Do Decision Biases Predict Bad Decisions? Omission Bias, Naturalness Bias, and Influenza Vaccination

Marco daCosta DiBonaventura and Gretchen B. Chapman
Additional contact information
Marco daCosta DiBonaventura: Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, dibonavm@mskcc.org
Gretchen B. Chapman: Rutgers University, Camden, New Jersey

Medical Decision Making, 2008, vol. 28, issue 4, 532-539

Abstract: Purpose. Numerous studies using hypothetical vignettes have demonstrated decision biases or deviations from utility theory. Do people who commit biases in questionnaire studies make worse real-world decisions than do less biased people? Methods. Two hundred seventy university faculty and staff participated in a questionnaire study in which they reported whether they accepted a free influenza vaccine offered at their work place. Influenza vaccine acceptance was the measure of real-world decision making. Participants responded to 3 hypothetical scenarios. Two scenarios measured the omission bias and described a vaccine (scenario 1) and a medication (scenario 2) that prevented a negative health outcome but that itself could cause the negative health outcome. The omission bias is a preference for not vaccinating or medicating even when the vaccine/medication lowers the total risk of the negative outcome. A 3rd scenario measured the naturalness bias by presenting a choice between 2 chemically identical medications, one extracted from a natural herb and the other synthesized in a laboratory. Preference for the natural medication indicated the naturalness bias. Results. The results indicated that a substantial proportion of participants exhibited these biases and that participants who exhibited these biases were less likely to accept the flu vaccine. Conclusions. To the extent that declining a free flu vaccine is a worse real-world decision, people who demonstrate the naturalness and omission biases in hypothetical scenarios make worse real-world decisions. Key words: omission bias; naturalness bias; influenza; vaccination. (Med Decis Making 2008;28:532 — 539)

Date: 2008
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (10)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07312723 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:4:p:532-539

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07312723

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().