Definition of Comfort Zone

It is a popular theory within various fields, particularly the labor-business one, which says that a person who is within their comfort zone She is in a state of mental flattening, in which the lack of stimuli leads her to maintain a predominantly passive and not very enterprising attitude.

It is common to find speeches that circulate, mainly, on social networks, inviting us to leave our comfort zone. Although it is a widely quoted concept that has been gaining ground within the theories of psychology popular (those that circulate without being verified) and coaching, there are no productions formal academic nor scientific that accompany or support what is sustained in this type of contents.

The individual is in his "comfort zone" when his context is not threatening and he feels that he can control it, when he behaves routinely and uses their usual strategies to resolve the conflicts that arise in their daily life, without assuming any kind of risk. In addition, the comfort zone is related to performance. It is pointed out that, by remaining in such a state of

security and comfort, made possible by the comfort zone, it is not possible to increase performance, but to keep it constant. Which would prevent personal growth generating states of apathy, reluctance and existential emptiness.

Therefore, in summary, these theories relate the state of comfort with: a context that is comfortable, safe and non-threatening, the absence of risk taking, consistent performance, lack of personal growth and the presence of certain health problems mental.

The paradox of the concept of comfort zone

These theories -which have no empirical support- invite us to leave our comfort zone with the promise that greater and better performance awaits us outside of it. In addition, they maintain that, if we stay in the comfort zone, we would see our happiness reduced and our boredom increased due to the lack of stimulating incentives.

In short, on the one hand, they point out that leaving the comfort zone is the entrance to success and On the other hand, staying in the comfort zone generates less happiness than staying in the discomfort.

A possible criticism

The problem with these theories is that they do not take into account and make the social context invisible, looking for answers and individual commitments to solve structural problems common to the vast majority of people living in the society. These are individualistic strategies that focus exclusively on situating the responsibility personally, leaving aside the analysis of the conditions of production and the responsibilities of the States that produce and reproduce social inequalities.

In relation to this, it seems important to be cautious when maintaining that by "leaving the comfort zone" we find a space for personal growth and greater performance. First, because there is no evidence to show that this is necessarily the case and such a requirement can generate greater discomfort and frustration than it is supposed to avoid.

Second, because more than an invitation it seems to be an imperative statement and I wonder from what place we tell people what they have to do and depending on what benefits we ask them to assume certain risks.

Third, it seems that the person who does not leave their comfort zone is because they do not want to, making it a question merely voluntarist that also makes invisible, as we pointed out previously, the macro and microcontextual.

Four, because it blames people who do not leave their comfort zone or even those who, given the unpredictability and turbulence of their environment, seek anything that can reduce the discomfort that it generates, that is, to those people who want to enter an area that offers them greater comfort and security.

Fifth, because equating higher performance with personal growth is, at least, questionable.

Is the Yerkes-Dodson law an antecedent of the concept?

There is no exact reference to who was the first to relate the concept of comfort zone to the experiment carried out in 1908 by psychologists Robert M. Yerkes, and John D. dodson. In fact, the authors don't even talk about a comfort zone. What they investigated was how simple habits are generated in the behavior of mice.

Yerkes and Dodson investigated behavior modification and habit formation in mice based on the relationship between stimulus strength and rate of response. learning. To do this, they carried out an experimental study in which they trained mice to choose to enter a white box instead of a black one. Each time the mice chose the black box, they applied an electric shock, the level of which ranged from weak, medium and high.

What the researchers saw was that if the stimulus (electric shock) was too weak or too high, it did not work as well. motivation to avoid the black box and choose the white one. What's more, if it was very high, it even became harmful to the mouse. Therefore, they concluded that a medium intensity stimulus was much more favorable for the acquisition of habit (from entering the white box) than the other intensities. They also observed that as the arousal produced by the aversive stimulus increased, that is, as the electric shock As its intensity increased, the desired response rate also increased, that is, that the mouse entered the white box more times than the white box. black. However, the latter occurred to a certain extent, since if they generated too much arousal, the mouse failed to perform the desired behavior. The latter is known as the law from Yerkes and Dodson. The conclusion The general idea of ​​the study was that a habit that is easily acquired is one that does not require complex associations, while for the formation of more difficult habits relatively weak and moderate stimuli are required.

Due to the characteristics mentioned, it could be said that the experiment is closer to behavioral theories than to the concept of comfort zone. In addition, in the experiment, the researchers took into account context variables such as the conditions of discrimination such as the shine of the boxes.

A possible alternative

Personal changes are necessary, first, if they are desired. Then, if there are patterns of behavior or attitudes that cause us discomfort and/or that lead us to consequences that we do not want. Also when we have difficulties to achieve our objectives or personal goals.

A possible alternative to leaving the comfort zone can be:

● Reflect on the areas or aspects in which I want to develop myself

● Evaluate which behaviors I need to increase and incorporate and which ones to reduce or eliminate

● Evaluate the skills I have, the ones I want to improve and the ones I need to acquire and develop.

● Work tolerance to uncertainty and frustration

References

Yerkes, Robert M. & Dodson, John D. (1908), “The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation”, J. comp. neurol. Psychol., Vol. 18, p. 459–482.