Comfort food for thought

Think of the last time you indulged in a comfort food. Perhaps you were celebrating an accomplishment. Maybe you were sad or anxious. Regardless of the reason, almost all of us can relate to the satisfaction of enjoying our favorite comfort foods.

For something so ubiquitous, I am fascinated by the highly individual nature of this eating habit. We are all unique when it comes to our specific comfort foods and when we crave them. This is because comfort foods are deeply tied to our life experiences, memories and cultural backgrounds. Some stressor or change in our lives drives us to seek something familiar. Something that we know we like. Something that brings us comfort.

So, is it logical to assume that the same behavioral drivers behind comfort food apply more broadly to other decisions we make throughout the day? During times of stress, uncertainty or change, are we as individuals more prone to make familiar decisions or ones that bring us comfort? It makes sense. If we’re feeling vulnerable, why abandon what we know or step outside of our comfort zone?

Comfort zone bias

As it turns out, comfort zone bias is a natural human inclination that influences almost everyone to some degree. It innately leads us to prefer situations, environments or activities that are familiar and comfortable rather than to explore new or challenging experiences. In many ways, this bias—much like comfort foods—enhances an individual’s sense of peace, stability and security. Being in your comfort zone is not a bad thing. In fact, it has a legitimate evolutionary basis. Sticking to familiar environments increases the likelihood of survival and often results in positive, short-term outcomes.

However, too much reliance on what makes us comfortable can lead to unintended consequences. Not recognizing or taking necessary risks can limit growth, suppress innovation and contribute to suboptimal long-term outcomes. Knowing that familiarity is informed by our life experiences, what happens when a common stressor is applied to a group of individuals who share similar backgrounds, interests or experiences? Each individual’s perspective will be unique, but will the depth of perspectives represented be enough to overcome the group’s reliance on ease over opportunity?

As identified in TWS’ Position Statement on Workforce Diversity within the Wildlife Profession, “participation in our profession must be broadened if we are to include the rich palette of perspectives and approaches needed to meet current and emerging challenges.” The Wildlife Society has long recognized the need for broader perspectives in the wildlife profession, but where do we start, and how do we know what perspectives are missing? As with most forms of unconscious bias, individuals have a conscious tendency to disassociate from the idea of bias influencing their decisions. That makes recognizing the gaps in perspectives a challenge in and of itself. To return to the comfort food analogy, tteokbokki may one day be your favorite comfort food, but if you don’t know it exists or haven’t tried it yet, how will you ever know? Exploration leads to discovery but also opens the door to discomfort (tteokbokki is spicy).        

So, how do we balance the positive elements of comfort zone bias with the need to expand our horizons? To answer that question, I will refer back to a 1908 Harvard study that serves as a foundation for the concept of comfort zone bias. In the study, scientists removed mice from the comfort of their nest boxes and provided them with two paths to return—a black passage or a white passage. The black passage was fitted with various levels of electric stimulus or discomfort. The researchers then measured whether the strength of the electric stimulus influenced the speed with which the mice developed a habit of avoiding the black passage.

The study revealed that up until a certain point, the strength of the electric stimulus increased the speed of learning or habit forming for the mice. After a certain point, though, the electric stimulus reached a harmful intensity, and the speed of learning began to decrease. From this study came the Yerkes-Dodson Law, or the idea that optimal performance is tied to moderate levels of stress, or exposure to stimuli just outside the comfort zone. Push too hard, and the outcome will be the same as not pushing hard enough.

From mice to the profession

I bring this 117-year-old study to the surface because, like the mice in the study, it looks like policy changes in the U.S. will move the wildlife profession outside of its comfort zone, and the journey back to a place of peace, stability and security will inevitably expose us to some discomfort. The question then becomes, will the intensity of the shock be so overpowering that the profession is harmed, or will we collectively find the right balance of stimuli through new perspectives and ideas to rapidly adapt to the challenges ahead?

The Wildlife Society started our Wildlife Vocalization series in 2020 to spotlight the unique perspectives and challenges our members have faced in their careers and to show the common threads that connect us all. These stories are a small but steady spark of new ideas for TWS and beyond. Recently, we expanded that series to include the perspectives of those who lost their federal jobs in what we called Wildlife Vocalizations Lost. Their voices are important, and TWS does not want to lose them. I encourage all members to read these stories and reflect on their own habits and decisions. To quote Auriel Fournier’s Wildlife Vocalization: “I would like to see us critically think about the lessons we take from those that taught us before we pass them on to those we teach.”

As we navigate this period of heightened uncertainty, it’s not enough that we bring in new perspectives. We must also understand why those perspectives are important. That will require each of us to step outside of our comfort zone. The Wildlife Society’s collection of Wildlife Vocalizations provides a good starting point. However, the intensity of the stimuli must increase if the profession is to achieve optimal performance, and that will require all members to embrace an action-oriented outlook. To quote Eleanor Roosevelt, “Do one thing every day that scares you.” The world is an endless matrix of possibilities, and through expanding our awareness and understanding of different perspectives, we may just find the answer in a question we didn’t know to ask. You might even discover a new comfort food along the way.