We conducted two research studies to address the malleability of tolerance of ambiguity (TA) by manipulating situational ambiguity. Students participated in a semester-end assessment of their management skills (n = 306). In Study 1, students in low and moderate ambiguity conditions had significantly higher post-experiment TA, more positive change in self-efficacy, and marginally higher faculty ratings. In Study 2, a control group (n = 103) did not participate in the assessment and was established for comparison to the first study results. The Study 2 students reported TA significantly lower than Study 1 students in the low and moderate ambiguity conditions. The control group TA was not significantly different from that of the Study 1 high ambiguity condition. This further suggested TA’s situational malleability, as those who had controlled access to structured information appeared to have increased their TA over that observed in the other two groups. These results suggest that TA may be malleable. We review the relevant literature, offer hypotheses, report our analyses and findings, and then propose future research, and potential prescriptive applications in such areas as management development, assessment, and decision-making.
Organizational decision making requires the ability to process ambiguous information while dealing with overload and conflicting requirements. Although researchers agree that ambiguity tolerance is a critical skill for making high-quality complex decisions, few have investigated the effects of ambiguity tolerance on self-efficacy to make complex decisions. In the current experiment, 151 participants were randomly assigned to either a moderate complexity or high complexity decision task. Ambiguity tolerance moderated the relationships between task complexity and self-efficacy, and between task complexity and the accuracy of self-efficacy in predicting future performance. In the highly complex task, individuals with a higher tolerance for ambiguity reported higher self-efficacy and more accurate self-efficacy versus individuals with lower tolerance for ambiguity. In the moderately complex task, tolerance for ambiguity had no effects on self-efficacy or accuracy. Implications for research and practice are presented, along with study limitations.
Expanding a conceptual framework, we differentiated services on the basis of their levels of captivity (the difficulty of a customer's leaving) and intensity (the number of services performed), arguing that context is especially critical to service delivery when these levels are high. Data from cruise ships generally supported our hypotheses. We report effects of physical and social context on evaluations made by passengers, industry experts, and government regulators. Implications for managers of other service settings are discussed.
Organizational decision making requires the ability to process ambiguous information while dealing with overload and conflicting requirements. Although researchers agree that ambiguity tolerance is a critical skill for making high-quality complex decisions, few have investigated the effects of ambiguity tolerance on self-efficacy to make complex decisions. In the current experiment, 151 participants were randomly assigned to either a moderate complexity or high complexity decision task. Ambiguity tolerance moderated the relationships between task complexity and self-efficacy, and between task complexity and the accuracy of self-efficacy in predicting future performance. In the highly complex task, individuals with a higher tolerance for ambiguity reported higher self-efficacy and more accurate self-efficacy versus individuals with lower tolerance for ambiguity. In the moderately complex task, tolerance for ambiguity had no effects on self-efficacy or accuracy. Implications for research and practice are presented, along with study limitations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.