"Push them outside their comfort zones."
I hear this all the time. In conferences, in program materials, and during site visits. It is one of the most widely repeated ideas in outdoor and adventure education. Most of us were taught that comfort zones is both a foundational framework and methodology.
But, these ideas aren't actually well supported in the literature.
Why is it, then, that the three-circle diagram (comfort zone, stretch, and panic zones) feels like established science, when it isn't? Why does it have such a hold on our field, and has become a core part of our very identity and purpose?
To be honest, I'm not really sure, other than it's simple enough to understand and has been repeated enough to not only be seen as fact, but the prescription…the formula for adventure ed. The idea that personal growth requires pushing people outside of their comfort zones is baked into how we design and talk about programs, how we frame challenges, and how we train staff to interpret participant stress and resistance.
There’s a better framework.
The window of tolerance, originally from clinical psychology, describes the range in which a person can experience stress or challenge and still stay regulated enough to learn and grow. The window adds important nuance to our programs and our purpose. That nuance is too easily lost when we simplify everything down to comfort zones for new staff and for how the public understands what we do.
The goal isn't to push people outside the window. It's to grow the window, from within the window. Programs do that by helping participants explore social, physical, and emotional risks while staying regulated, and thus, by teaching and modeling self and co-regulation skills.
That's how the literature actually understands personal development and growth.
This distinction isn't just academic. With a participant population that is less tolerant of adversity than what many programs were originally designed for, pushing people outside a window that is already narrow is more likely to produce an adverse reaction (e.g., a safety concern) than a healthy, relationship-building, and growth moment.
The re-frame is this: Instead of aiming to push people outside their comfort zones, let’s aim to keep people inside. Let’s help them feel comfortable in novel physical and social environments and give them the skills to manage themselves in these settings, rather than putting them in these settings and then debriefing on how they could do better next time.
If your program is built on pushing people outside their comfort zones, it’s worth asking:
Is that framing actually serving your participants, or just serving a tradition?
Stu
P.S. Check out Brown, M. (2008). Comfort zone: Model or metaphor? Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 12(1), 3-12. | Siegel, D. J. (1999). The Developing Mind: Toward a Neurobiology of Interpersonal Experience. Guilford Press.