Tolerance for Ambiguity Scale (TAS)

1. Abstract

The Tolerance for Ambiguity Scale (TAS), refined by Herman, Stevens, Bird, Mendenhall, and Oddou (2010), is a 12-item self-report psychometric instrument designed to measure an individual’s cognitive, affective, and behavioral orientation toward uncertain, complex, unfamiliar, or insoluble situations. Originating from the foundational conceptualizations of intolerance of ambiguity formulated by Else Frenkel-Brunswik (1949) and operationalized by Stanley Budner (1962), the TAS addresses longstanding psychometric vulnerabilities in cross-cultural and international organizational research. Specifically, earlier scales often suffered from multidimensional conflation, unstable factor structures, poor internal consistency, and cultural ethnocentric bias. The refined 12-item instrument assesses four empirically validated second-order dimensions: Valuing Diverse Others, Change, Challenging Perspectives, and Unfamiliarity.

Respondents evaluate statements using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”). Across multiple validation cohorts, including global corporate executives, expatriates, and cross-cultural managers, the TAS demonstrates robust psychometric properties. Confirmatory factor analyses confirm a coherent multidimensional framework that loads onto a higher-order overarching latent construct of general tolerance for ambiguity. Reported internal consistency reliabilities across subscales range from moderate to strong (α = .51 to .74), with composite scale reliability frequently exceeding .75 to .82 in diverse international samples. The TAS exhibits robust construct validity, showing significant positive correlations with intercultural communication competence, cognitive flexibility, cross-cultural adjustment, and open-mindedness, while displaying divergent validity against generalized anxiety, rigidity, and ethnocentrism. Consequently, the TAS has become a preeminent tool in international management, intercultural psychology, leadership assessment, and educational research.

2. Keywords

Tolerance for Ambiguity Scale, TAS, cognitive ambiguity, uncertainty tolerance, intercultural competence, cross-cultural management, psychometrics, Budner, expatriate adjustment, cognitive flexibility, structural equation modeling, psychological assessment.

3. Authors

The 12-item refined Tolerance for Ambiguity Scale was developed and validated through a collaborative scholarly initiative by leading organizational behavior and international management researchers:

• Jeffrey L. Herman, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology and School of Management, George Mason University; specializing in organizational psychology, repatriation adjustment, and cross-cultural competencies.
• Michael J. Stevens, Ph.D. — Department of Management, John M. Huntsman School of Business, Utah State University; an authority on expatriate selection, international human resource management, and cross-cultural teamwork.
• Allan Bird, Ph.D. — Darla Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina; renowned scholar in global leadership development, cross-cultural capability assessment, and international assignments.
• Mark E. Mendenhall, Ph.D. — Gary W. Rollins College of Business, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga; internationally recognized expert in international human resource management and global executive leadership development.
• Greg R. Oddou, Ph.D. — College of Business Administration, California State University San Marcos; leading investigator in global talent management, expatriate repatriation, and international competencies.

The instrument directly builds upon the seminal historical foundations established by Stanley Budner, Ph.D. (1962), whose initial 16-item scale established tolerance-intolerance of ambiguity as an enduring personality variable in experimental and social psychology.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Tolerance for Ambiguity Scale (TAS) is to evaluate how individuals psychologically perceive, interpret, and react to ambiguous stimuli, complex environmental scenarios, unfamiliar cultural settings, and intellectually challenging situations. Ambiguity arises whenever an individual confronts stimuli that are novel, complex, or contradictory, lacking sufficient cues for immediate cognitive categorization or structured behavioral response. Historically, psychological literature conceptualized ambiguity tolerance along a continuum: individuals high in intolerance perceive ambiguous situations as sources of psychological distress, anxiety, and perceptual threat, whereas individuals high in tolerance perceive ambiguity as desirable, intellectually stimulating, and challenging.

Prior to the refinement by Herman et al. (2010), researchers in cross-cultural psychology and international business relied heavily on legacy measures such as Budner’s (1962) scale, MacDonald’s (1970) AT-20, or McLain’s (1993) MSTAT. While historically significant, these legacy instruments suffered from chronic psychometric shortcomings, including low internal consistency reliabilities (often with Cronbach’s alphas dropping below .60), unstable and irreproducible factor solutions across disparate demographic groups, and items laden with outdated sociological contexts. Herman and colleagues developed the TAS to create an empirically disciplined, theoretically defensible, and culturally generalizable instrument specifically adapted to the demands of contemporary international management, global mobility, and dynamic organizational systems.

In applied organizational and clinical settings, the TAS serves several vital functions:

• Expatriate Selection and Cross-Cultural Readiness: Global organizations utilize the TAS to evaluate an international assignee’s propensity to adapt to novel, unpredictable, and culturally dissonant environments without experiencing premature repatriation, burnout, or severe acculturative stress.
• Global Leadership Development: Executive coaching and leadership assessment frameworks implement the scale to evaluate strategic decision-making capacity under incomplete information, volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA).
• Organizational Change and Innovation Management: The TAS diagnoses workforce readiness for large-scale institutional restructurings, agile workflow transitions, and technological disruptions where prescribed standard operating procedures are absent.
• Clinical and Counseling Applications: In psychological counseling, the scale offers diagnostic utility regarding perfectionism, obsessive-compulsive traits, cognitive rigidity, and generalized anxiety disorders, which are fundamentally linked to cognitive deficits in tolerating ambiguity.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the TAS is Tolerance for Ambiguity (TA), defined as the tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as desirable, challenging, and engaging rather than as threatening, disorienting, or uncomfortable. Ambiguous situations are characterized by an absence of clear cognitive cues, high levels of unfamiliarity, dynamic complexity, or apparent contradictions. In Herman et al.’s (2010) model, this overarching construct is manifested through four distinct yet intercorrelated subdimensions:

1. Valuing Diverse Others

This dimension reflects an individual’s openness, psychological comfort, and cognitive willingness to interact with, learn from, and embrace individuals who hold fundamentally different sociocultural values, beliefs, and behavioral norms. High scorers actively seek out heterogenous social groups and enjoy relational interactions that challenge their own assumptions (e.g., “I can enjoy being with people whose values are very different from mine”). Conversely, low scorers manifest discomfort in diverse environments, displaying a defensive inclination toward ideological and cultural homophily (e.g., “I avoid settings where people don’t share my values”). In cross-cultural and multinational environments, this dimension is fundamental for preventing ethnocentrism, ingroup favoritism, and relational friction.

2. Change

The Change dimension evaluates an individual’s psychological preference for dynamic, unpredictable, and evolving life circumstances over structured, routine, and static environments. Individuals demonstrating high tolerance for change welcome disruption, view transitions as opportunities for personal expansion, and actively resist monotonous predictability. In contrast, individuals characterized by low tolerance for change prefer an even, predictable existence where routine shields them from unexpected occurrences (e.g., “A person who leads an even, regular life in which few surprises or unexpected happenings arise really has a lot to be grateful for”). Within modern corporate settings, this dimension predicts agility, organizational resilience, and adaptability during mergers, acquisitions, and strategic realignments.

3. Challenging Perspectives

This intellectual and epistemic dimension captures an individual’s receptivity to having their fundamental worldview, cognitive assumptions, and established paradigms disputed or deconstructed. It represents an intellectual humility that finds pedagogical value in perplexity and cognitive dissonance. High scorers appreciate mentors, teachers, and environments that provoke critical introspection and intellectual tension (e.g., “A good teacher is one who makes you wonder about your way of looking at things”). Low scorers, by comparison, favor authoritative, unambiguous instruction and definitive answers, perceiving cognitive dissonance as destabilizing or threatening.

4. Unfamiliarity

The Unfamiliarity dimension assesses an individual’s affective, behavioral, and exploratory responses when encountering exotic, foreign, or novel stimuli. It contrasts an exploratory approach orientation against an avoidant, neophobic orientation. High scorers exhibit wanderlust, curiosity toward alien cultural practices, and an eagerness to step outside established comfort zones (e.g., “I would like to live in a foreign country for a while” and “If given a choice, I will usually visit a foreign country rather than vacation at home”). Low scorers manifest a pronounced attachment to familiar domestic environments, traditional customs, and established social circles, actively avoiding settings populated by unfamiliar strangers or strange artifacts.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the TAS draws upon several decades of personality theory, social cognition, and psychoanalytic ego psychology. The theoretical genealogy can be systematically traced through four foundational movements:

1. The Berkeley Paradigm and Psychoanalytic Roots

The concept of ambiguity tolerance originated within the seminal post-World War II research conducted by Else Frenkel-Brunswik (1949), later integrated into The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950). Frenkel-Brunswik defined intolerance of ambiguity as a fundamental emotional and perceptual personality variable characterized by: a tendency toward black-and-white thinking; premature closure in perception; rigid categorization; rejection of the unconventional; and an inability to entertain ambivalent emotional attitudes toward self and parental figures. Intolerance was viewed as an ego-defense mechanism designed to protect the individual from underlying psychological conflict and existential anxiety.

2. Budner’s Phenomenological and Operational Model

Stanley Budner (1962) refined Frenkel-Brunswik’s psychodynamic framework into a phenomenological cognitive theory. Budner defined tolerance of ambiguity as “the tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as desirable,” and intolerance as “the tendency to perceive (i.e., interpret) ambiguous situations as sources of threat.” Budner systematized ambiguity into three distinct situational forms:

• Novelty: Situations characterized by completely unfamiliar cues or contexts.
• Complexity: Situations characterized by an overwhelming volume, density, or interconnectedness of cues.
• Insolubility: Situations characterized by contradictory cues, structural paradoxes, or irreconcilable outcomes.

Budner further conceptualized the behavioral and affective manifestation of threat along four operational axes: phenomenological submission (pride in prejudice, dogmatism), phenomenological denial (repression, denial of reality), operative submission (avoidance, retreat into routine), and operative denial (aggressive assertion of certainty). While Budner’s theoretical matrix was profound, empirical attempts to replicate his exact 16-cell taxonomy routinely fell short psychometrically.

3. Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Cognitive Appraisal Theory

In developing the refined TAS, Herman and colleagues (2010) integrated Budner’s framework with Richard Lazarus and Susan Folkman’s (1984) Cognitive Appraisal Theory. According to this model, an ambiguous event does not possess inherent stressfulness; rather, the psychological stress experienced is mediated by primary appraisal (evaluating whether the stimulus is threatening, harmful, or benign-positive) and secondary appraisal (evaluating personal coping resources). In an unfamiliar cultural context, individuals high in TA appraise unstructured cross-cultural challenges as benign or stimulating (opportunities for growth), engaging adaptive problem-focused coping mechanisms (Herman & Tetrick, 2009). Conversely, individuals low in TA appraise cross-cultural ambiguity as an imminent threat to self-efficacy, triggering defensive emotion-focused coping, withdrawal, and cultural estrangement.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the 12-item TAS has been rigorously established across cross-cultural, organizational, and educational samples through construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related methodologies.

Construct and Structural Validity

Structural validation performed by Herman et al. (2010) demonstrated that the 12-item scale exhibits superior factorial validity compared to previous iterations. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrates that the four-factor oblique model and the second-order hierarchical model exhibit robust goodness-of-fit indices (CFI ≥ .94, TLI ≥ .92, RMSEA ≤ .05), outperforming unidimensional models which universally display poor fit across diverse samples. This establishes that tolerance for ambiguity operates as a multidimensional construct unified by a global higher-order latent disposition.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is evidenced by significant, theoretically coherent associations with established psychometric inventories:

• Openness to Experience: The TAS exhibits strong, positive correlations with the Openness to Experience domain of the NEO-PI-R / Big Five inventory (r values typically ranging between .42 and .58, p < .001), particularly with the Openness to Ideas and Openness to Values facets.
• Cultural Intelligence (CQ): Research indicates significant positive correlations between the TAS and the cognitive (r = .38) and motivational (r = .45) dimensions of the Cultural Intelligence Scale (Earley & Ang, 2003).
• Cognitive Flexibility: TAS scores correlate positively with Martin and Rubin’s Cognitive Flexibility Scale (r = .41, p < .01), demonstrating that individuals tolerant of ambiguity readily adapt cognitive frameworks to shifting environmental constraints.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity analyses confirm that the TAS measures a construct distinct from general intelligence, general self-efficacy, and broad negative affectivity:

• Neuroticism and Negative Affect: Although intolerance of ambiguity can provoke situational anxiety, the TAS shares only modest negative correlations with trait Neuroticism (r = -.21 to -.29), verifying that ambiguity tolerance is not merely an inverse proxy for chronic neurotic distress.
• Cognitive Ability: Correlations between TAS scores and standardized measures of general mental ability (GMA) or cognitive aptitude are non-significant or trivial (r = .06 to .12), demonstrating that TA is a distinct personality orientation rather than cognitive horsepower.
• Social Desirability: Correlations with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale are consistently negligible (r < .15), indicating low susceptibility to impression management.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

The predictive power of the TAS has been confirmed in numerous organizational and expatriation contexts. In international human resource management studies (Herman & Tetrick, 2009; Herman et al., 2010), high TAS scores significantly predicted successful cross-cultural psychological adjustment, effective intercultural communication, low repatriation distress, and supervisor-rated managerial performance during international assignments. Expatriates scoring higher on the TAS demonstrated a significantly lower probability of premature mission termination and displayed superior intercultural negotiation efficacy.

8. Reliability

Legacy ambiguity tolerance measures were historically plagued by suboptimal internal consistency estimates, often yielding Cronbach’s alphas between .45 and .65. The 12-item TAS engineered by Herman et al. (2010) resolved these psychometric concerns by systematically pruning ambiguous, double-barreled, and culturally idiosyncratic items.

Internal Consistency Reliability

Across validation studies reported by Herman et al. (2010), the total 12-item composite scale consistently achieves Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging between .75 and .82, which exceeds the conventional .70 threshold for research and exploratory assessment. Because the TAS assesses four discrete subdimensions, individual subscale reliabilities were evaluated:

• Diverse Others: Cronbach’s α = .58 (composite reliability = .61)
• Change: Cronbach’s α = .51 (composite reliability = .56)
• Challenging Perspectives: Cronbach’s α = .56 (composite reliability = .60)
• Unfamiliarity: Cronbach’s α = .53 (composite reliability = .58)

While the subscale alpha values appear modest when examined in isolation—a natural mathematical consequence of brief 2- to 4-item subscales—the total composite score demonstrates solid reliability. Furthermore, McDonald’s omega hierarchical (ω_h) values typically range around .71 to .76, confirming that the substantial majority of total score variance is attributable to the general underlying tolerance for ambiguity factor.

Test-Retest Stability

Longitudinal stability analyses conducted across test-retest intervals spanning 6 to 12 weeks indicate strong temporal reliability for the total scale score, with stability coefficients exceeding r = .78 to .84 (p < .001). This confirms that tolerance for ambiguity operates as an enduring, trait-like disposition rather than an unstable situational state, while still preserving sufficient malleability to reflect transformative cross-cultural immersive training.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the 12-item TAS was developed and cross-validated through rigorous Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across diverse, non-overlapping international cohorts (Herman et al., 2010).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial exploratory factor extraction using maximum likelihood analysis with oblique (Promax) rotation revealed a clear, reproducible four-factor solution accounting for approximately 52.8% of the total item variance. The four extracted factors aligned cleanly with the conceptual dimensions: Valuing Diverse Others, Change, Challenging Perspectives, and Unfamiliarity. All 12 retained items exhibited robust primary factor loadings (ranging from .44 to .79) with minimal cross-loadings (all cross-loadings < .25).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

To verify structural stability, Herman et al. (2010) tested multiple competing structural models using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) techniques in an independent cross-validation sample of business executives and international managers. The models evaluated included:

1. A One-Factor Global Model, assuming all 12 items reflect a single undifferentiated latent trait.
2. A Four-Factor Orthogonal Model, assuming four uncorrelated dimensions.
3. A Four-Factor Correlated (Oblique) Model, specifying four distinct yet intercorrelated latent dimensions.
4. A Hierarchical Second-Order Model, wherein the four first-order latent factors load onto an overarching higher-order latent construct of general Tolerance for Ambiguity.

The empirical fit statistics definitively favored the Hierarchical Second-Order Model and the Four-Factor Correlated Model over the unidimensional and orthogonal alternatives. Key fit indices for the hierarchical model met or exceeded established psychometric benchmarks:

• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom: χ²/df = 1.48 (indicates excellent fit; values < 2.0 represent superior fit)
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .946
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .928
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .049 (90% CI [.028, .068])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .051

Standardized second-order factor loadings of the four subdimensions onto the general Tolerance for Ambiguity construct were uniform and substantial (γ = .62 for Diverse Others; γ = .57 for Change; γ = .64 for Challenging Perspectives; γ = .60 for Unfamiliarity). These results validate both the multidimensional specificity of the subscales and the theoretical legitimacy of summing the items into a composite overall tolerance for ambiguity index.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Tolerance for Ambiguity Scale (TAS) is structured as follows:

• Test Type: Self-report psychological assessment / psychometric rating scale.
• Format: Paper-and-pencil or secure computer-based digital administration.
• Number of Items: 12 items.
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes.
• Target Population: Adults, working professionals, expatriates, global business leaders, and university students.
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neutral / Neither Agree nor Disagree
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Item Valence and Reverse Coding:
  • Directly Coded Items (4 items): Items 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 (Higher scores indicate greater ambiguity tolerance).
  • Reverse Coded Items (7 items): Items 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12. Prior to computing subscale or composite scores, reverse coded items must be recoded using the formula: Recoded Score = 6 - Original Score (i.e., 1 becomes 5, 2 becomes 4, 3 remains 3, 4 becomes 2, and 5 becomes 1).
• Subscale Item Composition:
  • Diverse Others (3 items): Item 1 [Reverse Coded], Item 2, Item 5 [Reverse Coded].
  • Change (2 items): Item 9 [Reverse Coded], Item 10 [Reverse Coded].
  • Challenging Perspectives (2 items): Item 6, Item 8.
  • Unfamiliarity (5 items): Item 3, Item 4 [Reverse Coded], Item 7, Item 11 [Reverse Coded], Item 12 [Reverse Coded].
• Scoring and Interpretation:
  • Overall Score: Sum or mean of all 12 items after reverse scoring. Possible sum scores range from 12 to 60 (mean scores range from 1.0 to 5.0).
  • High Tolerance for Ambiguity: Composite mean > 3.8 (Sum > 45). Indicates psychological comfort with ambiguity, agility in unstructured roles, curiosity toward cultural novelty, and cognitive openness.
  • Moderate Tolerance for Ambiguity: Composite mean 3.0 – 3.8 (Sum 36 – 45). Represents normative adaptability, functioning well in moderately structured environments with occasional shifts.
  • Low Tolerance for Ambiguity (Intolerance): Composite mean < 3.0 (Sum < 36). Characterized by preference for strict rules, predictability, familiar social settings, and elevated discomfort or anxiety when encountering foreign cultural paradigms.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The refined 12-item Tolerance for Ambiguity Scale was formally published in 2010 in the International Journal of Intercultural Relations (Herman et al., 2010), building directly on prior repatriation research by Herman and Tetrick (2009) and the seminal baseline work of Stanley Budner (1962).

Copyright and Permissible Use: The scale items as published in academic peer-reviewed literature are intended for non-commercial scholarly research, educational instruction, and academic inquiry without financial fee, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution and bibliographic citation are accorded to Herman et al. (2010) and Elsevier. Commercial applications—including proprietary executive assessment, talent acquisition platforms, commercial consulting instruments, or fee-charging mobile applications—require formal licensing permission from the copyright holder or the corresponding authors.

12. References

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Harper & Brothers. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055447

Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1962.tb02303.x

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804766005

Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality, 18(1), 108–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1949.tb01236.x

Furnham, A., & Marks, J. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the recent literature. Psychology, 4(9), 717–728. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.49102

Herman, J. L., Stevens, M. J., Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (2010). The Tolerance for Ambiguity Scale: Towards a more refined measure for international management research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(1), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.11.004

Herman, J. L., & Tetrick, L. E. (2009). Problem-focused versus emotion-focused coping strategies and repatriation adjustment. Human Resource Management, 48(1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20268

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.

MacDonald, A. P. (1970). Revised scale for ambiguity tolerance: Reliability and validity. Psychological Reports, 26(3), 791–798. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1970.26.3.791

McLain, D. L. (1993). The MSTAT-I: A new measure of an individual’s tolerance for ambiguity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(1), 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053001020

13. Items of the Scale