This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Asch, D. A. Articles by Spranca, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Asch, D. A. Articles by Spranca, M. Pubmed/NCBI databases Substance via MeSH Medline Plus Health Information Health Literacy Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Omission Bias and Pertussis Vaccination

Jonathan Baron

John C. Hershey

Howard Kunreuther

Jacqueline Meszaros

Ilana Ritov

Mark Spranca

Background: Several laboratory studies have suggested that many people favor potentially harmful omissions over less harmful acts. The authors studied the role of this omission bias in parents' decisions whether to vaccinate their children against pertussis. Methods: Two hundred mail surveys were sent to subscribers to a magazine that had published articles favoring and opposing pertussis vaccination. Subjects were asked about their beliefs about the vaccine and the disease, and whether they had vaccinated their own children or planned to, and they were given test items to identify omission bias in their reasoning. Results: One hundred and three subjects (52%) responded to the survey. Respondents who reported they did not or would not allow their children to be vaccinated (n = 43; 41 %) were more likely to believe that vaccinating was more dangerous than not vaccinating (p < 0.001 ). They were also more likely to exhibit omission bias (p = 0.004), holding constant their stated beliefs about the danger of the vaccine. Conclusions: Omission bias plays a role in decisions not to vaccinate with pertussis vaccine, beyond the role played by belief about the risk of vaccination. Key words: behavioral sciences; decision making; decision theory; ethics; health policy; judgment; pertussis vaccine; probability; psychology; public health; risk; vaccination; whooping cough. (Med Decis Making 1994;14:118-123)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 14, No. 2, 118-123 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9401400204


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Moreira, B. Bisig, P. Muwawenimana, P. Basinga, Z. Bisoffi, F. Haegeman, P. Kishore, and J. Van den Ende Weighing Harm in Therapeutic Decisions of Smear-Negative Pulmonary Tuberculosis Med Decis Making, May 1, 2009; 29(3): 380 - 390. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. A. Gust, N. Darling, A. Kennedy, and B. Schwartz Parents With Doubts About Vaccines: Which Vaccines and Reasons Why Pediatrics, October 1, 2008; 122(4): 718 - 725. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. d. DiBonaventura and G. B. Chapman Do Decision Biases Predict Bad Decisions? Omission Bias, Naturalness Bias, and Influenza Vaccination Med Decis Making, July 1, 2008; 28(4): 532 - 539. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. P. Galvani, T. C. Reluga, and G. B. Chapman Long-standing influenza vaccination policy is in accord with individual self-interest but not with the utilitarian optimum PNAS, March 27, 2007; 104(13): 5692 - 5697. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Basinga, J. Moreira, Z. Bisoffi, B. Bisig, and J. Van den Ende Why Are Clinicians Reluctant to Treat Smear-Negative Tuberculosis? An Inquiry about Treatment Thresholds in Rwanda Med Decis Making, January 1, 2007; 27(1): 53 - 60. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. L. Benin, D. J. Wisler-Scher, E. Colson, E. D. Shapiro, and E. S. Holmboe Qualitative Analysis of Mothers' Decision-Making About Vaccines for Infants: The Importance of Trust Pediatrics, May 1, 2006; 117(5): 1532 - 1541. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Fagerlin, B. J. Zikmund-Fisher, and P. A. Ubel Cure Me Even If It Kills Me: Preferences for Invasive Cancer Treatment Med Decis Making, November 1, 2005; 25(6): 614 - 619. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. K. Aberegg, E. F. Haponik, and P. B. Terry Omission Bias and Decision Making in Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Chest, September 1, 2005; 128(3): 1497 - 1505. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. T Bauch Imitation dynamics predict vaccinating behaviour Proc R Soc B, August 22, 2005; 272(1573): 1669 - 1675. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. A. Salmon, L. H. Moulton, S. B. Omer, M. P. deHart, S. Stokley, and N. A. Halsey Factors Associated With Refusal of Childhood Vaccines Among Parents of School-aged Children: A Case-Control Study Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, May 1, 2005; 159(5): 470 - 476. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. T. Bauch and D. J. D. Earn Vaccination and the theory of games PNAS, September 7, 2004; 101(36): 13391 - 13394. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Baron, G. B. Holzman, and J. Schulkin Attitudes of Obstetricians and Gynecologists toward Hormone Replacement Therapy Med Decis Making, October 1, 1998; 18(4): 406 - 411. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. K. Ball, G. Evans, and A. Bostrom Risky Business: Challenges in Vaccine Risk Communication Pediatrics, March 1, 1998; 101(3): 453 - 458. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. H. Gurwitz and R. J. Goldberg Coronary Thrombolysis for the Elderly: Is Clinical Practice Really Lagging Behind Evidence of Benefit? JAMA, June 4, 1997; 277(21): 1723 - 1724. [Abstract] [PDF]