Omission Bias

The so-called Omission Bias (English, about: " the tendency to neglect" ) is the name for a process described by the behavioral sciences phenomenon, according to which an act is subjectively considered to be more risky than other behavioral option that consists in a failure. From a normative point of view acts are often more sanctioned than omissions, even if the consequences of both behavioral options are the same.

Given the choice to pre- possibly associated with negative consequences for action or to refrain from this, then what might not be, but certainly leads to negative consequences, people tend to refrain. This tendency results from the fact that the responsibility for a negative result, which has self-induced, is perceived as heavier than the responsibility for a negative result, one does not have its own making or has not prevented by omission only. The ethical assessment of an action by omission on the one hand and an act by the active behavior on the other hand is significantly different; the degree of responsibility or liability is generally higher during active action measured as the action by omission.

With an example Jonathan Baron explained in Thinking and Deciding the term:

The behavior after version 1 is widely - rated as reprehensible as the actions on the version 2 - from third parties such as from A itself

In another example, the omission of the bias problem is illustrated:

The different valuation of action and omission is echoed by the fact that in criminal law generally only act is punishable, while omissions are only punishable if it is explicitly mentioned in the penal norm, such as in the failure to render assistance. The ethical imbalance is reduced by the construct of the guarantor position. Thus, a person 's failure to be attributed as active behavior if that person is available for victims in a special duty of care relationship. Such a duty of care relationship can be established in a natural way - such as in parents towards their children - or by contract such as between homeowners and tenants. This is illustrated in the following example:

The with regard to the Omission Bias ethically different rating between active action and omission is criticized from an ethical standpoint follow. The poet says:

" At all nonsense that happens, are not just the fault that do it, but also those who do not prevent it. "

While representatives of consequentialism hold the Omission Bias for a cognitive illusion, there are other moral philosophical approaches which attempt to justify the difference in valuation. In practical philosophy is argued by representatives of the ethics of responsibility, that there are rational reasons for actions to evaluate more than omission, because personal responsibility is possible to narrow only in this way makes sense and an excessive demand is prevented.

In addition to the omission bias, there is also the action bias, after in other situations there is a tendency to favor active management options. So, for example, tend Jump goalkeepers in football to after the ball, even if they can not reduce the chance as a result.

Quote

"Is he [ the Action Bias ] the opposite of Omission Bias? Not quite. The Action bias comes into play when a situation unclear, contradictory, is opaque. Then we tend to promiscuity, even if there is no good reason for it. When Omission bias, the situation is most clearly: a future damage could be averted by actions today, but the turning away of damage does not motivate us as strong as it should command the reason.

The Omission Bias is very hard to detect - No action is less visible than action. The 68 movement, you have to leave it, by looking at him and fights with a pithy slogan: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem ". "