges in various contexts. By unraveling this bias, we can better understand our decision-making processes and strive for more balanced judgments.
The Glacier Dilemma: A Hypothetical Choice
Imagine yourself stranded on a glacier with two fellow climbers. The landscape around you is cold, unforgiving, and dangerous. The trio moves cautiously across the icy expanse when one of the climbers suddenly slips and falls into a deep crevasse. In this split second, you have a decision to make. The fallen climber might survive if you immediately call for help. The rescue team could reach them in time, but you hesitate. You do nothing. The climber dies from the fall and the delay in help.
In another twist, the second climber suddenly becomes the target for reasons you can’t explain. You push them into the ravine. They fall, and within moments, they are gone. Both climbers have died. Both deaths are directly linked to your actions, and both are equally tragic. But here’s where it gets complicated. Upon reflecting on these two scenarios, most people would feel less guilt for the first situation—where inaction led to the fatal fall—than for the second, where you actively chose to harm.
This is the essence of omission bias: we tend to perceive inaction—especially when it results in harm—as less morally troubling than an action that directly causes harm, even when the outcomes are identical. An inherent bias makes us feel more comfortable with passivity, the “doing nothing” option, even if that decision leads to death. In the case of the climbers, you could argue that both outcomes—inaction and direct harm—led to equally terrible consequences. Yet, the omission bias allows us to escape the emotional weight of responsibility by cloaking inaction in the guise of moral neutrality despite its direct link to the tragedy.
The FDA Dilemma: A Case of Inaction versus Action
Imagine stepping into a high-pressure role as the head of the Federal Drug Administration (FDA). You have a potentially life-saving drug on your desk. This drug has shown great promise for terminally ill patients, offering a slim but significant chance for survival. The drug, however, comes with a severe risk: 20% of the patients who take it die almost immediately from severe side effects. The remaining 80% are saved.
Your task is clear, yet difficult: should you approve the drug, risking the lives of 20% of the patients, or should you withhold approval and deny treatment to the 80% who might benefit? Rationally, one might think that approving the drug is the better choice, as the lives of many can be saved, even at the cost of some. But here’s where omission bias creeps in.
If asked to make the decision, most people would likely choose to withhold approval. The reasoning behind this choice is rooted in omission bias: the act of approving a drug that could cause death feels more morally reprehensible than the passive act of withholding approval. The bias suggests that doing nothing—inaction—somehow feels like a safer, less blameworthy course of action.
But the reality is starkly different. By choosing to withhold approval, you are actively allowing people to die. Your inaction has real consequences for the 80% of patients who could be saved. Yet, the omission bias allows us to frame withholding approval as the more ethical choice, even though the consequences of this inaction are as dire as those caused by approving the drug. It’s an unfortunate example of how omission bias can distort moral decision-making, making us feel more comfortable with inaction, even when it perpetuates harm.
The Consequences of Inaction
Omission bias has profound societal implications, particularly when it comes to decisions that involve life and death. Take, for example, the legal distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia refers to a physician or individual intentionally ending someone’s life at their request. Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, involves the deliberate withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, such as a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order.
Despite both actions resulting in the same outcome—death—the law often treats them very differently. In many jurisdictions, active euthanasia is illegal, even when it is the explicit wish of the patient. Passive euthanasia, however, is widely accepted and legal. This divergence is a direct result of omission bias.
Omission bias allows us to view inaction as morally neutral or even acceptable despite the fact that the consequences—namely, the death of the individual—are the same. By not taking direct action to end a patient’s life, society views the physician or individual as less morally culpable, even though their inaction ultimately leads to the same outcome as a direct intervention. This bias is embedded in laws, ethics, and societal perceptions, influencing how we respond to life and death situations.
Inaction is often perceived as less morally culpable than action, even when both lead to harm. This cognitive distortion causes moral reasoning to be flawed, allowing us to avoid responsibility by reframing passivity as a less egregious option. Understanding this bias is crucial for making more rational, ethically sound decisions, especially in contexts involving life-or-death outcomes.
Parental Decisions and Vaccination
In public health, omission bias often influences parents’ decisions about vaccinations. Vaccination has been proven to be one of the most effective ways to prevent the spread of contagious diseases and protect vulnerable individuals in society. Yet, some parents decide against vaccinating their children, often based on fears of side effects or misinformation about vaccine safety.
From a logical standpoint, not vaccinating a child actively increases the risk of the child contracting a disease that could have been prevented. However, omission bias plays a significant role in how these parents perceive their decision. They often view their choice not to vaccinate as a morally neutral stance. After all, they have not actively exposed their child to disease; they have merely refrained from taking action.
However, by choosing not to vaccinate, parents are still contributing to harm. Children who are not vaccinated are at a higher risk of contracting serious diseases, and by not vaccinating, they also put other children and vulnerable members of society at risk. The omission bias makes this inaction feel less harmful than it is. Parents may feel that they are not directly causing harm, but the reality is that their choice contributes to the broader risk of disease outbreaks.
This example highlights how omission bias distorts moral thinking in public health decisions. Even though the evidence overwhelmingly supports vaccination, the omission bias allows parents to justify their decision not to act, viewing it as morally acceptable or even neutral, despite the fact that their inaction has real consequences for the health of their children and others.
The Business and Environmental Impacts of Omission Bias
Omission bias also plays a significant role in business decision-making and environmental policy. Many companies and governments choose inaction over bold, innovative steps, often justifying their lack of progress by pointing to risks or costs. In the business world, this is particularly evident when companies fail to innovate or adopt new technologies, preferring to sit on their existing products or services rather than taking the risk of developing something new.
For instance, a company may avoid launching a new product that could fail, even though inaction—the failure to innovate—may ultimately result in the company’s decline. The omission bias makes inaction feel safer. By doing nothing, the company avoids the risk of failure, but at the same time, it also condemns itself to stagnation and obsolescence.
The same bias is evident in environmental policy. Governments or companies may hesitate to invest in renewable energy sources or take action to reduce emissions due to perceived costs or the political fallout from implementing such measures. Omission bias allows decision-makers to justify their inaction by focusing on the immediate costs of action while ignoring the long-term environmental damage caused by failing to act.
Whether in business or environmental matters, omission bias distorts moral decision-making. It creates the illusion that inaction is the safer, less risky choice when, in fact, it can have equally disastrous long-term consequences. By accepting inaction as a legitimate course, businesses and governments perpetuate problems that could have been mitigated with proactive decisions.
Omission Bias and Moral Delusions
Omission bias distorts our moral perception so that we begin to justify harmful inaction. It leads to what can be described as moral delusions—false justifications for not acting. We tend to rationalize inaction by framing it as morally neutral, as though doing nothing is a valid, even virtuous, choice. This delusion allows us to avoid taking responsibility for the consequences of our decisions, especially when those consequences are long-term and less immediately visible.
In many contexts, omission bias prevents us from seeing that doing nothing is often just as harmful as making an active decision. Inaction may allow us to avoid short-term guilt, but it often leads to long-term harm. This cognitive distortion is particularly troubling because it’s subtle and often goes unnoticed. People who are influenced by omission bias may not even realize that their passivity is causing harm.
The pervasive nature of omission bias can lead to societal complacency. Whether in healthcare, business, or environmental issues, people justify inaction by claiming it is morally easier or less harmful than taking active steps. However, this justification is deeply flawed. Inaction, in many cases, perpetuates suffering, stagnation, and environmental destruction. By acknowledging the reality of omission bias, we can begin to make more rational, ethical decisions, embracing the responsibility that comes with both action and inaction.
The Omission Bias Versus the Action Bias
Omission bias and action bias are often discussed as opposite extremes in decision-making, but they are actually complementary cognitive distortions. The action bias leads us to overact, to take action when it may not be necessary, particularly in uncertain or ambiguous situations. People driven by action bias may feel compelled to act simply to feel in control or to avoid ambiguity, even when doing nothing would be the better option.
In contrast, the omission bias leads us to avoid action altogether, mainly when the consequences of inaction are clear. It encourages us to feel that we avoid responsibility or blame by doing nothing, even when inaction leads to harm. While the action bias leads to unnecessary activity, the omission bias creates an illusion that inaction is a morally safer path.
Both biases distort decision-making but in different ways. The action bias drives us toward unnecessary risks and impulsive decisions, while the omission bias allows us to rationalize harmful inaction as the less morally troubling choice. The challenge is recognizing when either bias is at play and taking steps to make more informed, responsible choices.
The Difficulty of Detecting Omission Bias
One of the most insidious aspects of omission bias is that it is difficult to detect. Inaction, by its nature, is less visible than action. When we act, the consequences are often immediate and easy to observe. But when we do nothing, the harm may not be immediately apparent. This makes omission bias harder to recognize and address.
For instance, when a company fails to innovate, or a government fails to take action on climate change, the damage caused by inaction may not be immediately visible. People may not see the consequences of their decisions until it’s too late. As a result, omission bias allows individuals and organizations to justify their lack of action by focusing on the immediate risks of doing something while ignoring the long-term harm caused by inaction.
This is why slogans like “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem” effectively call attention to omission bias. They remind us that inaction is a choice with consequences, even if those consequences are less obvious or delayed. Recognizing omission bias is the first step toward making more responsible, ethically sound decisions in our personal lives and the broader societal context.
Conclusion
The omission bias exposes the peculiar human tendency to perceive inaction as morally less objectionable than active decision-making, even when the outcomes are equally undesirable. From life-or-death situations to legal frameworks and everyday choices, this bias profoundly shapes our judgments and decisions. By delving into the intricacies of the omission bias, we gain insight into the complexities of human psychology and decision-making. As we navigate the intricacies of our choices, let us strive for a balanced perspective that encompasses action and inaction, allowing us to make more informed and morally sound decisions.
This article is part of The Art of Thinking Clearly Series based on Rolf Dobelli’s book.