Brief report

The Tolerance for Ambiguity Scale: Towards a more refined measurefor international management research

Jeffrey L. Herman a,*, Michael J. Stevens b,1, Allan Bird c,2, Mark Mendenhall d,3, Gary Oddou e,4

a Department of Psychology, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, MSN 3F5, Fairfax, VA 22030-4444, United Statesb Goddard School of Business and Economics, Weber State University, 3802 University Circle, Ogden, UT 84408-3802, United Statesc College of Business Administration, Northeastern University, 313 Hayden Hall, Boston, MA 02115, United Statesd College of Business Administration, University of Tennessee-Chattanooga, 615 McCallie Avenue, Chattanooga, TN 37403, United Statese College of Business Administration, California State University, San Marcos, San Marcos, CA 92096-0001, United States

1. Introduction

Organizational scholars in the fields of expatriation and global leadership repeatedly assert that tolerance for ambiguitypositively influences performance and adjustment in cross-cultural settings (for reviews, see Arthur & Bennett, 1995;Jokinen, 2005; Kealey, 1996; Mol, Born, Willemsen, & Van Der Molen, 2005; Osland, 2008; Yamazaki & Kayes, 2004). Indeed,tolerance for ambiguity appears increasingly necessary in the global workplace as socioeconomic forces stretch managers’capacities to perceive, interpret and act on environmental information due to rapid globalization, technologicaladvancement, and workforce diversity. Moreover, interactions among changes created by globalization (e.g., multinationalwork teams, virtual teams) create upward spirals of novelty, complexity and change, magnifying the experience of ambiguityby organizational members (Lane, Maznevski, & Mendenhall, 2004).

Unfortunately, further progress in delineating the relationships between the construct of tolerance for ambiguity andsuch important constructs as global mindset, global leadership effectiveness, and expatriate adjustment and performanceis presently hampered due to varying conceptualizations of tolerance for ambiguity and questionable psychometric

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 58–65

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Accepted 20 September 2009

Keywords:

Tolerance for ambiguity

Cross-cultural psychology

Individual differences

Scale development

A B S T R A C T

Research on global leadership, expatriate adjustment and performance, and adaptive

performance suggests that tolerance for ambiguity is positively related to performance in

the global work environment and in cross-cultural settings. A critique of existing measures

of the construct of tolerance for ambiguity is presented, followed by a report of the

development of a new measure of tolerance for ambiguity—the Tolerance for Ambiguity

Scale (TAS). Findings demonstrate improved factor structure and internal consistency for

the TAS compared to the measure of tolerance for ambiguity that is most commonly

reported in the extant literature. Utility of the scale is discussed in terms of future research

directions as well as implementation in practice.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 703 984 1837.

E-mail addresses: jherman1@gmu.edu (J.L. Herman), mjstevens@weber.edu (M.J. Stevens), a.bird@neu.edu (A. Bird), Mark-Mendenhall@utc.edu

(M. Mendenhall), goddou@csusm.edu (G. Oddou).1 Tel.: +1 801 626 6266.2 Tel.: +1 617 373 2002.3 Tel.: +1 423 425 4406.4 Tel.: +1 760 750 4236.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / i j in t re l

0147-1767/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.09.004

properties of extant measures of the construct. In this paper, we will review the empirical findings related to tolerance forambiguity and discuss the inconsistency in the current findings and the questionable psychometric properties of some ofthe measures used in the cited research. We will then propose a new measure of tolerance for ambiguity that addressesthese problems.

2. Literature review

Tolerance for ambiguity [TA] is ‘‘the tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as desirable’’ (Budner, 1962, p. 29).This concise definition captures the essence of the line of research spurred by Frenkel-Brunswik (1949), who firstproposed TA as an individual difference variable. Recent scholars have offered specification to various aspects of TA,while retaining Budner’s essential definition. McLain (1993), for instance, addresses the contextual meaning ofambiguity, defining the construct as ‘‘a range, from rejection to attraction, of reactions to stimuli perceived asunfamiliar, complex, dynamically uncertain, or subject to multiple conflicting interpretations’’ (p. 184). Others havesimilarly sought to refine and reconsider the construct, yet the core definition remains consistent (see Furnham &Ribchester, 1995, for a review).

A limited but growing body of research conceptually links TA to multiple cross-cultural phenomena (Mendenhall, Osland,Bird, & Oddou, Maznevski, 2008). TA has been proposed to impact outcomes including cross-cultural communication(Kealey, 1996; Nishida, 1985; Ruben and Kealey, 1979), cross-cultural competence (Abbe, Gulick, & Herman, 2007),expatriate job performance (Gregersen, Morrison, & Black, 1998; Mol et al., 2005), global leadership effectiveness (Black,2006; Black, Morrison, & Gregersen, 1999), and global management competency acquisition (Furuya, Stevens, Bird, Oddou, &Mendenhall, 2009).

While this body of literature suggests the importance of TA for cross-cultural outcomes, evidence to support specificclaims has been hampered by measurement problems and remains slim (Abbe et al., 2007). Mol et al. (2005) reported acorrected meta-analytic correlation of 0.35 between TA and expatriate effectiveness, yet this finding relied on only twostudies, with one measuring tolerance of uncertainty (Black & Porter, 1991), a construct distinct from TA (Grenier, Barrette, &Ladouceur, 2005). Overall, research on TA has been disconnected and piecemeal (Furnham & Ribchester, 1995), the reasonsfor which we will treat in the next section.

3. Measurement of tolerance for ambiguity

Measurement challenges are the most frequent explanation given for conflicting findings regarding TA. Reviews havedescribed these challenges as: (a) weak psychometric attributes, (b) potential multidimensionality, and (c) the impact ofcontext on individual TA.

3.1. Lack of psychometric evidence

Lack of adequate psychometric evidence is a problem for many existing measures of the TA construct (Benjamin, Riggio, &Mayes, 1996; Bochner, 1965; Furnham & Ribchester, 1995; Norton, 1975; Ward, 1988). Measures of TA have often beenpresented with weak reliability statistics and little or no information regarding factor structure. Budner’s (1962) measurewas published with an average internal consistency of 0.49, yet continues to be widely used despite repeated criticism(Benjamin et al., 1996; Furnham, 1994; Kirton, 1981; Ward, 1988). Norton’s (1975) measure presented 52 items, apparentlyacross eight dimensions, with only Kuder–Richardson and test–retest reliabilities and no factor analytic information.McLain’s (1993) 22-item measure posits a single factor related to multiple stimuli, though factor loadings as low as 0.18implicate potential multidimensionality.

Researchers have resorted to using multiple measures of TA to improve on weak internal consistencies of individualmeasures (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999; Kirton, 1981; Mol et al., 2005). While scale combination enhancesinternal consistency, this may only obscure the underlying problems (Cortina, 1993). Without a measure with improvedconceptual dimensionality and acceptable internal consistency, the field will continue to confront inaccuracy in theassessment of TA.

3.2. Disagreement in construct dimensionality

Several theoretical and empirical efforts have addressed the dimensionality of TA, arguing for between one andeight dimensions (e.g., Furnham, 1994; Kenny & Ginsberg, 1985; Kirton, 1981; McLain, 1993; Norton, 1975).Furnham’s review of dimensions in various TA measures identified four factors of predictability, variety andoriginality, clarity, and regularity, though subsequent factor analysis failed to replicate this structure with existingmeasures (Benjamin et al., 1996; Kirton, 1981). McLain highlighted four stimuli of TA: unfamiliarity, complexity,change, and conflicting interpretations. McLain described these stimuli as facets of a unidimensional TA construct,consistent with typical use of TA only in the aggregate. Overall, empirical research does not support multi-dimensionality using existing measures, depicting TA as unitary yet multifaceted (e.g., Benjamin et al., 1996; Furnham &Ribchester, 1995).

J.L. Herman et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 58–65 59

3.3. Diversity of research context

TA has been measured in diverse research areas, including organizational behavior, medicine, sociology, and political,clinical, and paranormal psychology (Geller, Tambor, Chase, & Holtzman, 1993; Houran & Williams, 1998; Judge et al., 1999;Lachance, Ladouceur, & Dugas, 1999; Martin & Westie, 1959; Sidanius, 1985). Measurement approaches vary across domains(e.g., inkblot tests, self-report questionnaires) and have failed to converge in comparative research (Furnham, 1994;Furnham & Ribchester, 1995; Kenny & Ginsberg, 1985).

TA may in fact differ conceptually across contextual domains. Kirton (1981) argued that the construct has becomeoverextended, and Durrheim and Foster (Durrheim, 1998; Durrheim & Foster, 1997) went further to assert that TA is not astable individual difference, but entirely context-dependent. While the extent of variability of TA remains open for debate,items used in TA measures that are overly general in their contextualization may not function equivalently in differentsettings. Contextualized items that tailor a measure of TA to a targeted content domain may prove more reliable possiblyreducing inconsistencies in dimensionality.

In summary, despite repeated calls for adequate measurement of TA over the past 50 years, the need for a solid measure ofthe construct remains strong. Identification of particular domains for its application may help accurately specify constructdimensionality, as well as open up more appropriate constructs for use in validating TA in a relevant nomological net.

3.4. Summary of measurement challenges

The preceding review reveals two main weaknesses in current approaches to defining and measuring TA. First, apsychometrically sound measure of TA is needed. Second, contextualized measures of TA are warranted in specific domains.We respond to the need for more rigorous measurement of TA by developing a measure with improved psychometricanalysis. We respond to the need for contextualization to cross-cultural contexts by developing and testing a measure usingitems reflecting ambiguous stimuli commonly experienced in cross-cultural situations. By thus reducing measurement errorand enhancing utility for cross-contextual application of TA measurement, we seek to establish a conceptually clear,internally consistent assessment tool.

4. Method

4.1. Scale development

The most frequently cited measure of TA remains Budner’s (1962) 16-item measure, particularly in management andorganizational psychology (Frone, 1990; McLain, 1993). Budner’s theory has demonstrated remarkable resilience tosubsequent criticism, and the original conceptual foundation remains influential in cross-cultural domains and in thebroader literature. Using Budner’s conceptualization and measure of TA as a foundation, we refine both through severaliterations. Participant responses were collected on Budner’s original 16 items as well as 5 newly generated items, all rated ona 5-point Likert scale anchored with 1 = ‘‘Strongly Disagree’’ to 5 = ‘‘Strongly Agree’’ (see Appendix A).

A series of Principal Components analyses examined Budner’s (1962) scale and successively refined measures includingoriginally generated items. Principal Components, rather than principle axis, analysis was selected because the researchquestion dealt with the explanation of scale variance (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007; Thompson & Vidal-Brown, 2001). Anexploratory factor analysis was first conducted, along with assessment of internal consistency and item-total correlations, toreassess the Budner measure. We then added and removed items in pursuit of solid internal consistency and a stable factorstructure.

4.2. Sample and procedure

Subjects included 2351 participants from a wide variety of backgrounds and life experience. Specifically, self-reports of ageincluded 8% under age 20, 64% between 20 and 29 years, and 28% were age 30 years and older. Responses to the demographicquestion about ‘‘present work position’’ resulted in 2% of subjects self-identifying as ‘‘top level executives,’’ 12% as ‘‘middlemanagement’’ 16% as ‘‘entry level or supervisory management,’’ 38% as ‘‘hourly/non-supervisory,’’ and 32% as ‘‘other.’’ Studentscomprised approximately half of the sample, including the majority of the ‘‘other’’ category and overlapping with othercategories. Fifty-seven percent of subjects self-identified as male, with the remaining 43% female. Although subjects self-reported 69 different nationalities of origin, only 16 countries provided more than 10 unique subjects. When separated by worldregions, North America provided 56% of subjects, Asia provided 26%, and Europe provided 11%, with the remaining 7% fromcountries in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. The survey was completed in English by 84% of participants, andtranslated/back-translated into Japanese for the other 16%. Because results were consistent when Japanese language responseswere removed, those data are retained in analyses. It is unclear how many respondents were native English speakers, thoughmost either worked or studied in a primarily English-speaking environment at the time of participation.

Subjects responded to the 21 tolerance of ambiguity items as part of many different data collection efforts. Eighty-sixpercent of subjects participated as part of an undergraduate or graduate-level course requirement, and approximately 10%participated as part of a corporate training needs assessment. Participant motivation to answer items honestly and

J.L. Herman et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 58–6560

conscientiously was deemed to be sufficiently high for accurate and meaningful interpretation of results. To reduce theimpact of biased responding, 48 respondents (2%) with high scores on a simultaneously administered measure of sociallydesirable responding were excluded from analysis.

5. Data analysis and results

A Principal Components analysis using Oblimin rotation with Kaiser Normalization was initially conducted onBudner’s (1962) measure. Four factors emerged with eigenvalues above one, though scree plot analysis suggested a weakfourth factor, and internal consistency was below accepted standards (a = 0.57). Four items demonstrating lowcorrelations to the full scale were removed (see Table 1), and another Principal Components analysis was conducted onremaining items. Two dimensions emerged with eigenvalues above 1, with a dominant first factor. While this wastentatively supportive of the single factor conceptualization of Budner and others (e.g., McLain, 1993), internalconsistency remained low (a = 0.58).

Following the above refinement reducing Budner’s original items from 16 to 12, five new items generated for this studywere added for analysis. These items were written for cross-cultural relevance and to complement existing items bycapturing the full content domain of TA, including familiarity, conflicting perspectives, change, and value incongruence (e.g.,Budner, 1962; McLain, 1993). Resultant items are starred in Table 2 and are included in Appendix A. The 17-item scale wassubjected to another Principal Components analysis, and five items were removed due to low item-total correlations,resulting in a final scale of 12 items. Principal Components analysis conducted on these 12 items revealed a strong first factorthat explained 25.4% of the overall scale variance, with three additional factors with eigenvalues greater than one (seeTable 2). Visual scree plot examination suggested the four factors to be meaningful, with a significant drop-off in the verticalslope between the fourth and fifth factors (Gorsuch, 2003). Internal consistency (a) of the overall measure was acceptable at0.73. Internal consistencies of individual dimensions were not sufficiently robust to merit separate use (aValuing diverse -

others = 0.58; aChange = 0.51; aChallenging perspectives = 0.56; aUnfamiliarity = 0.53), thus lending support to the view of TA as aunitary but multifaceted construct. Pattern Matrix results revealed that each item loaded onto one and only one factor. Item-total correlations and descriptive statistics at the item level are also included in Table 2.

Table 1

Item analysis results leading to removal of five items from Budner’s (1962) original measure.

Item Factor components Item-total

correlation

Decision: drop

or retain?1 2 3 4

An expert who doesn’t come up with a definite answer

probably doesn’t know too much.

0.05 0.61 0.18 �0.19 0.24 Retain

I would like to live in a foreign country for a while. 0.49 �0.15 0.24 0.09 0.29 Retain

There is really no such thing as a problem that can’t be solved. 0.00 0.65 �0.27 0.20 �0.07 Drop

People who fit their lives to a schedule probably miss most

of the joy of living.

0.28 �0.29 0.08 0.57 0.05 Drop

A good job is one where what is to be done and how it is to

be done are always clear.

0.34 0.40 0.16 �0.19 0.32 Retain

It is more fun to tackle a complicated problem than to solve

a simple one.

0.13 �0.27 0.55 �0.19 0.27 Retain

In the long run it is possible to get more done by tackling small,

simple problems rather than large and complicated ones.

0.16 �0.04 0.07 �0.56 0.11 Drop

Often the most interesting and stimulating people are those

who don’t mind being different and original.

�0.02 0.04 0.66 0.19 0.30 Retain

What we are used to is always preferable to what is unfamiliar. 0.61 0.19 �0.05 0.02 0.27 Retain

People who insist upon a yes or no answer just don’t know

how complicated things really are.

0.07 0.07 0.23 0.62 0.12 Drop

A person who leads an even, regular life in which few surprises

or unexpected happenings arise really has a lot to

be grateful for.

0.44 0.18 0.13 �0.03 0.30 Retain

Many of our most important decisions are based upon

insufficient information.

�0.19 0.17 0.57 0.09 0.20 Retain

I like parties where I know most of the people more than

ones where all or most of the people are complete strangers.

0.76 �0.06 �0.25 0.00 0.21 Retain

Teachers or supervisors who hand out vague assignments

give people a chance to show initiative and originality.

0.18 �0.12 0.34 �0.06 0.22 Retain

The sooner we all acquire similar values and ideals the

better.

0.23 0.44 0.25 �0.10 0.29 Retain

A good teacher is one who makes you wonder about your

way of looking at things.

0.00 0.03 0.61 0.04 0.29 Retain

Note: Factor components were extracted via Principal Components with Oblimin rotation and Kaiser Normalization, with Pattern Matrix results shown.

Item-total correlations are the zero-order correlations between individual items and the composite score of the 16-item scale (coefficient a for the 16-item

scale was 0.57). The decision to drop or retain each item for consideration in further scale refinement efforts is indicated in the final column. Reverse-coded

items were recoded prior to analysis such that higher scores always represented a high level of tolerance for ambiguity for all items.

J.L. Herman et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 58–65 61

6. Discussion

The primary contribution of this research is the refinement of a measure that can be used in cross-cultural research andpractice to assess individual TA. Psychometric analysis of both the factor structure and internal consistency of this newmeasure suggest its improved utility over a prior inventory (Budner, 1962) whose shortcomings have been widelydocumented. The refined measure demonstrates empirical improvements in factor structure and internal consistency, andindicates four distinct dimensions. We label these dimensions as (1) valuing diverse others, (2) change, (3) challengingperspectives, and (4) unfamiliarity. The latter three factors are similar to conceptualizations by Furnham (1994) and McLain(1993), while the dominant first factor reflects an interpersonal dimension of TA that prior conceptualizations lack.

The emergence of a dominant interpersonal dimension of intercultural TA, labeled valuing diverse others, is consistentwith the view that interpersonal interaction is paramount to intercultural performance (e.g., Hammer, Gudykunst, &Wiseman, 1978). The unique emergence of this dominant factor through contextualization to cross-cultural settingssuggests that cross-cultural TA may be more interpersonally oriented than TA in other situations. Researchers have longrecognized the importance of both interpersonal relations and the need for ambiguity tolerance (Furuya et al., 2009), yet thisis initial evidence that the two intersect critically within the single individual difference construct of TA itself.

The second dimension, coping with change, reflects the dynamic nature of intercultural situations such as cross-culturaltransitions and global management. Research in domestic contexts has emphasized the beneficial role of TA during the

Table 2

Item-level descriptive statistics and factor analytic results for refined measure consisting of both newly generated items and retained items from Budner’s

(1962) measure.

Item Mean SDa Item-total

correlation

Factor components

1 2 3 4

Valuing diverse others

I avoid settings where people

don’t share my values.*

3.53 0.96 0.44 0.66 0.26 0.11 �0.13

I can enjoy being with people

whose values are very

different from mine.*

3.67 0.96 0.40 0.69 0.04 �0.15 0.06

I can be comfortable with

nearly all kinds of people.*

3.77 1.04 0.34 0.74 �0.16 �0.06 �0.16

Change

A good job is one where what

is to be done and how it is

to be done are always clear.

3.19 1.13 0.32 �0.07 0.67 0.00 �0.08

A person who leads an even,

regular life in which few

surprises or unexpected

happenings arise really

has a lot to be grateful for.

3.49 1.01 0.33 0.01 0.59 �0.06 �0.01

What we are used to is always

preferable to what is unfamiliar.

3.07 1.17 0.34 �0.22 0.49 �0.17 �0.38

The sooner we all acquire similar

values and ideals the better.

3.77 1.13 0.35 0.27 0.67 0.12 0.14

Challenging perspectives

If given a choice, I will usually

visit a foreign country rather

than vacation at home.*

3.96 1.16 0.36 �0.01 �0.08 �0.82 �0.08

A good teacher is one who makes

you wonder about your way

of looking at things.

4.16 0.87 0.28 0.22 0.21 �0.44 0.38

I would like to live in a foreign

country for a while.

4.08 1.16 0.40 0.01 0.00 �0.80 �0.06

Unfamiliarity

I like to surround myself with

things that are familiar to me.*

2.62 0.94 0.42 0.10 0.21 �0.07 �0.69

I like parties where I know most

of the people more than ones

where all or most of the people

are complete strangers.

2.46 1.08 0.36 0.24 �0.05 �0.08 �0.72

Note: Statements with ‘*’ are the study’s newly added items to Budner’s (1962) scale (coefficient a for the new 12-item scale is 0.73). Mean and SD values are

derived from a 5-point Likert scale (with higher scores representing a more favorable loading on the construct). Item-total correlations are the zero-order

correlations between individual items and the composite score of the new 12-item scale. Factor components were extracted via Principal Components with

Oblimin rotation, with Pattern Matrix results shown. Reverse-coded items were recoded prior to analysis such that 5 represents a high level of tolerance for

ambiguity for all items in analyses.a SD: standard deviation.

J.L. Herman et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 58–6562

experience of change (Armstrong-Stassen, 1998; Ashford, 1988; Hamilton, 1988; Judge et al., 1999; Keenan & McBain, 1979;Rush, Schoel, & Barnard, 1995; Rydell, 1966). In a cross-cultural context, behavioral ratings of TA negatively predicted cultureshock (Nishida, 1985). Related cross-cultural research has implicated specific mediating behaviors between TA and cross-cultural outcomes. Herman and Tetrick (2009) implicated coping strategies as an explanatory mechanism for the relationbetween TA and cross-cultural adjustment. The authors implied in their discussion that people high in TA may use moreproblem-focused coping strategies, and those low in TA may use more emotion-focused strategies, with positive andnegative implications for adjustment, respectively (see also Stahl & Caligiuri, 2005).

The third dimension, dealing with unfamiliar situations, is not only fundamental to the ambiguity inherent in many cross-cultural experiences, it is central to the developmental benefit of many such ‘‘stretch’’ experiences (McCauley et al., 1994).Expatriate and global leader development often results from novel challenges in unfamiliar cultural contexts, whichunfreeze and change prior mental models (McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002; Oddou & Mendenhall, 2008). High TA may enhancedevelopment from these experiences by enabling an individual to engage in more intense unfreezing phases (cf. Bader,Fleming, Zaccaro, & Barber, 2002; Gardner, Holzman, Klein, Linton, & Spence, 1959).

Finally, managing conflicting perspectives and the paradox of seemingly irreconcilable realities are central to theambiguity encountered in cross-cultural experiences, particularly as one’s involvement in a cultural environment deepens(Osland & Osland, 2006). This conceptual dimension bears similarity to the complexity dimension of TA seen elsewhere(Budner, 1962; Kirton, 1981), yet items reflect experiences that challenge perspectives in ways not limited to environmentalcomplexity. This dimension is similar yet distinct from dialectical thinking, and further study focused on this dimension mayelucidate how individual-level TA influences the effectiveness of dialectical approaches in prediction tasks (cf. Schwenk,1982).

7. Conclusion

This paper reports the development of a 12-item measure of individual-level tolerance for ambiguity. This measure fillsa practical need for assessment in cross-cultural contexts, such as predicting expatriate and global leader performance(Gregersen et al., 1998; Mendenhall, Stevens, Bird, & Oddou, 2008; Mol et al., 2005). Measurement of TA and relatedpredictors are likely to gain in importance as intercultural performance domains grow increasingly prevalent (GMAC,2006).

Appendix A

Items from Budner’s (1962) original scale:

1. An expert who doesn’t come up with a definite answer probably doesn’t know too much.2. I would like to live in a foreign country for a while.3. There is really no such thing as a problem that can’t be solved.4. People who fit their lives to a schedule probably miss most of the joy of living.5. A good job is one where what is to be done and how it is to be done are always clear.6. It is more fun to tackle a complicated problem than to solve a simple one.7. In the long run it is possible to get more done by tackling small, simple problems rather than large and complicated ones.8. Often the most interesting and stimulating people are those who don’t mind being different and original.9. What we are used to is always preferable to what is unfamiliar.

10. People who insist upon a yes or no answer just don’t know how complicated things really are.11. A person who leads an even, regular life in which few surprises or unexpected happenings arise really has a lot to be

grateful for.12. Many of our most important decisions are based upon insufficient information.13. I like parties where I know most of the people more than ones where all or most of the people are complete strangers.14. Teachers or supervisors who hand out vague assignments give people a chance to show initiative and originality.15. The sooner we all acquire similar values and ideals the better.16. A good teacher is one who makes you wonder about your way of looking at things.

New items created for the research study:

17. I avoid settings where people don’t share my values.18. I can enjoy being with people whose values are very different from mine.19. I like to surround myself with things that are familiar to me.20. I can be comfortable with nearly all kinds of people.21. If given a choice, I will usually visit a foreign country rather than vacation at home.

J.L. Herman et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 58–65 63

Items included in final measure:

1. I avoid settings where people don’t share my values. [Reverse Coded]2. I can enjoy being with people whose values are very different from mine.3. I would like to live in a foreign country for a while.4. I like to surround myself with things that are familiar to me. [Reverse Coded]5. The sooner we all acquire similar values and ideals the better. [Reverse Coded]6. I can be comfortable with nearly all kinds of people.7. If given a choice, I will usually visit a foreign country rather than vacation at home.8. A good teacher is one who makes you wonder about your way of looking at things.9. A good job is one where what is to be done and how it is to be done are always clear. [Reverse Coded]

10. A person who leads an even, regular life in which few surprises or unexpected happenings arise really has a lot to begrateful for. [Reverse Coded]

11. What we are used to is always preferable to what is unfamiliar. [Reverse Coded]12. I like parties where I know most of the people more than ones where all or most of the people are complete strangers.

[Reverse Coded]

Note: All items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘‘1 = Strongly Disagree’’ to ‘‘5 = Strongly Agree’’ and a

‘‘3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree’’ option in the middle. (This scoring pattern is inverted for items followed by [Reverse Coded],

above.)

References

Abbe, A., Gulick, L. M. V., & Herman, J. L. (2007). Developing cross-cultural competence in military leaders: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Arlington, VA: USArmy Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Armstrong-Stassen, M. (1998). Downsizing the federal government: A longitudinal study of managers’ reactions. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences (RevueCanadienne Des Sciences De L Administration), 15, 310–321.

Arthur, W., Jr., & Bennett, W. (1995). The international assignee—The relative importance of factors perceived to contribute to success. Personnel Psychology, 48,99–114.

Ashford, S. J. (1988). Individual strategies for coping with stress during organizational transitions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24, 19–36.Bader, P., Fleming, P. J., Zaccaro, S. J., & Barber, H. (2002). The developmental impact of work experiences on adaptability. Paper presented at the 17th annual meeting

of the Society of Industrial/Organizational Psychology.Benjamin, A. J., Riggio, R. E., & Mayes, B. T. (1996). Reliability and factor structure of Budner’s Tolerance for Ambiguity Scale. Journal of Social Behavior and

Personality, 11, 625–632.Black, J. S. (2006). The mindset of global leaders. In Mobley, W. H., & Weldon, E. (Eds.), Advances in global leadership. Vol. 4 (pp.181–200).Amsterdam: Elsevier/JAI.Black, J. S., Morrison, A. J., & Gregersen, H. B. (1999). Global explorers: The next generation of leaders. London: Routledge.Black, J. S., & Porter, L. W. (1991). Managerial behaviors and job performance: A successful manager in Los Angeles may not succeed in Hong Kong. Journal of

International Business, 22(1), 99–113.Bochner, S. (1965). Defining intolerance of ambiguity. The Psychological Record, 15, 393–400.Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30(1), 29–50.Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104.Durrheim, K. (1998). The relationship between tolerance of ambiguity and attitudinal conservatism: A multidimensional analysis. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 28, 731–753.Durrheim, K., & Foster, D. (1997). Tolerance of ambiguity as a content specific construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 741–750.Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality, 18(1), 108–143.Frone, M. (1990). Intolerance of ambiguity as a moderator of the occupational role stress–strain relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 309–320.Furnham, A. (1994). A content, correlational and factor-analytic study of 4 tolerance of ambiguity questionnaires. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 403–

410.Furnham, A., & Ribchester, T. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the concept, its measurement and applications. Current Psychology, 14(3), 179–199.Furuya, N., Stevens, M. J., Bird, A., Oddou, G., & Mendenhall, M. (2009). Managing the learning and transfer of global competence: Antecedents and outcomes of

Japanese repatriation effectiveness. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(2), 200–215.Gardner, R. W., Holzman, P. S., Klein, G. S., Linton, H. B., & Spence, D. P. (1959). Cognitive control: The control principle of tolerance for unrealistic experiences.

Psychological Issues, 1(4), 27–36.Geller, G., Tambor, E. S., Chase, G. A., & Holtzman, N. A. (1993). Measuring physicians’ tolerance for ambiguity and its relationship to their reported practices

regarding genetic testing. Medical Care, 31, 989–1001.GMAC. (2006). Global relocation trends 2005 survey report. New Jersey: GMAC.Gorsuch, R. L. (2003). Factor analysis. In Schinka, J. A., & Velicer, W. F. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Research methods in psychology. Vol. 2 (pp.143–164).

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Gregersen, H. B., Morrison, A. J., & Black, J. S. (1998). Developing leaders for the global frontier. Sloan Management Review, 40, 21–32.Grenier, S., Barrette, A. M., & Ladouceur, R. (2005). Intolerance of uncertainty and intolerance of ambiguity: Similarities and differences. Personality and Individual

Differences, 39, 593–600.Hamilton, E. E. (1988). The facilitation of organizational change: An empirical study of factors predicting change agents’ effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science, 24, 37–59.Hammer, M. R., Gudykunst, W. B., & Wiseman, R. L. (1978). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study. International Journal of Intercultural

Relations, 2(4), 382–393.Herman, J. L., & Tetrick, L. E. (2009). Problem-focused versus emotion-focused coping strategies and repatriation adjustment. Human Resource Management, 48(1),

69–88.Houran, J., & Williams, C. (1998). Relation of tolerance of ambiguity to global and specific paranormal experience. Psychological Reports, 83, 807–818.Jokinen, T. (2005). Global leadership competencies: A review and discussion. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29, 199–216.Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 84, 107–122.

J.L. Herman et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 58–6564

Kealey, D. J. (1996). The challenge of international personnel selection. In D. Landis & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed., pp. 81–105).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Keenan, A., & McBain, G. D. M. (1979). Effects of Type A behavior, intolerance of ambiguity, and locus of control on the relationship between role stress and work-related outcomes. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 277–285.

Kenny, D. T., & Ginsberg, R. (1985). The specificity of intolerance of ambiguity measures. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 56, 300–304.Kirton, M. J. (1981). A reanalysis of 2 scales of tolerance of ambiguity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 407–414.Lachance, S., Ladouceur, R., & Dugas, M. J. (1999). Elements explaining the tendency to worry. Applied Psychology-An International Review (Psychologie Appliquee-

Revue Internationale), 48, 187–196.Lane, H. W., Maznevski, M. L., & Mendenhall, M. E. (2004). Globalization: Hercules meets Buddha. In H. Lane, M. L. Maznevski, M. Mendenhall, & J. McNett (Eds.),

Blackwell handbook of global management (pp. 3–25). London: Blackwell Publishing.Martin, J. G., & Westie, F. R. (1959). The tolerant personality. American Sociological Review, 24, 521–528.McCall, M. W., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (2002). Developing global executives: Lessons of international experience. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.McCauley, C. D., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & Morrow, J. E. (1994). Assessing the developmental components of managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology,

79, 544–560.McLain, D. L. (1993). The MSTAT-I: A new measure of an individual’s tolerance for ambiguity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 183–189.Mendenhall, M. E., Osland, J. S., Bird, A., Oddou, G., & Maznevski, M. L. (2008). Global leadership: Research, practice and development. London: Routledge.Mendenhall, M. E., Stevens, M. J., Bird, A., & Oddou, G. (2008). Specification of the content domain of the Global Competencies Inventory. St. Louis, MO Kozai Group, Inc..Mol, S. T., Born, M. P., Willemsen, M. E., & Van Der Molen, H. T. (2005). Predicting expatriate job performance for selection purposes: A quantitative review. Journal

of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 590–620.Nishida, M. (1985). Japanese intercultural communication competence and cross-cultural adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9, 247–269.Norton, R. W. (1975). Measurement of tolerance for ambiguity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39, 607–619.Oddou, G., & Mendenhall, M. E. (2008). Global leadership development. In M. E. Mendenhall, J. S. Osland, A. Bird, G. R. Oddou, & M. L. Maznevski (Eds.), Global

leadership: Research, practice, and development (pp. 160–174). New York: Routledge.Osland, J. S. (2008). Overview of the global leadership literature. In M. E. Mendenhall, J. S. Osland, A. Bird, G. R. Oddou, & M. L. Maznevski (Eds.), Global leadership:

Research, practice, and development (pp. 34–63). New York: Routledge.Osland, J. S., & Osland, A. (2006). Expatriate paradoxes and cultural involvement. International Studies of Management & Organization, 35(4), 91–114.Ruben, B. D., & Kealey, D. J. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 15, 15–47.Rush, M. C., Schoel, W. A., & Barnard, S. M. (1995). Psychological resiliency in the public sector: ‘‘Hardiness’’ and pressure for change. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

46, 17–39.Rydell, S. T. (1966). Tolerance of ambiguity and semantic differential ratings. Psychological Reports, 19, 1303–1312.Schwenk, C. R. (1982). Effects of inquiry methods and ambiguity tolerance on prediction performance. Decision Sciences, 13(2), 207–221.Sidanius, J. (1985). Cognitive functioning and sociopolitical ideology revisited. Political Psychology, 6, 637–661.Stahl, G. K., & Caligiuri, P. (2005). The effectiveness of expatriate coping strategies: The moderating role of cultural distance, position level, and time on the

international assignment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 603–615.Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Thompson, B., & Vidal-Brown, S. A. (2001). Principal components versus principle axis factors: When will we ever learn? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of

the Southwest Educational Research Association.Ward, D. (1988). A critic’s defense of the criticized. Political Psychology, 9, 317–320.Yamazaki, Y., & Kayes, D. C. (2004). An experiential approach to cross-cultural learning: A review and integration of competencies for successful expatriate

adaptation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3, 362–379.

J.L. Herman et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 58–65 65