International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 5865

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Brief report

The Tolerance for Ambiguity Scale: Towards a more rened measure for 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 States Goddard School of Business and Economics, Weber State University, 3802 University Circle, Ogden, UT 84408-3802, United States c College of Business Administration, Northeastern University, 313 Hayden Hall, Boston, MA 02115, United States d College of Business Administration, University of Tennessee-Chattanooga, 615 McCallie Avenue, Chattanooga, TN 37403, United States e College of Business Administration, California State University, San Marcos, San Marcos, CA 92096-0001, United States
b

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Accepted 20 September 2009 Keywords: Tolerance for ambiguity Cross-cultural psychology Individual differences Scale development

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 ambiguitythe 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.

1. Introduction Organizational scholars in the elds of expatriation and global leadership repeatedly assert that tolerance for ambiguity positively inuences 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, technological advancement, and workforce diversity. Moreover, interactions among changes created by globalization (e.g., multinational work teams, virtual teams) create upward spirals of novelty, complexity and change, magnifying the experience of ambiguity by organizational members (Lane, Maznevski, & Mendenhall, 2004). Unfortunately, further progress in delineating the relationships between the construct of tolerance for ambiguity and such important constructs as global mindset, global leadership effectiveness, and expatriate adjustment and performance is presently hampered due to varying conceptualizations of tolerance for ambiguity and questionable psychometric

* 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. 0147-1767/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.09.004

J.L. Herman et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 5865

59

properties of extant measures of the construct. In this paper, we will review the empirical ndings related to tolerance for ambiguity and discuss the inconsistency in the current ndings and the questionable psychometric properties of some of the measures used in the cited research. We will then propose a new measure of tolerance for ambiguity that addresses these problems. 2. Literature review Tolerance for ambiguity [TA] is the tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as desirable (Budner, 1962, p. 29). This concise denition captures the essence of the line of research spurred by Frenkel-Brunswik (1949), who rst proposed TA as an individual difference variable. Recent scholars have offered specication to various aspects of TA, while retaining Budners essential denition. McLain (1993), for instance, addresses the contextual meaning of ambiguity, dening the construct as a range, from rejection to attraction, of reactions to stimuli perceived as unfamiliar, complex, dynamically uncertain, or subject to multiple conicting interpretations (p. 184). Others have similarly sought to rene and reconsider the construct, yet the core denition 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 specic claims has been hampered by measurement problems and remains slim (Abbe et al., 2007). Mol et al. (2005) reported a corrected meta-analytic correlation of 0.35 between TA and expatriate effectiveness, yet this nding relied on only two studies, 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 reasons for which we will treat in the next section. 3. Measurement of tolerance for ambiguity Measurement challenges are the most frequent explanation given for conicting ndings regarding TA. Reviews have described these challenges as: (a) weak psychometric attributes, (b) potential multidimensionality, and (c) the impact of context 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 been presented with weak reliability statistics and little or no information regarding factor structure. Budners (1962) measure was 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). Nortons (1975) measure presented 52 items, apparently across eight dimensions, with only KuderRichardson and testretest reliabilities and no factor analytic information. McLains (1993) 22-item measure posits a single factor related to multiple stimuli, though factor loadings as low as 0.18 implicate potential multidimensionality. Researchers have resorted to using multiple measures of TA to improve on weak internal consistencies of individual measures (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999; Kirton, 1981; Mol et al., 2005). While scale combination enhances internal consistency, this may only obscure the underlying problems (Cortina, 1993). Without a measure with improved conceptual dimensionality and acceptable internal consistency, the eld will continue to confront inaccuracy in the assessment of TA. 3.2. Disagreement in construct dimensionality Several theoretical and empirical efforts have addressed the dimensionality of TA, arguing for between one and eight dimensions (e.g., Furnham, 1994; Kenny & Ginsberg, 1985; Kirton, 1981; McLain, 1993; Norton, 1975). Furnhams review of dimensions in various TA measures identied four factors of predictability, variety and originality, clarity, and regularity, though subsequent factor analysis failed to replicate this structure with existing measures (Benjamin et al., 1996; Kirton, 1981). McLain highlighted four stimuli of TA: unfamiliarity, complexity, change, and conicting 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 multidimensionality using existing measures, depicting TA as unitary yet multifaceted (e.g., Benjamin et al., 1996; Furnham & Ribchester, 1995).

60

J.L. Herman et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 5865

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 become overextended, and Durrheim and Foster (Durrheim, 1998; Durrheim & Foster, 1997) went further to assert that TA is not a stable 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 different settings. Contextualized items that tailor a measure of TA to a targeted content domain may prove more reliable possibly reducing inconsistencies in dimensionality. In summary, despite repeated calls for adequate measurement of TA over the past 50 years, the need for a solid measure of the construct remains strong. Identication of particular domains for its application may help accurately specify construct dimensionality, 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 dening and measuring TA. First, a psychometrically sound measure of TA is needed. Second, contextualized measures of TA are warranted in specic domains. We respond to the need for more rigorous measurement of TA by developing a measure with improved psychometric analysis. We respond to the need for contextualization to cross-cultural contexts by developing and testing a measure using items reecting ambiguous stimuli commonly experienced in cross-cultural situations. By thus reducing measurement error and 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 Budners (1962) 16-item measure, particularly in management and organizational psychology (Frone, 1990; McLain, 1993). Budners theory has demonstrated remarkable resilience to subsequent criticism, and the original conceptual foundation remains inuential in cross-cultural domains and in the broader literature. Using Budners conceptualization and measure of TA as a foundation, we rene both through several iterations. Participant responses were collected on Budners original 16 items as well as 5 newly generated items, all rated on a 5-point Likert scale anchored with 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree (see Appendix A). A series of Principal Components analyses examined Budners (1962) scale and successively rened measures including originally generated items. Principal Components, rather than principle axis, analysis was selected because the research question dealt with the explanation of scale variance (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007; Thompson & Vidal-Brown, 2001). An exploratory factor analysis was rst conducted, along with assessment of internal consistency and item-total correlations, to reassess the Budner measure. We then added and removed items in pursuit of solid internal consistency and a stable factor structure. 4.2. Sample and procedure Subjects included 2351 participants from a wide variety of backgrounds and life experience. Specically, self-reports of age included 8% under age 20, 64% between 20 and 29 years, and 28% were age 30 years and older. Responses to the demographic question about present work position resulted in 2% of subjects self-identifying as top level executives, 12% as middle management 16% as entry level or supervisory management, 38% as hourly/non-supervisory, and 32% as other. Students comprised approximately half of the sample, including the majority of the other category and overlapping with other categories. Fifty-seven percent of subjects self-identied as male, with the remaining 43% female. Although subjects selfreported 69 different nationalities of origin, only 16 countries provided more than 10 unique subjects. When separated by world regions, North America provided 56% of subjects, Asia provided 26%, and Europe provided 11%, with the remaining 7% from countries in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. The survey was completed in English by 84% of participants, and translated/back-translated into Japanese for the other 16%. Because results were consistent when Japanese language responses were removed, those data are retained in analyses. It is unclear how many respondents were native English speakers, though most 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-six percent 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) 5865 Table 1 Item analysis results leading to removal of ve items from Budners (1962) original measure. Item Factor components 1 An expert who doesnt come up with a denite answer probably doesnt know too much. I would like to live in a foreign country for a while. There is really no such thing as a problem that cant be solved. People who t their lives to a schedule probably miss most of the joy of living. A good job is one where what is to be done and how it is to be done are always clear. It is more fun to tackle a complicated problem than to solve a simple one. In the long run it is possible to get more done by tackling small, simple problems rather than large and complicated ones. Often the most interesting and stimulating people are those who dont mind being different and original. What we are used to is always preferable to what is unfamiliar. People who insist upon a yes or no answer just dont know how complicated things really are. A person who leads an even, regular life in which few surprises or unexpected happenings arise really has a lot to be grateful for. Many of our most important decisions are based upon insufcient information. I like parties where I know most of the people more than ones where all or most of the people are complete strangers. Teachers or supervisors who hand out vague assignments give people a chance to show initiative and originality. The sooner we all acquire similar values and ideals the better. A good teacher is one who makes you wonder about your way of looking at things. 0.05 0.49 0.00 0.28 0.34 0.13 0.16 0.02 0.61 0.07 0.44 2 0.61 0.15 0.65 0.29 0.40 0.27 0.04 0.04 0.19 0.07 0.18 3 0.18 0.24 0.27 0.08 0.16 0.55 0.07 0.66 0.05 0.23 0.13 4 0.19 0.09 0.20 0.57 0.19 0.19 0.56 0.19 0.02 0.62 0.03 Item-total correlation 0.24 0.29 0.07 0.05 0.32 0.27 0.11 0.30 0.27 0.12 0.30

61

Decision: drop or retain? Retain Retain Drop Drop Retain Retain Drop Retain Retain Drop Retain

0.19 0.76 0.18 0.23 0.00

0.17 0.06 0.12 0.44 0.03

0.57 0.25 0.34 0.25 0.61

0.09 0.00 0.06 0.10 0.04

0.20 0.21 0.22 0.29 0.29

Retain Retain Retain Retain 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 (coefcient a for the 16-item scale was 0.57). The decision to drop or retain each item for consideration in further scale renement efforts is indicated in the nal 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.

conscientiously was deemed to be sufciently high for accurate and meaningful interpretation of results. To reduce the impact of biased responding, 48 respondents (2%) with high scores on a simultaneously administered measure of socially desirable responding were excluded from analysis. 5. Data analysis and results A Principal Components analysis using Oblimin rotation with Kaiser Normalization was initially conducted on Budners (1962) measure. Four factors emerged with eigenvalues above one, though scree plot analysis suggested a weak fourth factor, and internal consistency was below accepted standards (a = 0.57). Four items demonstrating low correlations to the full scale were removed (see Table 1), and another Principal Components analysis was conducted on remaining items. Two dimensions emerged with eigenvalues above 1, with a dominant rst factor. While this was tentatively supportive of the single factor conceptualization of Budner and others (e.g., McLain, 1993), internal consistency remained low (a = 0.58). Following the above renement reducing Budners original items from 16 to 12, ve new items generated for this study were added for analysis. These items were written for cross-cultural relevance and to complement existing items by capturing the full content domain of TA, including familiarity, conicting 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 was subjected to another Principal Components analysis, and ve items were removed due to low item-total correlations, resulting in a nal scale of 12 items. Principal Components analysis conducted on these 12 items revealed a strong rst factor that explained 25.4% of the overall scale variance, with three additional factors with eigenvalues greater than one (see Table 2). Visual scree plot examination suggested the four factors to be meaningful, with a signicant drop-off in the vertical slope between the fourth and fth factors (Gorsuch, 2003). Internal consistency (a) of the overall measure was acceptable at 0.73. Internal consistencies of individual dimensions were not sufciently 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 a unitary but multifaceted construct. Pattern Matrix results revealed that each item loaded onto one and only one factor. Itemtotal correlations and descriptive statistics at the item level are also included in Table 2.

62

J.L. Herman et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 5865

Table 2 Item-level descriptive statistics and factor analytic results for rened measure consisting of both newly generated items and retained items from Budners (1962) measure. Item Mean SDa Item-total correlation Factor components 1 0.66 0.69 2 0.26 0.04 3 0.11 0.15 4 0.13 0.06

Valuing diverse others I avoid settings where people dont share my values.* I can enjoy being with people whose values are very different from mine.* I can be comfortable with nearly all kinds of people.* Change A good job is one where what is to be done and how it is to be done are always clear. A person who leads an even, regular life in which few surprises or unexpected happenings arise really has a lot to be grateful for. What we are used to is always preferable to what is unfamiliar. The sooner we all acquire similar values and ideals the better. Challenging perspectives If given a choice, I will usually visit a foreign country rather than vacation at home.* A good teacher is one who makes you wonder about your way of looking at things. I would like to live in a foreign country for a while. Unfamiliarity I like to surround myself with things that are familiar to me.* I like parties where I know most of the people more than ones where all or most of the people are complete strangers.

3.53 3.67

0.96 0.96

0.44 0.40

3.77

1.04

0.34

0.74

0.16

0.06

0.16

3.19

1.13

0.32

0.07

0.67

0.00

0.08

3.49

1.01

0.33

0.01

0.59

0.06

0.01

3.07 3.77

1.17 1.13

0.34 0.35

0.22 0.27

0.49 0.67

0.17 0.12

0.38 0.14

3.96

1.16

0.36

0.01

0.08

0.82

0.08

4.16

0.87

0.28

0.22

0.21

0.44

0.38

4.08

1.16

0.40

0.01

0.00

0.80

0.06

2.62 2.46

0.94 1.08

0.42 0.36

0.10 0.24

0.21 0.05

0.07 0.08

0.69 0.72

Note: Statements with * are the studys newly added items to Budners (1962) scale (coefcient 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.

6. Discussion The primary contribution of this research is the renement of a measure that can be used in cross-cultural research and practice to assess individual TA. Psychometric analysis of both the factor structure and internal consistency of this new measure suggest its improved utility over a prior inventory (Budner, 1962) whose shortcomings have been widely documented. The rened measure demonstrates empirical improvements in factor structure and internal consistency, and indicates four distinct dimensions. We label these dimensions as (1) valuing diverse others, (2) change, (3) challenging perspectives, and (4) unfamiliarity. The latter three factors are similar to conceptualizations by Furnham (1994) and McLain (1993), while the dominant rst factor reects an interpersonal dimension of TA that prior conceptualizations lack. The emergence of a dominant interpersonal dimension of intercultural TA, labeled valuing diverse others, is consistent with 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 settings suggests that cross-cultural TA may be more interpersonally oriented than TA in other situations. Researchers have long recognized the importance of both interpersonal relations and the need for ambiguity tolerance (Furuya et al., 2009), yet this is initial evidence that the two intersect critically within the single individual difference construct of TA itself. The second dimension, coping with change, reects the dynamic nature of intercultural situations such as cross-cultural transitions and global management. Research in domestic contexts has emphasized the benecial role of TA during the

J.L. Herman et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 5865

63

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 culture shock (Nishida, 1985). Related cross-cultural research has implicated specic mediating behaviors between TA and crosscultural outcomes. Herman and Tetrick (2009) implicated coping strategies as an explanatory mechanism for the relation between TA and cross-cultural adjustment. The authors implied in their discussion that people high in TA may use more problem-focused coping strategies, and those low in TA may use more emotion-focused strategies, with positive and negative 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 crosscultural experiences, it is central to the developmental benet of many such stretch experiences (McCauley et al., 1994). Expatriate and global leader development often results from novel challenges in unfamiliar cultural contexts, which unfreeze and change prior mental models (McCall & Hollenbeck, 2002; Oddou & Mendenhall, 2008). High TA may enhance development 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 conicting perspectives and the paradox of seemingly irreconcilable realities are central to the ambiguity encountered in cross-cultural experiences, particularly as ones 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 reect experiences that challenge perspectives in ways not limited to environmental complexity. This dimension is similar yet distinct from dialectical thinking, and further study focused on this dimension may elucidate how individual-level TA inuences 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 lls a 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 related predictors are likely to gain in importance as intercultural performance domains grow increasingly prevalent (GMAC, 2006).

Appendix A Items from Budners (1962) original scale: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. An expert who doesnt come up with a denite answer probably doesnt know too much. I would like to live in a foreign country for a while. There is really no such thing as a problem that cant be solved. People who t their lives to a schedule probably miss most of the joy of living. A good job is one where what is to be done and how it is to be done are always clear. It is more fun to tackle a complicated problem than to solve a simple one. In the long run it is possible to get more done by tackling small, simple problems rather than large and complicated ones. Often the most interesting and stimulating people are those who dont mind being different and original. What we are used to is always preferable to what is unfamiliar. People who insist upon a yes or no answer just dont know how complicated things really are. A person who leads an even, regular life in which few surprises or unexpected happenings arise really has a lot to be grateful for. Many of our most important decisions are based upon insufcient information. I like parties where I know most of the people more than ones where all or most of the people are complete strangers. Teachers or supervisors who hand out vague assignments give people a chance to show initiative and originality. The sooner we all acquire similar values and ideals the better. A good teacher is one who makes you wonder about your way of looking at things.

New items created for the research study: 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. I avoid settings where people dont share my values. I can enjoy being with people whose values are very different from mine. I like to surround myself with things that are familiar to me. I can be comfortable with nearly all kinds of people. If given a choice, I will usually visit a foreign country rather than vacation at home.

64

J.L. Herman et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 5865

Items included in nal measure: I avoid settings where people dont share my values. [Reverse Coded] I can enjoy being with people whose values are very different from mine. I would like to live in a foreign country for a while. I like to surround myself with things that are familiar to me. [Reverse Coded] The sooner we all acquire similar values and ideals the better. [Reverse Coded] I can be comfortable with nearly all kinds of people. If given a choice, I will usually visit a foreign country rather than vacation at home. A good teacher is one who makes you wonder about your way of looking at things. A good job is one where what is to be done and how it is to be done are always clear. [Reverse Coded] A person who leads an even, regular life in which few surprises or unexpected happenings arise really has a lot to be grateful 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] 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

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: US Army 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 (Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De L Administration), 15, 310321. Arthur, W., Jr., & Bennett, W. (1995). The international assigneeThe relative importance of factors perceived to contribute to success. Personnel Psychology, 48, 99114. Ashford, S. J. (1988). Individual strategies for coping with stress during organizational transitions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24, 1936. 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 Budners Tolerance for Ambiguity Scale. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 625632. Black, J. S. (2006). The mindset of global leaders. In Mobley, W. H., & Weldon, E. (Eds.), Advances in global leadership. Vol. 4 (pp.181200).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), 99113. Bochner, S. (1965). Dening intolerance of ambiguity. The Psychological Record, 15, 393400. Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30(1), 2950. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefcient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98104. Durrheim, K. (1998). The relationship between tolerance of ambiguity and attitudinal conservatism: A multidimensional analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 731753. Durrheim, K., & Foster, D. (1997). Tolerance of ambiguity as a content specic construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 741750. Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality, 18(1), 108143. Frone, M. (1990). Intolerance of ambiguity as a moderator of the occupational role stressstrain relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 309320. 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), 179199. 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), 200215. 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), 2736. 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, 9891001. 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.143164). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Gregersen, H. B., Morrison, A. J., & Black, J. S. (1998). Developing leaders for the global frontier. Sloan Management Review, 40, 2132. Grenier, S., Barrette, A. M., & Ladouceur, R. (2005). Intolerance of uncertainty and intolerance of ambiguity: Similarities and differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 593600. Hamilton, E. E. (1988). The facilitation of organizational change: An empirical study of factors predicting change agents effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24, 3759. Hammer, M. R., Gudykunst, W. B., & Wiseman, R. L. (1978). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2(4), 382393. Herman, J. L., & Tetrick, L. E. (2009). Problem-focused versus emotion-focused coping strategies and repatriation adjustment. Human Resource Management, 48(1), 6988. Houran, J., & Williams, C. (1998). Relation of tolerance of ambiguity to global and specic paranormal experience. Psychological Reports, 83, 807818. Jokinen, T. (2005). Global leadership competencies: A review and discussion. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29, 199216. 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, 107122.

J.L. Herman et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 5865

65

Kealey, D. J. (1996). The challenge of international personnel selection. In D. Landis & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed., pp. 81105). 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 workrelated outcomes. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 277285. Kenny, D. T., & Ginsberg, R. (1985). The specicity of intolerance of ambiguity measures. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 56, 300304. Kirton, M. J. (1981). A reanalysis of 2 scales of tolerance of ambiguity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 407414. Lachance, S., Ladouceur, R., & Dugas, M. J. (1999). Elements explaining the tendency to worry. Applied Psychology-An International Review (Psychologie AppliqueeRevue Internationale), 48, 187196. 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. 325). London: Blackwell Publishing. Martin, J. G., & Westie, F. R. (1959). The tolerant personality. American Sociological Review, 24, 521528. 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, 544560. McLain, D. L. (1993). The MSTAT-I: A new measure of an individuals tolerance for ambiguity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 183189. 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). Specication 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, 590620. Nishida, M. (1985). Japanese intercultural communication competence and cross-cultural adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9, 247269. Norton, R. W. (1975). Measurement of tolerance for ambiguity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39, 607619. 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. 160174). 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. 3463). New York: Routledge. Osland, J. S., & Osland, A. (2006). Expatriate paradoxes and cultural involvement. International Studies of Management & Organization, 35(4), 91114. 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, 1547. 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, 1739. Rydell, S. T. (1966). Tolerance of ambiguity and semantic differential ratings. Psychological Reports, 19, 13031312. Schwenk, C. R. (1982). Effects of inquiry methods and ambiguity tolerance on prediction performance. Decision Sciences, 13(2), 207221. Sidanius, J. (1985). Cognitive functioning and sociopolitical ideology revisited. Political Psychology, 6, 637661. 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, 603615. 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 critics defense of the criticized. Political Psychology, 9, 317320. 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, 362379.