The roots of omission bias: cross-cultural evidence for an attributional asymmetry account

The omission bias refers to the tendency to judge harmful omissions as less immoral than equally harmful commissions. Rooted in the philosophical doctrine of doing and allowing, omission bias has often been treated as a principle in moral decision-making. Although extensively replicated among Western samples, little research has directly examined whether omission bias and its underlying processes generalise across cultures. The present study employed a 2 (China vs. US) x 2 (Commission vs. Omission) between-subjects design with 266 American and 275 Chinese participants. Participants evaluated scenarios in which either a commission or an omission led to the same harmful outcome. The omission bias in morality perceptions generalised across cultures, although not for all scenarios. Intentionality and causality perceptions were significant predictors of immorality, robust across cultures and scenarios. Scenario-specific reversals of omission bias reflected shifts in intentionality and causality. These findings provide cross-cultural evidence for an attributional asymmetry account of omission bias.