NormanFarb

Don’t be rigid. Being rigid is bad for you. Or is it? Rigidity — not changing your beliefs or behaviours in response to reality — is believed to be bad. Why? Because it is statistically linked to negative outcomes in goal regulation and well-being. Flexibility seems more preferable. It is associated with better mental health, higher resilience, and even better physical health markers (Ong et al., 2024; Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010; Wrosch et al., 2003). But most of the existing evidence comes from WEIRD samples. What if there are situations or contexts where rigidity may actually help people live a better life? This is the question driving the research of Dana Kulzhabayeva (@DanaKulz), working with Dr. Norman Farb (@NormanFarb) at the University of Toronto Mississauga (@UofT). “I am a first-generation immigrant, and I grew up in a culture where people’s behaviour is shaped by social and cultural constraints,” Dana shares. “However, I didn’t experience all of those constraints in the same way. Some felt limiting, but others felt practical or even meaningful, because they reflected values like responsibility or care for others." Indeed, in the West, rigidity is conceptualized as an internal constraint: a set of fixed beliefs about someone’s ability or emotion regulation that stand in the way of goal pursuit. For example: “I won’t be able to learn a new language, as I’m bad with foreign languages.” Western research shows that rigidity often leads to higher stress and poorer emotional regulation (Schroder et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2019). But this view may be incomplete. In higher-constraint cultures, people’s choices are often shaped not only by personal beliefs but also by structural and social constraints. In these settings, some forms of behavioral rigidity, like adhering to social norms, can be beneficial: they help people avoid social costs (Gelfand et al., 2011), potentially reduce stress, and maintain access to social support. Dana became curious about what ‘rigidity’ means and what separates maladaptive rigidity, which can negatively impact well-being, from potentially adaptive rigidity that reflects real-life constraints and shared values. In other words, when does rigidity harm vs. help goal pursuit and well-being across cultures? Using quantitative survey methods, Dana examines how belief and behavioral rigidity relate to important life outcomes — such as perceived social support, emotional regulation, stress, well-being, and goal regulation in participants from Argentina, Brazil, India, Japan, Mexico, Turkey, and Ukraine. Another fascinating project from the Besample Dissertation Grant cohort — we’re excited to support Dana in this work and look forward to her findings! #PhDResearch #PhDGrant #CrossCulturalResearch #GlobalResearch #BesampleDissertationGrant

Science Breathing control center neurons that promote arousal in mice science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/…