Psyche logo

Omission Bias – Why Hiding the Truth Seems Better Than Lying?

Here is a Complete Guide Curated for you to know everything about the Omission Bias.

By Curated for YouPublished 3 years ago 11 min read
5
Omission Bias – Why Hiding the Truth Seems Better Than Lying?
Photo by Sherise VD on Unsplash

Who among the 2 does one think maybe a bigger culprit?

Scenario 1: A nurse has the responsibility of taking care of the patient by giving him an injection every day. Without the dose of the needle, the patient will die. One day, the nurse doesn't administer the drugs intentionally and therefore the patient dies.

Scenario 2: A doctor has got to perform a daily check abreast of a patient admitted for flu. One day, the doctor decides to inject cyanide into the patient while he's sleeping, thereby killing him.

The doctor committed a much bigger crime, didn’t he? He killed a patient. He's a murderer.

If you felt so, you fell victim to the omission bias.

But wait, re-evaluate. How different is the outcome of the nurses’ case? If you check out both these cases keeping your emotions aside, both the doctor and therefore the nurse caused the death of a patient intentionally.

Yet, somehow what the doctor did seems more immoral than the nurse. The rationale is, the doctor performed some action which led to the death of the patient but the nurse caused death by doing nothing.

Though the difference is subtle, an activity that results in dire consequences seems more criminal than no action which results in an equivalent outcome. Such an idea process of the mind is named the omission bias.

What is Omission Bias?

Omission bias is that the human tendency to gauge a harmful action as more immoral than inaction, albeit both cause an equivalent result. Your brain tricks you into a false sense of morals-supported action vs no action.

This bias is the opposite effect of the action bias, where you are feeling awkward doing nothing. For instance, people talk in group meetings just to avoid appearing because the one that had nothing to feature.

The experiment of John, the athlete:

Researchers performed an experiment on a gaggle of individuals by presenting them with the subsequent scenario.

John faces Ivan in the final of the tennis tournament tomorrow. That night, both the finalists participated during a dinner buffet for the pre-final event. John knows Ivan has an allergy to yogurt.

Scenario 1: When both the sportsmen are adding food to their plate, Ivan unknowingly picks up a dish containing yogurt which he's allergic to. John notices the error but doesn't tell Ivan about it. Ivan falls sick and John wins.

Scenario 2: While both the players are picking food, John intentionally recommends Ivan to undertake the salad which contains yogurt. Ivan, unaware of the ingredients, eats the dish, falls sick and loses the subsequent day.

The majority of the people voted John recommending the allergic food to Ivan as more immoral compared to remaining silent about the salad.

John caused Ivan’s sickness in both cases. He could have prevented his rival from eating the dish. But remaining silent appears less sinful than recommending the dish intentionally.

Inaction even when the results are worse

The bias doesn't only become when the result of action and inaction is the same. In some cases, it takes such a robust shape that no action looks like the higher choice albeit it results in worse consequences.

For example, let us say 100 people suffer from an incurable disease. A doctor comes up with a drug that kills 20 people on the spot but saves the lifetime of the opposite 80. If you've got to approve the drug, would you be doing it?

Inaction during worse consequences

Most people will withhold approval. Killing 20 people immediately seems terrible compared to saving the opposite 80 albeit they suffer from a disease with no cure. Though the drug saves more lives overall, the action of approving the drug which kills a couple of people seems more unethical than letting all the patients die thanks to the disease itself.

Even if you create a bold decision to approve the drug, the primary death would send a shockwave through the media forcing you to withdraw the drug.

Omission Bias examples in real world

The omission bias takes various shapes in day-to-day life.

1. Euthanasia vs refusing life-saving measures

Euthanasia is that the act of intentionally killing someone very sick to stop suffering. Such a practice is against the law in most countries. In contrast, the law considers refusing life-saving support by choice as to legal.

In both cases, the choice results in the death of the patient. The sole difference lies within the method where one causes death by action while the opposite causes death by inaction. Even the law goes through an omission bias to place a boundary between the 2 to deem one as legal and therefore the other unlawful.

Is a thought running in your head that the law is indeed fair? If so, you're under the effect of the bias immediately.

2. Parents denying vaccination for youngsters

As per current medicine, vaccines are key to keeping ourselves healthy. Without them, you become susceptible to diseases which will kill you. Yet, many of the oldsters refuse to vaccinate their children thanks to the possible side effects. 3.3% of the US parents refused vaccination fearing the results.

While the vaccines can cause side effects in rare cases, the probabilities of falling victim to diseases by refusing vaccines are much higher. Yet, parents prefer choosing to not take the action of vaccinating their children to avoid the possible consequences.

Even though inaction, during this case, can cause death, it creates a fake moral comfort for the brain.

3. Fewer fouls during the top of the sport

Irrespective of which sport you watch, the ultimate moments of some games are nail biters. things aggravate if the match is the final of the championship.

Have you noticed how referees behave during such moments? Under the immense pressure of creating the proper decision, the referees like better to not call out fouls unless they're severe. Some fouls which an equivalent referee would have called out during normal moments, go ignored. The fear of calling out an incorrect foul scares the referees into not calling out fouls in the least.

NBA statistics have shown that referees call 50% lesser fouls during the tense moments of the sport.

4. Goalkeeper defending right or left

In sports like football or hockey, during the penalty shootout, the goalkeeper defends the shot from the opponent. You see the goalkeeper jumping to the proper or the left to defend the post. How often does one see a goalkeeper holding his ground to defend the shot? As per maths and statistics, the opponent can kick the ball towards the left, right or middle.

Here, the reverse of omission bias comes into play. The keeper worries about standing sort of a fool without attempting a leap while the ball sails on the proper or the left.

5. Murder case witnesses

Not providing the witness testimony - The law can only charge an individual guilty when strong evidence exists. albeit multiple clues point towards the case, the evidence may be a mandate.

A similar effect of the omission bias occurs when the witness steps in to offer their testimony. Many witnesses refrain from giving out evidence which may prove an individual guilty. Compare that with a witness giving out false evidence. most of the people would scream how shameful such action is.

But people fail to think about that, a witness remaining silent can cause the incorrect person being held guilty too. Nobody blames the witness who did not speak up the maximum amount because the witness who lied.

The decision of not taking an action looks like the higher moral choice.

How the omission bias affects you

Just like the real-life examples, you fall victim to the bias yourself.

1. Sticking with employment you hate

A big chunk of employees are disappointed with their jobs. They hate getting to work, they loathe their manager and that they despise the work they need to try to do daily. Though employees have the choice to quit their job and build their own businessess, the results of such actions scare them.

What if I lose the money? What if I cannot find employment that pays an equivalent again? What if I come up with an emergency? The fear of failure kicks in and inaction looks like the simplest decision. The temperature of the present paycheck results in people sticking to employment which makes them nauseous.

If you hate your job and choose to try to do nothing but persist with it, you're falling victim to the omission bias on a day to day basis. you'll start your business alongside your full-time job if you would like to.

2. Entrepreneurs sticking to their current style

Take the case of the owner of a supermarket who features a new idea about rearranging the location of the products to extend the sales. Such a change can cause good or bad consequences. If the plan works, the entrepreneur mints money. If the thought falls flat on the face, he loses money which he would have made by changing nothing.

In such a dilemma, many entrepreneurs like better to persist with what they’re currently doing. The fear of failing by taking the action of getting into a replacement direction results in no action. Many companies have perished thanks to such siloed thinking. For instance, Kodak stuck to its original plan of cameras with roles when digital cameras stepped into the market.

3. Drunken drivers

Take the case of a car with two passengers that meets with an accident. If the driving force was under the influence of alcohol, the law and therefore the public blames the driving force alone.

If you provide an idea, the opposite person within the car also can be held responsible because he allowed the drunk driver to require the wheel. If the driving force was adamant, it's a special story. But in most cases, the friend of the drunken driver does nothing to prevent the illegal move by his friend.

Was it not the moral responsibility of the opposite person to stop the drunken driver?

4. Tolerating a coffee performer

Many teams have a poor performer who continues for eternity within the team. Unfortunately, the boss is facing the omission bias. He thinks, “If I abandon the worker, he might end up stranded with no income.”

Many managers and managers find it difficult to fire an employee even under the grounds of low performance. When the bad performer leaves himself, the manager breathes a sigh of relief.

5. Hiding the reality

Many a time, you encounter a situation where you've got to cover something from your partner or parents or a lover. Whatever you're hiding is typically an easy offense. Maybe you had some drinks and kept that a secret from your parents.

You did not lie, but neither did you utter the reality. You only suppressed some parts of the story.

If you tell your parents the reality, you fear the aftermath. In some cases, the result of your parents realizing that you simply hid the reality could turn more acute.

From an ethical point, hiding the reality isn’t completely ethical either. Yet, the inaction of hiding the reality looks like the simplest choice.

6. Focusing only on the advantages during sales

If you're a salesman, you've got employment to sell the merchandise. Now, you recognize the merchandise has its advantages also as its set of disadvantages. Once you pitch to a prospective client, you explain the advantages intimately. Unless the opposite person brings up a selected question associated with the disadvantage, you remain silent about it.

Stating the reality can, in fact, boost your impression when done right. Some sales executives use an equivalent approach to garner the trust of the client. Yet, most of the people in sales like to hide some parts of reality. They worry about the customer walking away after learning about the disadvantage of the merchandise.

Lying about a few benefits or a flaw of the merchandise seems wrong but not speaking about the disadvantages seems fair. People consider it normal for a sales executive to exhibit such behavior.

7. Procrastination

Omission bias shows up during a mild form by procrastination. Leaving the half-eaten plate of food on the couch looks like the simplest choice immediately. Tomorrow, the space might stink or the plate may have fallen on the carpet. Yet the present inaction of leaving it because it provides you instant gratification.

How to overcome the omission bias

Unfortunately, there are not any easy ways to beat the omission bias. Your best bet is to always consider the value of inaction while making any major decisions.

When you want to start out a venture, you are worried about failure. Yes, the probabilities of failure do exist. But you simply compare your possible future failure together with your current comfort. Have you ever compared the value of sticking to your monotonous job to living a mediocre job for the remainder of your life? Have you ever considered how the success of your business would compare against your current sort of living?

Conclusion

Omission bias will kick in time and again within you. To make it worse, it's very difficult to detect.

Spotting action is straightforward, but identifying inaction? almost so.

Spotting lies is straightforward, but identifying and hiding the truth? almost so.

A student movement coined a slogan that said: “If you're not a neighborhood of the answer, you're a neighborhood of the matter .”

So keep an in-depth eye on yourself. Yes, you ought to watch your actions and decisions but don't forget to think about your “no-actions”.

humanity
5

About the Creator

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.