<p>I'm reminded of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_fixedness" rel="noreferrer">the Gestalt idea of "functional fixedness,"</a> which, as defined by Wikipedia, "is a cognitive bias that limits a person to using an object only in the way it is traditionally used." When functional fixedness occurs, individuals get caught up in that particular use and ignore other alternatives. That's almost what's happening here; one gets caught up in the choice (traverses down the flowchart, if you will) and doesn't consider alternatives.</p>

<p>It's also possible (although I don't have any evidence on this) that it's cognitively less demanding to weigh similar options (e.g., Restaurant A vs. Restaurant B) than different ones (e.g., Restaurant vs. Dinner At Home).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-16T16:31:38.373Z
2012-02-16T16:31:38.373Z
Andy DeSoto
<p>If viewed through the lense of the Five Factor Model, the decision to do nothing (the Zero option) may be encompassed by the negative valence of 'Openness to Experience' or the negative valence of 'Extraversion'.</p>

<p>People who would take the zero option in the scenario outlined would be people:</p>

<ul>
<li>who are less open to experience (trying a new venue), and/or</li>
<li>who are less extraverted and so less interested in mingling with others.</li>
</ul>

<p>So, I think the scenarios outlined involves selection bias.  The author of the question is associating with people whose personality is more aligned with positive valence Extraversion and/or positive valence Openness to Experience.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-03T14:46:03.997Z
2020-06-03T14:46:03.997Z
Tony Mobbs
<p>More generally, you are asking about a common tendency to substitute a sub-set of  alternative actions for the entire set without realizing it.</p>

<p>Beyond the contribution of pure habit, it seems to be related to several common decision making biases, including attentional bias and focusing effect, though it doesn't exactly match any.  I don't recall seeing this investigated directly.</p>

<p>"Zero choice" is a poor choice of terminology, it evokes the "null hypothesis" (as Ben Brocka alluded to in the comments), which in decision making usually means "do nothing", not a call to consider a broader set of alternatives.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-01T14:26:15.033Z
I came across the Wikipedia article for the [Anchoring Effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring) and was going to add it as a new answer, but then I noticed you had already referenced it as the 'focusing effect' and I had somehow simply missed that.  Thanks again for the good answer!
BenCole
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-08T23:32:32.150Z
2012-02-08T23:32:32.150Z
William B Swift
<p>In many areas of life we have a choice between multiple options: if we are hungry and we want to go out to eat, we have a number of places to choose from (McDonalds, etc).  However, we also still have the 'Zero Choice' (my terminology) of not eating out at all and getting food some other way.</p>

<p>In my personal life, I've noticed (perhaps falsly) that a fair number of people, once they've made a general choice (in the example: eating out), they disregard the 'Zero Choice' (not eating out) and become fixated on the sub-choices (where to eat out).</p>

<p>Is there a noticable difference in mental activity between people who don't consider the 'Zero Choice' and people who do?</p>

<hr>

<p>Original Question: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In my life I've noticed that people rarely see the 'nothing' choice. 
  Rather than choosing <code>this</code> or <code>that</code>, there is also the choice of
  <code>neither</code> and <code>both</code>.  People I've interacted with often weigh their
  <code>both</code>, <code>this</code>, and <code>that</code> options fairly well, but many completely
  miss the <code>neither/nothing</code> option.</p>
  
  <p>More specifically, I've seen this in a couple girlfriends I've had and
  a couple guy friends also.  When trying to decide what to do, they'll
  settle on a type of activity (active/passive -> general category ->
  couple options) and then choose between a couple options.  However,
  rarely in these options do they include the idea of something
  completely different.  Meanwhile, this is something I do without
  thinking; other options are always present to me, and I have no
  difficulty in seeing, weighing, or choosing the <code>neither</code> option.</p>
  
  <p>These are poor examples and for that I apologize; but is this a
  recognized phenomenon? What neural differences are there between
  people who process the <code>nothing</code> option and people who don't?</p>
  
  <p>Has this even been researched at all?  Cursory Googling (the most
  available to me right now) has revealed nothing; I could be searching
  for the wrong thing though...</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-12-28T02:49:55.003Z
Another similar omission is forgetting to consider “negative” actions, that is, stopping actions that are underway (e.g. removing existing pollution sources, disinvesting, etc.).

Salo and Hamalainen (2010) call them “errors of omission”.

Salo A, Hamalainen RP (2010) Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Group Decision Processes. In Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation, Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation, 4(3): 269-283
decision maker
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-08T18:41:45.787Z
I think this question is [borderline self-help](http://meta.cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/18/29) and thus off-topic. I also don't see a [strong research effort](http://meta.cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/66/29) in formulating this question.
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-08T19:05:21.617Z
I'm somewhat unclear on what the "zero choice" is... Can you come up with a better example, Ben?
Josh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-08T19:15:34.263Z
The same reason non-scientists love to ignore the null-hypothesis I suppose...
Zelda
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-08T19:45:13.953Z
I tried to reformulate the question to be more clear and less subjective/self-help.  There still isn't a strong research effort, mostly because I don't really know what I'm looking for.  If someone can give me some established terminology or ideas as a starting point, however, I'll try and come back with something more concrete...
BenCole
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-08T23:53:51.833Z
I didn't -1 it; but here are a few things to consider: It's an assumption that there are "types of people" who ignore the zero choice, rather than it being a decision making strategy that can be used. What do you mean by a difference in mental activity (at the time of making the decision? or in general?)?
Jeromy Anglim
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-09T08:33:11.843Z
functional fixedness seems closely connected to what your asking. Might wanna try googling that so as to better clear up your terminology. I don't think this has been brought up yet in the meta, but personally I view the introduction of self-made terminology (e.g. the Zero Choice) as being very counter productive to answering a question.
zergylord
<cognitive-psychology><decision-making>
Why do some people seem to disregard the choice of doing nothing (The Zero Choice)?
BenCole
# Why do some people seem to disregard the choice of doing nothing (The Zero Choice)?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-02-08)

In many areas of life we have a choice between multiple options: if we are hungry and we want to go out to eat, we have a number of places to choose from (McDonalds, etc). However, we also still have the 'Zero Choice' (my terminology) of not eating out at all and getting food some other way.

In my personal life, I've noticed (perhaps falsly) that a fair number of people, once they've made a general choice (in the example: eating out), they disregard the 'Zero Choice' (not eating out) and become fixated on the sub-choices (where to eat out).

Is there a noticable difference in mental activity between people who don't consider the 'Zero Choice' and people who do?

---

Original Question:

> In my life I've noticed that people rarely see the 'nothing' choice.
> Rather than choosing `this` or `that`, there is also the choice of
> `neither` and `both`. People I've interacted with often weigh their
> `both`, `this`, and `that` options fairly well, but many completely
> miss the `neither/nothing` option.
>
> More specifically, I've seen this in a couple girlfriends I've had and
> a couple guy friends also. When trying to decide what to do, they'll
> settle on a type of activity (active/passive -> general category ->
> couple options) and then choose between a couple options. However,
> rarely in these options do they include the idea of something
> completely different. Meanwhile, this is something I do without
> thinking; other options are always present to me, and I have no
> difficulty in seeing, weighing, or choosing the `neither` option.
>
> These are poor examples and for that I apologize; but is this a
> recognized phenomenon? What neural differences are there between
> people who process the `nothing` option and people who don't?
>
> Has this even been researched at all? Cursory Googling (the most
> available to me right now) has revealed nothing; I could be searching
> for the wrong thing though...

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, decision-making

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: I think this question is [borderline self-help](http://meta.cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/18/29) and thus off-topic. I also don't see a [strong research effort](http://meta.cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/66/29) in formulating this question.  
> **username_3**: I'm somewhat unclear on what the "zero choice" is... Can you come up with a better example, Ben?  
> **username_4**: The same reason non-scientists love to ignore the null-hypothesis I suppose...  
> **username_0**: I tried to reformulate the question to be more clear and less subjective/self-help.  There still isn't a strong research effort, mostly because I don't really know what I'm looking for.  If someone can give me some established terminology or ideas as a starting point, however, I'll try and come back with something more concrete...  
> **username_5**: I didn't -1 it; but here are a few things to consider: It's an assumption that there are "types of people" who ignore the zero choice, rather than it being a decision making strategy that can be used. What do you mean by a difference in mental activity (at the time of making the decision? or in general?)?  
> **username_6**: functional fixedness seems closely connected to what your asking. Might wanna try googling that so as to better clear up your terminology. I don't think this has been brought up yet in the meta, but personally I view the introduction of self-made terminology (e.g. the Zero Choice) as being very counter productive to answering a question.  
> **username_1**: Another similar omission is forgetting to consider “negative” actions, that is, stopping actions that are underway (e.g. removing existing pollution sources, disinvesting, etc.).  Salo and Hamalainen (2010) call them “errors of omission”.  Salo A, Hamalainen RP (2010) Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Group Decision Processes. In Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation, Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation, 4(3): 269-283  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_9 on 2012-02-08. Score: 8 | Accepted answer

More generally, you are asking about a common tendency to substitute a sub-set of alternative actions for the entire set without realizing it.

Beyond the contribution of pure habit, it seems to be related to several common decision making biases, including attentional bias and focusing effect, though it doesn't exactly match any. I don't recall seeing this investigated directly.

"Zero choice" is a poor choice of terminology, it evokes the "null hypothesis" (as Ben Brocka alluded to in the comments), which in decision making usually means "do nothing", not a call to consider a broader set of alternatives.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I came across the Wikipedia article for the [Anchoring Effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring) and was going to add it as a new answer, but then I noticed you had already referenced it as the 'focusing effect' and I had somehow simply missed that.  Thanks again for the good answer!  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2012-02-16. Score: 5

I'm reminded of [the Gestalt idea of "functional fixedness,"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_fixedness) which, as defined by Wikipedia, "is a cognitive bias that limits a person to using an object only in the way it is traditionally used." When functional fixedness occurs, individuals get caught up in that particular use and ignore other alternatives. That's almost what's happening here; one gets caught up in the choice (traverses down the flowchart, if you will) and doesn't consider alternatives.

It's also possible (although I don't have any evidence on this) that it's cognitively less demanding to weigh similar options (e.g., Restaurant A vs. Restaurant B) than different ones (e.g., Restaurant vs. Dinner At Home).


---

### Answer by username_8 on 2020-06-03. Score: 0

If viewed through the lense of the Five Factor Model, the decision to do nothing (the Zero option) may be encompassed by the negative valence of 'Openness to Experience' or the negative valence of 'Extraversion'.

People who would take the zero option in the scenario outlined would be people:

* who are less open to experience (trying a new venue), and/or
* who are less extraverted and so less interested in mingling with others.

So, I think the scenarios outlined involves selection bias. The author of the question is associating with people whose personality is more aligned with positive valence Extraversion and/or positive valence Openness to Experience.


---

