Omission bias is the phenomenon in which individuals prefer inaction (omission) over action (commission) and tend to perceive harm as a result of commission more negatively than harm resulting from omission. This bias can stem from psychological inertia, perceived transaction costs, and the belief that actions are seen as more causal than inactions.
An example of omission bias is illustrated in a scenario where a tennis player, John, knows that his opponent is allergic to a specific food. If John actively recommends that food, people judge his action to be more immoral than if he simply fails to inform the opponent about the allergen, even though both situations lead to harm.
To overcome omission bias, individuals can consciously assess the consequences of both action and inaction, recognizing that inaction can also lead to harm and that moral responsibility applies to both choices.