CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 856Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsRisk Perception and ManagementVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reluctance to vaccinate: Omission bias and ambiguity

Ritov, Ilana, Baron, Jonathan·1990·Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
DOI 10.1002/bdm.3960030404
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Subjects are reluctant to vaccinate a (hypothetical) child when the vaccination itself can cause death, even when this is much less likely than death from the disease prevented. This effect is even greater when there is a ‘risk group’ for death (with its overall probability held constant), even though the test for membership in the risk group is unavailable. This effect cannot be explained in terms of a tendency to assume that the child is in the risk group. A risk group for death from the disease has no effect on reluctance to vaccinate. The reluctance is an example of omission bias (Spranca, Minsk & Baron, in press), an overgeneralization of a distinction between commissions and omissions to a case in which it is irrelevant. Likewise, it would ordinarily be prudent to find out whether a child is in a risk group before acting, but in this case it is impossible, so knowledge of the existence of the risk group is irrelevant. The risk‐group effect is consistent with Frisch & Baron's (1988) interpretation of ambiguity.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bdm.3960030404

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 22 references

1 of the 22 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Baron J., 1988, Thinking and deciding
  2. Knetsch J. L., 1988, Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Manuscript
  3. Ritov I.andBaron J.‘Status quo and omission bias’.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty(in press).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 701–800 of 856

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ritov, I., & Baron, J.
Affiliations
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
  • University of Michigan (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1990-10
Volume
3
Issue
4
Pages
263-277
ISSN
  • 0894-3257 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0771
DOI
10.1002/bdm.3960030404
OpenAlex
W2167052337
Cited by
854
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 25
FWCI
4.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 7541 d)
Locations
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Keywords
omission bias, ambiguity, risk groups, risk aversion, risk assessment, decision making under uncertainty

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review