7 Examples of Omission Bias Negatively Affecting Your Life

In which of these two situations did you choose the most damaging course of action? Both resulted in the same outcome, which was the death of a pedestrian. If you think that pushing someone into cars crossing the street would be a more harmful decision, you are thinking in terms of the omission bias.

Omission bias is a type of cognitive bias that impairs your judgment and affects the decisions you make. Cognitive biases occur when you process information incorrectly. This is brought on by issues with focus, memory, attribution, and other incorrect judgments.

Although our brains are powerful, they are subject to limitations. Therefore, it takes shortcuts to simplify the endless amount of information that we are exposed to every day, and in this article, we will take an in-depth look at the definition of the omission bias and how it can negatively affect your life. After defining this cognitive bias, let's look at seven instances when it could damage your life. How can you overcome the effects of this bias?

What is omission bias?

The omission bias is to regard the harm caused by inaction as more acceptable than the harm caused by action itself, even if the outcome is the same. People frequently believe that the negative consequences of action are worse than the negative effects of inaction.

While the difference between the two cases may seem subtle, an action that leads directly to disastrous consequences—for example, pushing someone into a busy roadwayseems more harmful than inaction and omission to prevent someone from walking in the direction of cars crossing the street accidentally and then saving their life.

The data suggests that omission bias is well rooted in the difference between direct and indirect causation. Others judge the things that cause harm more directly than the things that cause the same harm indirectly. This is because you are often not the only factor that can prevent or reduce the damage.

The bias of omission occurs for a variety of reasons, and the justifications for making one position less insidious than another are many, but when analyzing the rationale, it is easy to see how this way of thinking is a cognitive bias.

So let's first talk about why people prefer inaction over action. People often don't want to take risks, take on challenging work, or fail at it. This is because of the fear of failing, of doing the wrong thing and then appearing foolish in front of others, or of making a bad situation worse.

Clearly, action makes us more likely to be noticed than inaction. So it's easier to keep a low profile, especially if you choose to sit back and not meddle in other people's business.

Choosing to avoid taking action in situations where you can minimize harm or prevent disaster displays an implicit sense of approval, similar to the idea of ​​looking without seeing or hearing without listening.

The omission bias stems from the basic view that one must avoid any direct cause leading to harm, but it is important to note that harm that occurs can also be prevented by indirect methods.

For example, if you saw a group of leaders at work behaving unethically, would you do something about it? Or will you choose to remain silent and allow them to abuse their power? Looking at these people as the ones in control, whether you're employed or not, do you think that taking an action that goes terribly wrong could cost you your job?

Assuming that their immoral behavior does not directly affect you, you probably won't risk making trouble, and whether you speak up or not, the immoral behavior probably won't stop. This is because it is probably a mistake that everyone in the organization decided to overlook.

Studies indicate that a large number of companies have an organizational culture in which most employees are aware of some private facts within the company; however, they remain silent about them to maintain peace at work. Some organizations may bypass this by informing their employees that they should not defy company policies, while others make employees feel reluctant to speak out by not tolerating internal objections.

In terms of the omission bias, people who directly engage in corrupt business are making a bigger mistake than you by knowing about the corrupt business and not saying anything, but others might argue that by acting in the company's interest, you are endorsing the behavior and thus causing harm equally.

7 Examples of Omission Bias Negatively Affecting Your Life

1. Resolving to inaction at work

As mentioned above about employees choosing inaction when it comes to making a positive difference for their company, this type of corporate environment is characterized by a belief in favor of an omission bias. Taking action to fix organizational problems is not worth the potential job loss.

Employees weigh the results of taking action versus not taking any action and get the same result: that nothing will change. So, with the opportunity to make an ethical decision, doing so comes with a high cost. Research shows some of the ways in which omission bias can negatively affect your life in the workplace.

To counter that, these things need to be kept in mind:

• The quality of final decisions is improved when many people speak to provide perspectives and alternatives.
• When it comes to formulating strategy, having multiple and conflicting points of view has a positive impact on the quality of organizational decision-making and the overall performance of the company.
• Company growth requires challenging the status quo, taking innovative actions, and moving away from norms, which cannot happen if employees fear instigating new actions because of the potential for failure.

All of this suggests that having an omission mindset in a professional environment can be detrimental to an organization's ability to make positive decisions or make beneficial changes. If you are in a leadership position, this problem can be eliminated by encouraging the contributions of lower-level and minority employees. This is to increase the likelihood of the critical analysis necessary for effective decision-making and organizational growth.

2. Witnessing a crime

The aforementioned example was an illustration of how the omission bias can negatively affect your life systemically, but this bias can also be an underlying moral problem. Let's say you and a friend are standing in line at the grocery store, and you notice an elderly lady accidentally drops $20 on the floor.

In the first scenario, you choose to tell your friend about the money and indicate that they should take it themselves; in the second, you decide not to tell the lady and secretly take the cash into your pocket.

Which is worse?

In the first case, you had no physical contact with the money, and all you did was bring it to your friend's attention. This means that you were an indirect cause of the theft, but in the second case, you stole the money, and in both cases, the old lady's money was stolen.

When considering omission bias, you are less guilty in the first case than you are in the second. This is because the active contribution to stealing is worse than the alternative negative way of thinking.

3. Child vaccinations

The issue of vaccinating children seems to come with many cognitive biases and logical fallacies, and omission bias is no exception. Most parents refrain from vaccinating their children because of the potential for harm or side effects from the vaccine. However, research shows that the potential risk of keeping your children is much greater than the possible side effects of the vaccine.

Some parents may not give the vaccine to their children because of the risk associated with harmful side effects, while also knowing the risk of their child dying from the disease that the vaccine prevents, but they also tend to exaggerate the possibility of side effects caused by vaccines.

This is because if the vaccine harms the health of their children, they will feel wrong and assume that they are responsible for harming their children because they agreed to give them the vaccine.

Parents feel good about themselves when they do not directly cause the death of their children, but in both cases, children can die. But what parents often do not think about is that missing the opportunity to vaccinate their children may also lead to harm to them, but because of omission bias and inaction, people underestimate the potential negative consequences of their inaction, and refusing to take the vaccine could lead to greater harm, affecting more people overall.

Not all vaccine-preventable diseases are the same when it comes to death rates and prevalence, but whatever the risk of the disease in question, you must determine if you are willing to take that risk, as no one expects someone from their family to end up being one of the few. 42,000 adults, or 300 children, die each year in the United States from vaccine-preventable diseases.

Although most vaccine-preventable diseases are rare in the United States, they are still common elsewhere in the world, and people who travel without the vaccine can bring these diseases into the United States, which may put all unvaccinated people at risk of infection and severe illnesses.

Although unvaccinated people represent the minority, their inaction can lead to epidemics, and this can be seen in the pertussis epidemic and vaccination rates against it.

The omission bias is often lower in this case than in other cases. The harm is imminent, and because it is common to get vaccinated, though doing so comes with little risk of serious consequences, people are just as accustomed to the idea of ​​vaccines as they are to the idea of ​​taking drugs to treat a serious illness that can have dangerous side effects.

In addition, there is a longer causal chain between the effects of vaccines and drugs than in cases where there is a significant bias toward omission.

4. The Trolly Problem

You may have heard of the hypothetical moral dilemma of a trolly that sacrifices one person for many. For example, if a trolly is traveling full speed ahead in lane A, five innocent workers work on rails, there is a handle by which to redirect the trolly to track B, and there is one worker there. Whatever path the trolly takes, people will be killed instantly.

And if you do nothing—omission—about this matter, five people will be killed, and if you turn the handle—the movement—it will directly cause the death of one person. This hypothetical situation can be applied to many real-life scenarios, and here are some things to think about and some related positions related to that trolly:

• Obviously, murder is wrong, but doesn't saving five lives at the cost of one's life lessen the suffering? In this case, inaction leads to more deaths.
• The utilitarian doctrine emphasizes the essence of the track handle because this will lead to the safety of the largest possible number of people.
• Ethics states that morality depends on the action itself, and whatever the consequences, the action is what determines morality. This behavior tells you to do nothing and let the trolly run on its current path, thus killing five people.
• Who has the right to decide the life and death of others? This issue arises when political leaders come up with combat strategies and decide where to send their forces.
• Autonomous cars: When an autonomous car detects an upcoming emergency, it should be able to automatically determine actions that will cause the least amount of damage.

But how do you determine the least amount of harm and whether the two options are hitting a group of people or hitting one person? If the car is about to collide with another vehicle, should you minimize the damage it will do to the people in the other vehicle or to the vehicle itself?

After considering this dilemma in more detail, the answer may not be as simple as you previously thought.

5. Police Brutality

Consider the story of George Floyd, the man who was killed by a police officer. The policeman who caused Floyd's death by sitting on his neck has sparked outrage across the United States. This is due to his lack of moral agency, but what about the police officers who did not intervene in this heinous act? Are they not equally responsible for Floyd's death because of their inaction?

The law shows a bias toward omission by not enacting a law requiring people to act to save people's lives when that is possible; however, omission is penalized when someone tries to save someone's life and fails to do so.

6. In court

Think of two witnesses, one of whom omitted some important detail when telling the court what he knew about the case he was testifying about, and another who lied about that case. Both testimonies ultimately led to the imprisonment of the person whose case was being tried, even though he was not guilty.

Which witness made the most damaging choice? Who lied to get someone to go to jail, or who stayed silent and allowed the panel of judges to make their wrong decision? Many people think that lying in court is more immoral than leaving out important information. But both cases lead to the same result.

7. Underperforming employee

There are often cases where companies have an employee who doesn't quite keep up with the rest of the team, or the areas for improvement may be extensive; however, the employer may not want to pay the employee unemployment compensation if they let them go or may not want to increase the turnover rate of employees fired.

Instead, it makes the work environment very difficult for the employee to operate by setting unreasonable goals or adding multiple projects that increase his workload in hopes that the employee will choose to quit or move to a different job on their own.

In this way, the company did not have to deal with the employee anymore, but they did not directly cause the employee to leave by firing them; rather, they indirectly caused the departure by creating a difficult work environment, and when the employee chooses to leave, the manager can then be excused from the situation without feeling that they had a direct part in the mistake.

This manager might think in terms of omission bias, making themselves feel less guilty about the employee's departure.

How to overcome omission bias?

The best way to overcome the willingness to accept the damage of inaction is to always factor in the cost of inaction while making an important decision. Of course, you will worry about failure when you start a new venture, but you can compare where you are now in life with the probability of failure and its possible consequences. That is, compare the cost of staying in your average position where you are now with the possibility of living your dream by seizing the opportunity.

In conclusion

Watch your choices closely. It's easy to spot necessary action, but inaction is less obvious. So watch your actions and decisions, but look for situations in which you stick to the status quo.

We hope that the aforementioned examples of omission bias have made you aware of what this cognitive bias means, which can negatively affect your thinking and decision-making. So be proactive in everything you do and take responsibility so that you can live your life and achieve the goals that matter to you.