See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/352065258

Comfort zone orientation: Individual differences in the motivation to move

beyond one's comfort zone

Article  in  Personality and Individual Differences · October 2021

DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.111024

CITATIONS READS

0 5

2 authors, including:

Nona Kiknadze
University of Miami
3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nona Kiknadze on 02 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Personality and Individual Differences 181 (2021) 111024

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Comfort zone orientation: Individual differences in the motivation to move

beyond one’s comfort zone
Nona C. Kiknadze , Mark R. Leary *
Duke University, United States of America

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Three studies examined the degree to which people value doing things that push them out of their comfort zone.
Comfort zone Study 1 showed that the boundaries of people’s comfort zones are related to their motives for engaging in a
Approach-avoidance behavior and how they expect to feel if they perform it. Study 2 involved the development of a measure of
Confidence
comfort zone orientation (CZO), the degree to which people value doing things outside of their comfort zone.
Neophilia
Predictors of CZO reflected psychological influences on the value people place on stepping outside their comfort
zone, including a desire for new and stimulating experiences, low anxiety, and self-efficacy. Study 3 was a
laboratory experiment that examined the relationship between CZO and responses to an anxiety-producing task.
Participants who valued pushing themselves out of their comfort zone were more confident that they could make
themselves perform tasks that fell outside their comfort zone.

People are sometimes encouraged to do things that make them un­
comfortable or afraid — to push themselves out of their “comfort zone.”
They are often told that exciting experiences, new opportunities, and
personal growth await if they can step across that line (Newmark, 2017).
Although this advice resonates with many people, no research has
examined the construct of comfort zone in detail or explored how peo­
ple’s beliefs about comfort zones relate to personality or behavior. This
project was designed to take an initial look at how people think about
comfort zones.
Approach and avoidance motivations lie at the heart of most
behavior (Carver, 2006). In fact, the decision to approach or withdraw
from stimuli may be the most basic behavioral choice for all organisms
(Corr & Krupić, 2017; Davidson, 1992; Kenrick & Shiota, 2008). Simply
put, approach and avoidance lie at the heart of most responses,
reflecting motives that direct behavior toward positive or desirable
stimuli and outcomes and away from negative or undesirable ones
(Elliot, 2010). Conceptualizations of approach and avoidance appear in
many motivational approaches in philosophy and psychology (Bentham,
1779/1879; Freud, 1915; Skinner, 1938; Thorndike, 1898), and the
nature of approach and avoidance has also been examined in research on
the neurological basis of the approach and avoidance systems, as in work
on the behavioral inhibition and activation systems (BIS/BAS; Gray &
McNaughton, 2000), approach/withdrawal (Davidson, 1993), and
appetitive and aversive systems (Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1997).
The interplay between the motives to approach and to avoid is
complicated by three conflicts that arise in goal pursuit: (a) approach-
approach conflicts between two potential gratifications (i.e., which
option will result in greater benefit?), (b) avoidance-avoidance conflicts
between two potential threats (i.e., which option will result in the least
distress?), and (c) approach-avoidance conflicts between a potential
gratification and threat (i.e., will the benefits of an action outweigh the
costs?) (Corr & Krupić, 2017).
At their core, decisions whether to do something that lies outside
one’s comfort zone involve an approach-avoidance conflict in which
people weigh whether behaving in a manner that creates anxiety is
worth the potential benefits. People appear to regard a behavior as
outside their comfort zone when they believe they must exert conscious
effort to override avoidance motivation based on fear of negative con­
sequences. Thus, when talking about behaviors that lie outside their
comfort zone, people generally refer to behaviors they have difficulty
making themselves perform, such as risky activities (such as sky-diving
or mountain climbing), difficult interpersonal situations (e.g., giving a
speech or dancing in public), or pursuing ambitious goals that might
result in failure (e.g., starting a business or running for office). In many
cases, the perceived risks associated with behaviors deter or completely
inhibit such behaviors, whereas in other cases, people are able to
perform such behaviors with resolve and effort.
Not all approach-avoidance decisions involve comfort zones. People

* Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, United States of America.
E-mail address: leary@duke.edu (M.R. Leary).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111024
Received 17 August 2020; Received in revised form 18 May 2021; Accepted 20 May 2021
0191-8869/© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
N.C. Kiknadze and M.R. Leary
invoke the notion of comfort zone only when a behavior they desire to
perform evokes anxiety because of potentially negative outcomes. Peo­
ple may be motivated to avoid behaviors for other reasons – for example,
because they are boring, time-consuming, or expensive – and they may
have no desire to perform other behaviors that seem dangerous, irra­
tional, or otherwise undesirable. People invoke the construct of comfort
zone only when they otherwise desire to perform a behavior but are
deterred by avoidance motives.
Nor is the concept of comfort zone isomorphic with simply being
afraid versus unafraid to perform a particular behavior. Although people
colloquially talk about certain behaviors or activities being “inside” or
“outside” their comfort zone, implying that they are making a binary
judgment, experiences of threat or hesitancy lie on a continuum of
anxiety and avoidance. But research has not examined the factors that
influence where along this continuum people draw the line that de­
marcates the boundary of their comfort zone or determine which
anxiety-producing events fall inside vs. outside people’s comfort zones.
People seem to distinguish most clearly between “low-risk” activities
that clearly lie inside their comfort zone and “high risk” activities that lie
so far outside their comfort zone that they regard the behaviors as
impossible. Yet, this binary distinction ignores a “discomfort zone” be­
tween these extremes. Whereas the comfort zone involves behaviors
people can perform with little or no anxiety or avoidance, the discomfort
zone consists of desired behaviors that require tenacity and conscious
effort to override avoidance motivation. In the discomfort zone, people
must decide whether behaving in a manner that creates anxiety is worth
the potential benefits.
This project involved three studies. Study 1 examined how people
conceptualize behaviors or activities that lie in and out of their comfort
zone. Based on the results of Study 1, Study 2 examined factors that
predict the degree to which people value stepping outside their comfort
zone. Study 3 was a lab experiment in which participants faced tasks that
fell outside their comfort zone.
1. Study 1: a “proof of concept” investigation
The primary goals of Study 1 were simply to determine whether
people can articulate the degree to which actions are in or out of their
comfort zone and, if so, to identify the kinds of behaviors and activities
for which the concept of comfort zone is relevant. The results of Study 1
were then used in the design of Studies 2 and 3.
1.1. Method
1.1.1. Participants
An a priori power analysis using G*Power indicated that a minimum
sample of 194 was needed to detect a bivariate correlation of 0.20 with
α = 0.05 and β = 0.80 (2-tailed test). Three-hundred and nine in­
dividuals (162 male, 137 female) were recruited from Amazon’s Me­
chanical Turk (MTurk) to complete a 10-min online study, for which
they received $2.00 USD. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 77
(M = 34.16, SD = 10.71), but age was not related to any of the results.
1.1.2. Materials and procedure
1.1.2.1. Behavior-specific questions. To be certain that we obtained the
broadest possible range of behaviors that fall outside people’s comfort
ones, participants were randomly assigned to one of two sets of in­
structions. Half of the participants were asked to provide an example of a
behavior or activity that was so far outside their comfort zone that they
must work very hard to do it, and half were asked to identify a situation
that was so far outside of their comfort zone they could never imagine
themselves doing it.
In both conditions, participants described this specific behavior or
activity and rated how far it was out of their comfort zone on a 5-point
2
Personality and Individual Differences 181 (2021) 111024
scale (1 = in my comfort zone, 2 = slightly out of my comfort zone,
3 = moderately out of my comfort zone, 4 = way out of my comfort zone,
5 = entirely out of my comfort zone). Participants then rated their confi­
dence that they could perform the behavior (1 = I can do it with confi­
dence, 2 = I am willing to do it despite being uncomfortable, 3 = I am not able
to make myself do the behavior), followed by their interest in performing
the behavior (1 = no interest in doing it at all, 5 = extremely interested in
doing it).
Participants who indicated they had some interest in performing the
behavior (ratings of 2–5) were prompted to explain why they wished
they could perform this behavior. Participants then rated how they
believed they would feel while performing this behavior or activity on
24 items (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely): nervous, scared; distressed, upset;
invigorated, energized; reckless, careless; happy, glad; inspired, enthu­
siastic; bold, brave; irrational, stupid; curious, interested; confident, self-
assured; good, positive feelings; calm, relaxed; bad, negative feelings;
safe, secure; satisfied, pleased; powerless, helpless; empowered, strong;
hesitant, uncertain; determined, purposeful; discouraged, dejected;
impulsive, spontaneous; vulnerable, at-risk; pleased with myself, proud;
and incompetent, inept. These items were generated by examining
measures such as the PANAS-X (Watson & Clark, 1994) and the Adjec­
tive Check List (Gough & Heilbrun Jr., 1983) for terms reflecting af­
fective reactions and self-views that might arise when people attempt to
do things outside of their comfort zone. Finally, participants explained
why they found this behavior or activity difficult to perform.
1.1.2.2. Comfort zone attitudes. Participants rated how important it was
for them to push themselves to do things that were outside of their
comfort zone (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely) and explained their answer in
a phrase. Participants then rated how often they try to push themselves
out of their comfort zone (1 = never or almost never, 6 = as much as I can)
and how their comfort zone compares in size to other people’s (1 = my
comfort zone is much smaller, 7 = my comfort zone is much larger). Par­
ticipants then rated themselves on nine characteristics: outgoing,
dominant, bold, active, cautious, open-minded, responsible, rational,
easy-going (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely).
1.1.2.3. Behavior coding. The behaviors that participants identified as
falling outside their comfort zone were coded into seven categories that
reflected physical danger/fear (i.e., skydiving, bungee jumping), fear of
negative evaluation (i.e., public speaking, meeting strangers), being
alone (i.e., eating alone at a restaurant, traveling alone), fear of failure
(i.e., starting a business and failing), behaving in a way contrary to one’s
values (i.e., lying, having indiscriminate sex), socially difficult situations
(i.e., ending a relationship), and “other.” Responses could be classified
into multiple categories. A second rater coded 50% of the responses, and
inter-rater agreement was 98%.
Participants’ reasons for wanting to perform these behaviors were
coded into four categories: believing life would improve for themselves
(i.e., I would become more confident or outgoing), enjoyment (i.e.,
enjoying the rush of skydiving), and believing that life would improve
for other people (i.e., being able to advocate more effectively for a
cause); participants who indicated that they were not interested in
performing the target behavior were classified into a fourth, no-interest
category. Responses could be included in multiple categories. Inter-rater
reliability, based on an independent coding of 50% of the responses, was
94%.
Participants’ explanations for why the behavior was difficult to
perform were coded into five categories: fear of injury or death, negative
social evaluation, avoidance of discomfort, fear of failure, and “other.”
Responses could be classified into multiple categories. Inter-rater reli­
ability, based on an independent coding of 50% of the responses, was
94%.
N.C. Kiknadze and M.R. Leary
1.2. Results
1.2.1. Descriptive statistics
Of the 309 participants, 299 were included in the final analysis.
Three participants were eliminated because they indicated they could do
the target behavior with confidence, and seven participants were
excluded for not answering the questions properly.
On average, participants reported that the behavior or activity was
far out of their comfort zone (M = 4.20, SD = 0.84) and rated their
confidence in their ability to perform the behavior as relatively low
(M = 2.56, SD = 0.52), falling midway between “I am willing to do it
despite being uncomfortable” and “I am not able to make myself do the
behavior.” Participants rated their interest in performing the behavior as
moderate (M = 2.91, SD = 1.40).
The percentage of behaviors or activities classified into each of the
seven categories were, in descending order: social evaluation (45.2%),
danger/fear (30.4%), difficult social situations (8.4%), fear of failure
(7.4%), miscellaneous responses (“other,” 6.0%), performing a behavior
alone (5.4%), and violation of values (4.0%). When asked why the
behavior was difficult, the categories in which the responses fell were:
fear of negative evaluation (47.8%), fear of injury or death (28.8%),
avoidance of discomfort (17.4%), fear of failure (9.0%), and “other”
(3%).
Participants’ reasons for wanting to perform the behaviors were
classified into three categories: believing that life would improve for
themselves (44.1%), enjoyment of the behavior or experience (37.8%),
and believing that life would improve for other people (6.4%); 23.7% of
participants responded that they did not want to perform the behavior.
1.2.2. Feelings associated with behaving outside one’s comfort zone
A principal axis factor analysis with an oblimin rotation was con­
ducted on participants’ ratings of how they would feel performing the
behavior or activity. Eigenvalues indicated four factors
(eigenvalues = 10.08, 3.26, 1.78, and 1.28; the next highest
eigenvalue = 0.80). The rotated pattern matrix showed that Factor 1
reflected positive emotions: items with the highest loadings (>0.40) were
pleased (0.90), satisfied (0.83), happy (0.82), inspired (0.80), deter­
mined (0.79), curious (0.76), good (0.75), bold (0.71), empowered
(0.71), invigorated (0.69), and confident (0.49). Factor 2 reflected low
self-efficacy, with ratings of feelings such as discouraged (0.73),
incompetent (0.71), bad (0.60), distressed (0.54), powerless (0.51), and
hesitant (0.41) loading highly. Factor 3 reflected security on which the
highest loading ratings were safe (0.77), calm (0.76), nervous (− 0.67),
vulnerable (− 0.59), and hesitant (− 0.51). Factor 4 reflected reckless­
ness, which involved items such as reckless (0.78) and impulsive (0.47).
These four factors accounted for 68.36% of the variance in the items.
A simultaneous multiple regression analysis using standardized fac­
tor scores for these four factors as predictors accounted for 18.4% of the
variance in ratings of how far the behaviors or activities were out of
participants’ comfort zone, F(4, 296) = 16.71, p < 0.001. Factor 3 (se­
curity) was most strongly related to ratings of the degree to which the
behaviors were out of participants’ comfort zones, b = 0.264, 95% CI
[− 0.368, − 0.159], t(296) = 4.97, p < 0.001, sr = − 0.26. Significant
effects were also obtained for Factor 2 (low self-efficacy), b = 0.131,
95% CI[0.019, 0.242], t(296) = 2.30, p = 0.022, sr = 0.12, and Factor 4
(recklessness), b = − 0.124, 95% CI[− 0.233, − 0.016], t(296) = 2.27,
p = 0.024, sr = − 0.12, but not Factor 1 (positive emotions).
A second simultaneous regression analysis examined the relationship
between the four factors and participants’ interest in performing the
behavior. The factors accounted for 38.5% of the variance in partici­
pants’ ratings of how much they wished they could do the behavior, F(4,
296) = 46.17, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.385. All four emotional factors
accounted for unique variance in participants’ interest in performing the
behavior. Factor 1 (positivity) was the strongest predictor of interest,
b = 1.037, 95% CI[0.880, 1.194], t(296) = 12.99, p < 0.001, sr = 0.59.
Factors 2, 3, and 4 were also significant: Factor 2 (low self-efficacy),
3
Personality and Individual Differences 181 (2021) 111024
b = 0.240, 95% CI[0.073, 0.408], t(296) = 2.83, p = 0.005, sr = 0.13;
Factor 3 (security), b = − 0.449, 95% CI[− 0.605, − 0.293], t
(296) = − 5.65, p < 0.001, sr = − 0.26; Factor 4 (recklessness), b = 0.529,
95% CI[0.367, 0.691], t(296) = 6.43, p < 0.001, sr = 0.29. Controlling
for interest in performing the behavior, the four factors still predicted
the degree to which the behaviors or activities fell in or out of partici­
pants’ comfort zones, F(4, 295) = 16.90, p < 0.001, ΔR2 = 0.19.
Participants’ ratings of how far the behavior or activity fell outside
their comfort zone correlated with ratings of the relative size of their
comfort zone compared to other people, r = − 0.19, t(295) = − 2.56,
p = 0.011. Participants who believed that their comfort zone was bigger
than other people’s tended to rate their target behavior or activity as less
far out of their comfort zone.
1.2.3. Personality characteristics
A principal axis factor analysis was conducted on participants’ rat­
ings of their personal characteristics, revealing three factors
(eigenvalues = 3.06, 1.71, and 1.00, with the fourth eigenvalue = 0.78).
The pattern matrix (oblimin rotation) showed that Factor 1 reflected
characteristics associated with boldness, including bold (0.82), domi­
nant (0.80), outgoing (0.42), and active (0.42). Factor 2 reflected a
reasoned, open-minded, non-emotional response to decisions; the
highest loading items were rational (0.73), responsible (0.63), easy-
going (0.46), and open-minded (0.39). Factor 3 reflected cautiousness,
with cautious (0.54) and outgoing (− 0.47) loading highly. The three
factors accounted for 64.2% of the item variance.
Standardized factor scores were created for each of the factors. A
regression analysis was conducted using the three factor scores to pre­
dict the importance that participants placed on pushing themselves out
of their comfort zone. Only Factor 3 (cautiousness) predicted the degree
to which participants thought it was important to push themselves
beyond their comfort zone, b = − 0.299, 95% CI[− 0.482, − 0.116], t
(300) = 48.64, p < 0.001, sr = − 0.24.
1.2.4. Effects of instruction prompt
As noted, participants were instructed to identify a behavior or ac­
tivity that was so far outside of their comfort zone that either they must
work very hard to do it or they could never imagine doing it. A 2
(prompt) by 2 (gender) analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on
participants’ ratings of (a) how far the target behavior was outside their
comfort zone, (b) confidence in their ability to perform the behavior,
and (c) their interest in performing the behavior.1 A main effect of in­
struction was obtained on ratings of both how far the behavior was out
of one’s comfort zone, F(1, 292) = 14.62, p < 0.001, and confidence in
one’s ability to perform the behavior, F(1, 292) = 24.11, p < 0.001.
Participants who responded to the “cannot do” prompt rated the
behavior as farther out of their comfort zone (M = 4.39, SE = 0.07, 95%
CI [4.26, 4.52]) than those in the “hard-to-do” condition (M = 4.03,
SE = 0.07, 95% CI [3.90, 4.16]). Participants in the “hard-to-do” con­
dition (M = 2.71, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [2.63, 2.79]) rated their confidence
that they could perform the behavior higher than those in the “cannot
do” condition (M = 2.43, SE = 0.04; 95% CI [2.35, 2.51]). (Higher
values indicated lower confidence.) The relationship between instruc­
tion prompt and interest in performing the behavior was not significant,
indicating that whether participants believed they could successfully
perform the behavior was not related to their interest in doing it.
In addition, women rated the behavior as farther out of their comfort
zone (M = 4.35, SE = 0.07, 95% CI [4.22, 4.49]) than men (M = 4.06,
SE = 0.06, 95% CI [3.94, 4.19]), F(1, 292) = 9.37, p = 0.02, and rated
their confidence in performing the behavior lower as well
(Mwomen = 2.66, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [2.58, 2.74]; Mmen = 2.47, SE = 0.04,
1
Gender was included in the analysis because males tend to engage in more
risky behaviors than females (Byrnes, Miller, & Schafer, 1999), raising the
possibility that gender may moderate the effects of comfort zone orientation.
N.C. Kiknadze and M.R. Leary
95% CI [2.40, 2.55], with higher values indicating lower confidence), F
(1, 292) = 10.57, p = 0.01. The relationship between gender and interest
in performing the behavior was not significant.
1.3. Discussion
Study 1 demonstrated that participants’ answers to questions about
the degree to which behaviors and activities fall out of their comfort
zone related to their feelings, motives, and self-ratings in conceptually
meaningful ways. Participants clearly understood the concept of “com­
fort zone” and provided meaningful data about their own comfort zone.
The fact that participants’ ratings of how they expected to feel when
performing the target behavior accounted for variance in ratings of how
far the behavior was out of their comfort zone raises the possibility that
people make inferences about what is inside versus outside of their
comfort zone by imagining how they would feel if they performed the
behavior. The reasons that participants gave for wanting to perform
behaviors out of their comfort zone—believing life would improve for
themselves or other people, or that they would enjoy the behavior or
activity—sheds light onto the motivations underlying the approach-
avoidance conflict that informs comfort zone decisions. Although per­
sonality was assessed with only a few items, the results provided pre­
liminary evidence that personal characteristics, specifically
cautiousness, are associated with the degree to which people think it is
important to push themselves beyond their comfort zone.
2. Study 2: comfort zone orientation
Study 1 showed that people differ not only in the behaviors that they
regard as being out of their comfort zone but also in their beliefs about
the importance of pushing themselves to do things beyond their comfort
zone. To study these differences further requires a measure that assesses
the value that people place on pursuing potentially uncomfortable ex­
periences. Building from the results of Study 1, the goals of Study 2 were
to develop a measure of comfort zone orientation—the value that people
place on pushing themselves out of their comfort zone—and to take an
initial look at characteristics that may predict people’s comfort zone
orientation.
Specifically, we identified five constructs that seem conceptually
related to the degree to which people value going outside their comfort
zone. First, we assessed sensation-seeking, which involves pursuing
“varied, novel, complex, and intense sensations and experiences, and the
willingness to take physical, social, legal, and financial risks for the sake
of such experience” (Zuckerman, 1994, p. 27), which often requires
people to do things outside their comfort zone. Conversely, people with
an active behavioral inhibition system (Gray & McNaughton, 2000) or
who are high in trait anxiety (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970)
should be less likely to engage in behaviors that may lead to aversive
outcomes. We also thought that a higher general sense of self-efficacy
might be associated with comfort zone orientation because people
who believe that they can deal with challenging and stressful situations
should be more willing to step outside their comfort zone (Schwarzer &
Jerusalem, 1995). Finally, neophilia – the tendency to enjoy and seek
out novel experiences – should be related to comfort zone orientation
(Walker & Gibbins, 1989).
Although we predicted that these characteristics were related to
comfort zone orientation, we expected that the value that people place
on pushing themselves out of their comfort zone reflects a distinct
construct that predicts unique variance in people’s comfort zone be­
haviors. To determine whether comfort zone orientation has incre­
mental validity beyond the Big 5 personality traits, we also administered
a measure of the Big 5.
4
Personality and Individual Differences 181 (2021) 111024
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants
An a priori power analysis using G*Power indicated that a sample of
194 was needed to detect a bivariate correlation of 0.20 with α = 0.05
and β = 0.80 (2-tailed). Two-hundred participants (100 women) were
recruited from MTurk to complete a 20-min online questionnaire that
assessed attitudes toward pushing oneself out of one’s comfort zone and
relevant personality variables. Participants received $2.50.
2.1.2. Materials and procedure
2.1.2.1. Comfort zone orientation. The authors developed 16 statements
that, on the face of it, appeared to assess the degree to which people
value pushing themselves out of their comfort zone, items such as “I
value being the kind of person who pushes myself to do things even if
they make me anxious or uncomfortable.” Participants rated these items
on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The order of
items was randomized for each participant.
2.1.2.2. Personality measures. Participants then completed the
following scales in randomized order.
The Brief Sensation-Seeking Scale (8 items; Hoyle, Stephenson,
Palmgreen, Lorch, & Donohew, 2002) assesses the degree to which
people enjoy unpredictable and risky activities and situations (e.g., I
would love to have new and exciting experiences, even if they are illegal;
I prefer friends who are excitingly unpredictable). The 5-point response
scale ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
The Behavioral Activation System/Behavioral Inhibition System
Scale (BIS/BAS Scale; 24 items; Carver & White, 1994) assesses the
degree to which people regulate aversive motives in order to move away
from things that are unpleasant (BIS) and appetitive motives in order to
move toward things that are desired (BAS). The 4-point response scale
ranges from very true for me to very false for me.
The Brief Trait Anxiety Scale (10 items; Spielberger, Gorsuch, &
Lushene, 1970) measures the degree to which people experience anxi­
ety. Self-descriptive items such as “worry about things” and “am afraid
of many things” are rated on a 5-point scale (1 = very inaccurate and
5 = very accurate.)
The Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (10 items; Schwarzer & Jerusa­
lem, 1995) measures how well people believe they can cope with daily
challenges and adapt to stressful life events (e.g., I am confident that I
could deal efficiently with unexpected events; It is easy for me to stick to
my aims and accomplish my goals). Items are answered on a 4-point
scale (1 = not at all true, 4 = exactly true).
The Neophilia Scale (12 items; Walker & Gibbins, 1989) assesses the
degree to which people seek novelty in various facets of their lives (e.g.,
People who know me seem to think I am into strange and unusual
things). The response scale ranges from 1 = strongly disagree to
5 = strongly agree.
Three scales measured the degree to which people are willing to try
new foods and take risks in what they eat: the Food Neophobia Scale (10
items; Pliner & Hobden, 1992), Food Variety-Seeking Scale (6 items;
Van Trijp & Steenkamp, 1992), and Willingness to Try Foods Scale (10
items, created for this study). The Food Neophobia Scale (e.g., “I am
constantly sampling new and different foods”) and the Food Variety-
Seeking Scale (“I think it is fun to try out food items one is not
familiar with”) are answered on 5-point scales. The Willingness to Try
Foods Scale measures willingness to try unfamiliar foods (e.g., Wicker­
flow; Frickers). Items are measured on a 6-point scale (1 = I would refuse
to try it; 6 = I would try it).
The Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2) contains 60 items, with 12-item
subscales that assess extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, and openness to experience (Soto & John, 2017).
Items were answered on a 5-point scale (1 = disagree strongly; 5 = agree
N.C. Kiknadze and M.R. Leary Personality and Individual Differences 181 (2021) 111024

strongly). Table 2
Personality predictors of comfort zone orientation (Study 2).
2.1.2.3. Behavior-specific questions. As in Study 1, participants provided Mean SD Cronbach’s Correlation with
an example of a behavior or activity that falls outside of their comfort alpha CZO
zone and rated how far it was out of their comfort zone (1 = This behavior Extraversion 2.97 0.82 0.89 0.53*
is in my comfort zone, 5 = This behavior is entirely out of my comfort zone). Negative emotionality 2.74 0.98 0.84 − 0.42*
Participants rated their confidence in their ability to perform the Agreeableness 3.73 0.65 0.89 0.23*
Conscientiousness 3.66 0.75 0.93 0.24*
behavior (1 = absolutely certain that I can make myself do it, 5 = absolutely
Openness 3.85 0.74 0.88 0.39*
certain that I cannot make myself do it) and explained why they found this Trait anxiety 2.89 0.96 0.93 − 0.44*
behavior or activity difficult. Participants also rated their interest in Sensation-seeking 2.88 0.83 0.82 0.47*
performing the target behavior (1 = no interest in doing it at all, Self-efficacy 3.02 0.55 0.91 0.50*
5 = extremely interested in doing it). Participants who rated their interest 2 BAS — drive 2.72 0.65 0.82 0.33*
BAS — fun-seeking 2.71 0.62 0.74 0.45*
to 5 were prompted to explain why they wished they could perform the BAS — reward 3.25 0.50 0.77 0.28*
behavior. responsiveness
Participants then rated how they would feel while performing this BIS 2.90 0.64 0.85 − 0.41*
behavior or activity on the 24 reactions used in Study 1. Items were Note. n = 213.
presented in a random order to each participant. *
p < 0.001.

2.2. Results
(r = − 0.41), p’s < 0.001.
2.2.1. Comfort zone orientation Although these correlations are consistent with the conceptualiza­
Item analyses were conducted on the 16 items that assessed the value tion of comfort zone orientation and support the construct validity of the
that participants placed on pushing themselves out of their comfort measure, it is possible that CZO is nothing more than a particular
zone. Based on corrected item-total correlations, 10 items were retained configuration of basic traits and offers no additional predictive power in
for the final measure. Each item correlated at least 0.50 with the sum of its own right. To assess whether the CZO Scale provides incremental
the other items, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.88. Notably, the validity in predicting the degree to which people do things outside their
item with the highest item-total correlation (r = 0.71) reflects the comfort zone, a multiple regression analysis was conducted. On Step 1,
conceptualization of comfort zone orientation most clearly: “I value extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
being the kind of person who pushes myself to do things even if they openness, trait anxiety, sensation-seeking, self-efficacy, BAS, and BIS
make me anxious or uncomfortable.” After reverse-scoring the reverse- scores were entered as predictors of participants’ ratings of how often
worded items, participant’s ratings were summed as an index of their they try to push themselves out of their comfort zone, accounting for
comfort zone orientation. The Comfort Zone Orientation (CZO) Scale is 39.7% of the variance, F(12, 199) = 10.903, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.397.
shown in Table 1. When CZO scores were added in Step 2, they accounted for an additional
11% of the variance in how often people try to push themselves out of
2.2.2. Correlations with personality measures their comfort zone, b = 0.833, 95% CI[0.590, 1.076], F(1,
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was acceptable (α > 0.70) for all per­ 199) = 45.647, p < 0.001, ΔR2 = 0.113.
sonality scales (Table 2). Of the Big Five traits, scores on the CZO Scale Furthermore, with all 11 measures in the regression equation, CZO
correlated most highly with extraversion (r = 0.53), negative emotion­ was the only scale that predicted unique variance in participants’ rat­
ality (r = − 0.42), and openness (r = 0.39), p’s < 0.001. Correlations ings. b = 0.833, t(198) = 6.756, p < 0.001, sr2 = 0.113, although
were smaller between CZO and agreeableness (r = 0.23) and conscien­ sensation-seeking approached significance, b = 0.224, t(198) = 1.860,
tiousness (r = 0.24), p’s < 0.001. p = 0.064, sr2 = 0.009 (p’s for all other predictors > 0.15).
As predicted, CZO scores correlated positively with sensation-
seeking (r = 0.47), self-efficacy (r = 0.50), and all three subscales of 2.2.3. Correlations with behaviors outside One’s comfort zone
the Behavioral Activation Scale (drive, r = 0.33; fun seeking, r = 0.45; Cronbach’s alpha exceeded 0.70 for the four neophilia measures. As
reward responsiveness, r = 0.28), p’s < 0.001. CZO scores correlated shown in Table 3, CZO correlated positively with both the willingness to
negatively with trait anxiety (r = − 0.44) and scores on the BIS Scale try new and different types of foods (food neophobia, r = 0.36; food
variety-seeking, r = 0.35; willingness to try new foods, r = 0.27) and a
Table 1 general preference for novel things (neophilia, r = 0.27).
Comfort Zone Orientation Scale.
1. I make myself to do things that make me nervous because it’s important that I face
my fears. 2.3. Discussion
2. I value being the kind of person who pushes myself to do things even if they make
me anxious or uncomfortable. The CZO Scale appears to be a potentially useful measure of the value
3. I rarely do things that would take me out of my comfort zone. (R)
4. I try not to let fear discourage me from doing something that I want to do.
5. Feeling anxious or uncomfortable about something is an indication that I probably Table 3
shouldn’t do it. (R) Manifestations of comfort zone orientation (Study 2).
6. Even when there is a risk of danger or embarrassment, making myself do things that
Mean SD Cronbach’s Correlation with
are out of comfort zone is often rewarding.
alpha CZO
7. I don’t feel the need to do things that make uncomfortable just for the sake of
pushing myself beyond my comfort zone. (R) Food neophobia 3.58 0.94 0.93 0.36*
8. I have no desire to do things that take me out of my comfort zone. (R) Food variety-seeking 3.54 0.92 0.90 0.35*
9. Purposefully pushing myself beyond my comfort zone helps me grow as a person. Willingness to try new 2.91 1.24 0.92 0.27*
10. I don’t understand people who like doing things that take them out of their comfort foods
zone. (R) Neophilia 3.06 0.56 0.75 0.27*

Note. Response scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = moderately disagree, Note. n = 213.

*
3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = moderately agree, 5 = strongly agree. Items p < 0.001.
marked (R) are reverse-scored before summing.

5
N.C. Kiknadze and M.R. Leary
that people place on stepping outside of their comfort zones. The pat­
terns of correlations between the personality measures and CZO Scale
are consistent with its conceptualization and support the construct
validity of this scale.
The predictors of CZO appear to fall into three broad categories that
might reflect three distinct psychological influences on the degree to
which people value stepping out of their comfort zone. The first is the
degree to which people enjoy and seek stimulating and novel experi­
ences, as reflected in correlations with sensation-seeking, BAS, extra­
version, and openness. People who are motivated to do things outside
their comfort zone may enjoy the pleasure or adrenalin rush associated
with doing so, find many otherwise frightening experiences rewarding,
and/or be open to new experiences.
The second set of predictors involves measures of negative affect,
anxiety, and avoidance – specifically, emotional stability (neuroticism),
BIS, and trait anxiety – or, conversely, a low tendency to experience
threat. Not surprisingly, people who are less likely to experience anxiety
are more inclined to do new and potentially threatening things.
Third, the correlations between CZO, self-efficacy, and extraversion
may reflect the possibility that people are more likely to step outside of
their comfort zone if they believe that they can handle challenging sit­
uations. Along these lines, extraverts tend to be higher in overall self-
efficacy (Rottinghaus, Lindley, Green, & Borgen, 2002). Although pop­
ular notions paint comfort zone as one-dimensional—essentially the
ability to face one’s fears—the patterns of correlations suggest that the
approach-avoidance judgments that define people’s comfort zones are
dynamic and may involve at least three distinct processes. Importantly,
scores on the CZO Scale involve more than simply whether or not people
do risky or novel things.
3. Study 3: behavioral evidence
Study 3 was designed with two goals in mind. First, it examined the
relationship between CZO and people’s reactions to performing behav­
iors that fall outside of their comfort zone. Participants were confronted
with the prospect of engaging in potentially challenging tasks such as
eating fried insects, dancing in front of other people, and handling a
large cockroach. Although we expected that CZO would relate to par­
ticipants’ ability to perform these tasks, it was not clear whether CZO
would also be related to how people felt about doing these tasks. Are
people with a positive comfort zone orientation more comfortable doing
things outside their comfort zone, or are they just as distressed as low
CZO people yet more willing to try?
The second goal was to test the hypothesis that performing a chal­
lenging task that lies within one’s “discomfort zone” – a task people can
do despite feeling uncomfortable – increases their confidence in their
ability to subsequently perform a task they view as even more chal­
lenging and uncomfortable. The boundaries of people’s comfort zones
are based both on the perceived risk of the behavior and people’s beliefs
about their ability to handle the associated risk. Presumably, these
boundaries are influenced by people’s beliefs about their capabilities to
behave successfully in specific contexts—that is, by their self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1994). Performing an action that falls in one’s “discomfort
zone” might increase people’s confidence in performing an action that
falls further outside their comfort zone.
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Participants
An a priori power analysis using G*Power indicated that a minimum
sample of 102 was needed to detect a moderate effect (d = 0.50) with
alpha = 0.05 and power = 0.80 (1-tailed test). Participants were 102
university students (76 women, 22 men, 4 not recorded) who completed
a 30-min laboratory experiment. Participants received either $7.00 or
required class credit for participating.
6
Personality and Individual Differences 181 (2021) 111024
3.1.2. Procedure
3.1.2.1. Personality measures. Participants completed the 10-item CZO
measure described in Study 2, followed by the following scales in ran­
domized order: trait anxiety (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970),
sensation seeking (Hoyle et al., 2002), self-efficacy (Schwarzer & Jeru­
salem, 1995), and BIS/BAS (Carver & White, 1994). These measures
were administered as in Study 2.
3.1.2.2. Task description. Because people differ in the activities that fall
outside their comfort zones, we identified 11 laboratory tasks based on
the domains of the examples participants provided in Study 1, namely
tasks that involved danger/fear, negative evaluation, failure, and
avoidance of discomfort. The tasks were also chosen to be analogous to
situations one might encounter in everyday life, such as approaching a
threatening animal, trying an unknown food, or revealing personal in­
formation. We assumed that all participants would regard some of the
tasks as outside their comfort zone.
The 11 tasks, with the verbatim descriptions presented to partici­
pants, were:
• Karaoke. You will sing karaoke to a popular song. You will be given
the lyrics to the song and sing along with a recorded backing track as
if you are on stage.
• Personal struggle. You will talk about a personal struggle you have
had.
• Dancing. You will dance to popular music.
• Cockroach. You will put your hand in a cage with a hissing cockroach.
Although the cockroach is large, it is harmless.
• Solving problems. You will solve challenging anagram problems.
• Eating insects. You will eat fried insects.
• Odors. You will smell exceptionally disgusting odors.
• Compliment in mirror. You will compliment yourself out loud while
staring at yourself in a mirror.
• Photographs. You will look at disturbing photographs (of car crashes
and dead animals, for example).
• Dark box. You will place your hand into the opening of a dark box,
touch the object inside, and describe what you think it is to the
researcher.
• Blindfold. You will be blind-folded and sit quietly in the lobby of the
lab as people come and go.
Participants were told they would perform two of these tasks for
2 min each, so the length of the tasks would not influence their judg­
ments of task difficulty. Participants were presented with each task in
random order and asked to rate how they would feel if they had to
perform the task (1 = extremely comfortable; 9 = extremely uncomfortable)
and how easy it would be to perform the task (1 = extremely easy;
9 = extremely difficult). Participants then rated all tasks (1 = I could do
this behavior easily, 4 = I could not make myself do this behavior).
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the
easy task condition, participants were assigned to perform one of the
tasks they had rated “1,” indicating they could do the behavior easily. In
the difficult task condition, participants were assigned one of the tasks
they had rated “2,” indicating they could do this behavior despite being
uncomfortable.
3.1.2.3. First task performance. Participants were taken to another room
in which materials needed for the tasks were visible to emphasize that
the participant would actually have to complete the assigned tasks. After
completing the first task, participants rated how uncomfortable they had
felt (1 = extremely comfortable; 9 = extremely uncomfortable) and how
difficult it was to perform the task (1 = extremely easy; 9 = extremely
difficult).
N.C. Kiknadze and M.R. Leary Personality and Individual Differences 181 (2021) 111024

3.1.2.4. Second task performance. All participants were then assigned a Table 5
task they had previously rated “3” in difficulty, indicating they found it Tasks ranked from least to most uncomfortable (Study 3).
difficult to do (i.e., it was out of their comfort zone). Participants rated Task Discomfort Difficulty
how comfortable they expected to feel while performing the task
Mean SD Correlation Mean SD Correlation
(1 = extremely comfortable; 9 = extremely uncomfortable) and how easy it with CZO with CZO
would be to make themselves perform the task (1 = extremely easy;
Anagrams 3.17 1.76 − 0.25** 3.13 2.12 − 0.26**
9 = extremely difficult). Participants also rated the likelihood that they Talk about 4.68 2.32 − 0.08 4.28 2.31 − 0.17
could make themselves do the task (1 = I am absolutely certain that I can self
make myself do this task, 5 = I am absolutely certain that I cannot make Dance 4.79 2.54 − 0.17 4.30 2.47 − 0.20*
myself do this task). After answering these questions, participants were Compliment 4.89 2.50 − 0.11 4.02 2.24 − 0.21*
in mirror
told that they would not perform the second task and were fully
Blindfold in 5.08 2.35 − 0.17 3.49 2.17 − 0.21*
debriefed. lobby
Hand in dark 5.54 2.25 − 0.14 4.56 2.35 − 0.30**
box
3.2. Results Photographs 5.58 2.33 − 0.17 4.32 2.44 − 0.21*
Karaoke 6.00 2.44 − 0.19 5.46 2.51 − 0.23*
3.2.1. CZO and personality Smell odors 6.18 2.09 − 0.14 5.23 2.42 − 0.14
Eat fried 6.90 2.37 0.14 6.61 2.54 0.14
Cronbach’s alpha was sufficiently high for all measures (α’s > 0.70). − −
insects
As shown in Table 4, correlations between CZO and the personality Cockroach 7.36 2.04 − 0.06 6.74 2.38 − 0.30**
measures replicated the patterns in Study 2. CZO correlated positively
Note. n = 108.
with sensation-seeking (r = 0.46), self-efficacy (r = 0.58), and the three *
p < 0.05.
subscales of the Behavioral Activation Scale (drive, r = 0.34; fun
seeking, r = 0.51; reward responsiveness, r = 0.42), p’s < 0.001. CZO **
p < 0.01.
correlated negatively with trait anxiety (r = − 0.37) and scores on the
Behavioral Inhibition Scale (r = − 0.29), p’s < 0.001. CZO scores did not
differ by gender F(1, 96) = 0.042, p = 0.837.
(M = 4.09, 95% CI [3.37, 4.81]) than in the easy task condition, M = 2.53,
95% CI [1.96, 3.21]), F(1, 95) = 11.82, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.11.
3.2.2. Initial task ratings
However, after performing Task 1, participants in the difficult task
CZO correlated with the sum of participants’ initial ratings of the
condition moderated their difficulty ratings, viewing the task as less
discomfort they expected to feel while doing the 11 tasks (r = − 0.28)
difficult than they had expected, M = 3.41, 95% CI [2.56, 4.26], whereas
and the sum of their ratings of how difficult it would be for them to do
ratings in the easy task condition increased, M = 2.92, 95% CI[2.18,
the tasks (r = − 0.39). Importantly, when both task discomfort and dif­
3.68]. As a result, after participants performed the first task, the dif­
ficulty were entered simultaneously into a multiple regression analysis
ference in ratings of difficulty between conditions was no longer sig­
predicting CZO scores, difficulty ratings were related to CZO, b = − 0.19,
nificant, F(1, 95) = 0.61, p = 0.435, R2 = 0.01. This finding suggests
95% CI[− 0.310, − 0.070], t(105) = − 3.14 p = 0.002, but discomfort
that, although the task assignment was based on participants’ prior
ratings were not, b = 0.03, 95% CI[− 0.099, 0.162], t(105) =0.48
expectations of task difficulty, those in the difficult task condition did not
p = 0.63. Thus, CZO predicted expected difficulty but not expected
end up perceiving the first task as significantly more difficult. As a result,
discomfort.
the study does not provide an adequate test of the hypothesis that per­
Table 5 shows mean ratings of discomfort and difficulty for the 11
forming a difficult first task will increase people’s ability to perform a
tasks, along with correlations between CZO and the discomfort and
more challenging second task. However, it does suggest that people’s
difficulty ratings of each task. CZO correlated with only one of the 11
expectations regarding the difficulty of threatening tasks may be
discomfort ratings but with 8 of the 11 difficulty ratings, again sug­
inflated.
gesting that CZO involves the perceived difficulty of making oneself
As expected given that all participants were assigned a subjectively
engage in a challenging behavior rather than simply expected discom­
equivalent task for Task 2, participants in the easy and difficult task
fort or anxiety.
conditions did not differ in how difficult they expected the second task to
be, F(1, 95) = 0.39, p = 0.530, R2 = 0.00.
3.2.3. Ratings of Task 1
A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted in which
3.2.4. Ratings of Task 2
CZO score (mean-centered), experimental condition (dummy-coded),
To test the effects of the effects of the experimental manipulation on
and the interaction of CZO and condition served as predictors of par­
ratings of the second, more difficult task, regression analyses were
ticipant’s a priori ratings of the difficulty of the first task. Only the effect
conducted in which CZO (mean-centered), condition (dummy-coded),
of condition was significant, showing that, as planned, participants rated
and the interaction of CZO and condition were entered as predictors of
the task they were assigned as more difficult in the difficult task condition
ratings of (a) expected discomfort while doing the second task, (b) ex­
pected difficulty of the second task, and (c) whether participants
Table 4 thought they could make themselves do the task.
Personality correlates of comfort zone orientation (Study 3). For ratings of how uncomfortable participants expected to feel, none
Mean SD Cronbach’s Correlation with of the effects were significant: CZO, b = 0.054, 95% CI[− 0.566, 0.674],
alpha CZO score F(1, 96) = 0.03, p = 0.864; condition, b = − 0.412, 95% CI[− 1.072,
Trait anxiety 2.93 0.79 0.88 − 0.37 0.248], F(1, 95) = 1.54, p = 0.218; CZO by condition interaction,
Sensation-seeking 3.34 0.77 0.81 0.46 b = − 0.093, 95% CI[− 1.340, 1.155], F(1, 94) = 0.02, p = 0.883.
Self-efficacy 3.14 0.41 0.88 0.58
Similarly, none of the effects were significant for participants’ ratings of
BAS — drive 2.81 0.55 0.77 0.34
BAS — fun-seeking 2.96 0.50 0.63 0.51 how difficult it would be to perform the task: CZO, b = 0.230, 95% CI
BAS — reward 3.46 0.40 0.71 0.42 [− 0.457, 0.918], F(1, 96) = 0.44, p = 0.508; condition, b = 0.233, 95%
responsiveness CI[− 0.503, 0.970], F(1, 95) = 0.40, p = 0.530; interaction, b = − 0.002,
BIS 3.11 0.50 0.78 − 0.29 95% CI[− 1.394, 1.389), F(1, 94) = 0.001, p = 0.997.
Note. n = 108. All correlations are significant, p < 0.01. However, on participants’ ratings of the extent to which they thought

7
N.C. Kiknadze and M.R. Leary
they could make themselves do the task, the main effect of CZO was
significant, showing that participants who valued doing things outside
their comfort zone believed they were more likely to make themselves
do the second task, b = − 0.323, 95% CI[− 0.602, − 0.043], F(1,
96) = 5.25, p = 0.024, sr = − 0.23. Neither the main effect of condition,
b = 0.140, 95% CI[− 0.159, 0.438], F(1, 95) = 0.86, p = 0.355, nor the
interaction of CZO and condition was significant, b = 0.267, 95% CI
[− 0.294, 0.829], F(1, 94) = 0.90, p = 0.347. Thus, although CZO was
not related to how uncomfortable participants felt or how difficult the
second task seemed, it was related to whether participants believed that
they could make themselves do it.
3.3. Discussion
Study 3 confirmed the utility of CZO in understanding people’s re­
actions to performing behaviors outside of their comfort zone. CZO was
unrelated to ratings of how difficult and uncomfortable the tasks were,
yet participants high in CZO indicated that they were more likely to
make themselves do the tasks. So, although a task may seem equally
challenging regardless of the value one places on going outside one’s
comfort zone, CZO is clearly related to people’s perception that they can
perform potentially distressing behaviors.
Although ratings of discomfort and difficulty are naturally corre­
lated, when their relationships to CZO were examined simultaneously,
only perceived difficulty was significant. The key distinction between
people who are low versus high in CZO lies in the perceived difficulty of
doing tasks and not in how uncomfortable they feel. This finding is
consistent with the notion that CZO is not about being unafraid of doing
certain things but rather involves people’s efforts to act in spite of their
fear.
Although we hypothesized that first performing a difficult task
would increase confidence in people’s ability to face a second, harder
task, the differences between conditions were not significant. However,
analyses revealed that the difficulty ratings after performing the first
task did not differ between conditions as intended, which might explain
the failure to obtain an effect of condition on reactions to the second
task. Because participants in the difficult task condition did not perceive
the first task as more difficult than those in the easy task condition –
even though they had initially rated the tasks more difficult – the study
does not provide an adequate test of the self-efficacy hypothesis.
4. General discussion
These studies offer several initial insights into the psychology of
comfort zones and suggest ideas for future research. In addition to
exploring how people conceptualize behaviors and activities that lie
outside their comfort zone (Study 1), the studies showed that the value
people place on pushing themselves out of their comfort zone is related
to aspects of personality (Study 2) and that comfort zone orientation
relates to people’s reactions to performing a task that lies outside their
comfort zone (Study 3).
Study 1 showed that participants were able articulate the degree to
which behaviors and activities fall in or out of their comfort zone, and
their answers related to their feelings, motives, and self-ratings.
Furthermore, the results suggested that the boundaries of people’s
comfort zones may be determined, in part, by how they expect to feel if
they perform a particular behavior. The diversity of the behaviors and
activities that participants identified as relevant to their comfort zone
shows that comfort zone represent a broad psychological framework
that people apply to a wide range of experiences.
Study 2 involved the development of a measure of the degree to
which people value doing things outside their comfort zone. The pre­
dictors of CZO fell into three broad categories that involved: (a) enjoying
and seeking stimulating and novel experiences, such as sensation-
seeking (Hoyle et al., 2002), BAS (Carver & White, 1994), extraver­
sion, and openness; (b) low tendency to experience threat, as shown
8
Personality and Individual Differences 181 (2021) 111024
through negative relationships with negative emotionality, BIS (Carver
& White, 1994), and trait anxiety (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene,
1970); and (c) a belief in one’s ability to handle challenging situations (i.
e., self-efficacy; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). The fact that CZO is
related to these three clusters of characteristics suggests that judgments
involving one’s comfort zone involve more than whether people do risky
or novel things. These pathways represent further areas for research into
the process and determinants of comfort zone formulation. And, the
Comfort Zone Orientation Scale appears to offer a useful measure of
individual differences in how people think about comfort zones.
Study 3 demonstrated the relevance of CZO for predicting how
people respond to real situations. Although CZO was not fundamentally
related to the perceived difficulty or discomfort associated with a dis­
comfiting task, it was clearly related to the degree to which people
believed they could make themselves perform such tasks. The more
people value being the kind of person who pushes themselves to do
things outside their comfort zone, the more they think they can do so.
5. Limitations and directions for future research
As the first examination of comfort zone orientation, this research is
necessarily limited in scope and coverage, and we do not wish to over­
state our conclusions. Furthermore, although Studies 2 and 3 provided
strong support for the validity of the new measure of CZO used in this
research, more psychometric work is needed. In addition, all measures
in this research were self-reports, which, while essential, have short­
comings. Although Study 3 actually confronted participants with tasks
that fell outside their comfort zones, all outcomes involved self-reports,
owing to the ethical issues involved in requiring research participants to
try to do things that they report make them extremely anxious. Future
research will need to develop creative behavioral measures to study
comfort zones.
Given that this is the first research to focus expressly on the construct
of comfort zone orientation, many questions call out for additional
study. Perhaps the most pressing is to locate CZO within the nomological
network of conceptually-related constructs. For example, people’s be­
liefs about the value of stepping outside their comfort zone is likely
related to their coping styles (and possibly to interactions among task-
oriented, emotion-oriented, and avoidance-oriented coping; Endler,
1997), ways of maximizing satisfaction with their behavioral decisions
(i.e., utility maximization), promotion and prevention regulatory focus,
and risk-taking.
Second, research is needed on the degree to which comfort zones –
and the value people place on transcending them – can be changed.
Although Study 3 attempted to address whether comfort zones can be
affected by increasing self-efficacy, more research is needed to deter­
mine whether being pushed out of one’s comfort zone can change
comfort zone boundaries by either making people more comfortable
with similar types of activities (i.e., practicing public speaking to
become a more confident speaker) or expanding people’s comfort zones
using tasks from other domains, thereby increasing their overall confi­
dence in their ability to handle challenging situations (i.e., skydiving
might increase one’s confidence to face unrelated fears about public
speaking).
One of the most fascinating topics for further study involves the
downstream correlates and outcomes of CZO, such as career choices,
leisure activities, and life satisfaction as research could test the scientific
merit of popular advice that encourages people to push themselves out
of their comfort zone. Such claims would be supported if future studies
showed that people who frequently push out of their comfort zone are
more successful, knowledgeable, or happier than those who do not.
Although facing challenging situations may have certain benefits,
constantly living in a zone of discomfort is probably not viable, so people
must choose when they will and will not try to do things outside their
comfort zone, raising questions about how they make these choices.
People appear to use approach versus avoidance strategies flexibly
N.C. Kiknadze and M.R. Leary
depending on the situation (Monni et al., 2020), and future research
could explore how comfort zone orientation moderates this process.
Understanding the factors that underlie the approach-avoidance
decisions inherent in comfort zone deliberations also has the potential
to improve outcomes in situations in which anxiety inhibits needed
action or effective performance. This would have implications in several
areas, including clinical cases in which changing the way people view
anxiety-provoking situations can improve their ability to function
(Parekh, 2017). A better understanding of comfort zones might also help
people live more rewarding lives by helping them pursue important
goals or perform desired behaviors in the face of risk.
Finally, future investigations could examine whether cultural dif­
ferences play a role in CZO. People in different cultures likely differ in
both the degree to which they value pushing themselves to do things
outside their comfort zone as well as the specific behaviors that fall in
and out of the comfort zone.
6. Conclusion
Comfort zones involve psychological mechanisms that influence
people’s decisions about whether performing anxiety-provoking be­
haviors is worth the potential benefits. Although popular conceptuali­
zations paint comfort zones as dichotomous go/no-go decisions, comfort
zones are, in fact, dynamic in the sense that they involve people’s
willingness to engage in tasks that make them uncomfortable, which is
affected by the value they place in doing so. This research demonstrates
that comfort zones show promise as a relevant construct for under­
standing many approach-avoidance conflicts in everyday life.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Nona Kiknadze: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. Mark R. Leary: Conceptuali­
zation, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – review &
editing, Supervision.
References
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Vol. 4. Encyclopedia of
human behavior (pp. 71–81). New York: Academic Press.
Bentham, J. (1779/1879). Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367–383.
Carver, C. S. (2006). Approach, avoidance, and the self-regulation of affect and action.
Motivation and Emotion, 30, 105–110.
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and
affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.
Corr, P. J., & Krupić, D. (2017). Motivating personality: Approach, avoidance, and their
conflict. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Vol. 4. Advances in motivation science (pp. 39–90). New
York: Academic Press.
View publication stats
Personality and Individual Differences 181 (2021) 111024
Davidson, R. J. (1992). Prolegomenon to the structure of emotion: Gleanings from
neuropsychology. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 245–268.
Davidson, R. J. (1993). Parsing affective space: Perspectives from neuropsychology and
psychobiology. Neuropsychology, 7, 464–475.
Elliot, A. (2010). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals.
Educational Psychologist, 34, 169–189.
Endler, N. S. (1997). Stress, anxiety and coping: The multidimensional interaction model.
Canadian Psychology, 38(3), 136–153.
Freud, S. (1915). Repression. Complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 19).
London: Hogarth, 1957.
Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B., Jr. (1983). Adjective check list manual. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). In 2nd ed. (Ed.), The neuropsychology of anxiety:
An enquiry into the function of the septo-hippocampal system. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Hoyle, R. H., Stephenson, M. T., Palmgreen, P., Lorch, E. P., & Donohew, R. L. (2002).
Reliability and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. Personality and
Individual Differences, 32, 401–414.
Kenrick, D. T., & Shiota, M. N. (2008). Approach and avoidance motivation(s): An
evolutionary perspective. In Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation. New
York: Psychology Press.
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1997). Motivated attention: Affect,
activation, and action. In Attention and orienting: Sensory and motivational processes
(pp. 97–135). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Monni, A., Olivierb, E., Morin, A. J. S., Olivetti Belardinellia, M., Mulvihilld, K., &
Scalase, L. F. (2020). Approach and avoidance in Gray’s, Higgins’, and Elliot’s
perspectives: A theoretical comparison and integration of approach-avoidance in
motivated behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 166.
Newmark, A. (2017). Chicken soup for the soul: Step outside your comfort zone: 101 stories
about trying new things, overcoming fears, and broadening your world. Cos Cob, CT:
Chicken Soup for the Soul.
Parekh, R. (Ed.). (2017, January). What are anxiety disorders? Retrieved April 18, 2018,
from https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/anxiety-disorders/what-are-
anxiety-disorders.
Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure the trait of food
neophobia in humans. Appetite, 19, 105–120.
Rottinghaus, P. J., Lindley, L. D., Green, M. A., & Borgen, F. H. (2002). Educational
aspirations: The contribution of personality, self-efficacy, and interests. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 61, 1–19.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman,
S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio.
Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York:
Appleton-Century.
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and
assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and
predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 117–143.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). Manual for the state-trait
anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative
processes in animals. Psychological Monographs, 8.
Van Trijp, H. C. M., & Steenkamp, J. B. (1992). Consumers’ variety seeking tendency
with respect to foods. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 19(2), 181–195.
Walker, I., & Gibbins, K. (1989). Expecting the unexpected: An explanation of category
width? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 68(3), 715–724.
Watson, D., & Clark, A. L. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect
schedule — Expanded form. University of Iowa: Department of Psychological & Brain
Sciences Publications. https://doi.org/10.17077/48vt-m4t2.
Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. New
York: Cambridge University Press.