Based on the Entropy Model of Uncertainty, this study examined the relationship between tolerance for ambiguity and stress and anxiety, as well as the mediating roles of overall need for cognitive closure and its dimensions in this relationship. Four hundred and eighty-eight Chinese university students were recruited online and completed the survey voluntarily and anonymously. The results of structural equation modeling revealed that tolerance for ambiguity negatively predicted students’ perceived stress and anxiety. Moreover, overall need for cognitive closure, as well as its dimensions of preference for order and decisiveness played full mediating roles in this relationship. Specifically, tolerance for ambiguity negatively predicted students’ overall need for cognitive closure, preference for order, preference for predictability, decisiveness, and closed-mindedness. Further, preference for order negatively predicted students’ perceived stress and anxiety, while overall need for cognitive closure and decisiveness positively predicted such. However, preference for predictability and closed-mindedness were not significant predictors of perceived stress and anxiety.
BardeenJ. R.FergusT. A.OrcuttH. K. (2017). Examining the specific dimensions of distress tolerance that prospectively predict perceived stress. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 46(3), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2016.1233454
2.
BardiA.GuerraV. M.RamdenyG. S. D.RamdenyD. (2009). Openness and ambiguity intolerance: Their differential relations to wellbeing in the context of an academic life transition. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(3), 219–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.003
3.
BarlowD. H.BlanchardE. B.VermilyeaJ. A.VermilyeaB. B.DiNardoP. A. (1986). Generalized anxiety and generalized anxiety disorder: Description and reconceptualization. American Journal of Psychiatry, 143(1), 40–44. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.143.1.40
4.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
5.
BélangerJ. J.PierroA.BarbieriB.De CarloN. A.FalcoA.KruglanskiA. W. (2016). One size doesn’t fit all: The influence of supervisors’ power tactics and subordinates’ need for cognitive closure on burnout and stress. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(2), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1061999
6.
BentwichM. E.GilbeyP. (2017). More than visual literacy: Art and the enhancement of tolerance for ambiguity and empathy. BMC Medical Education, 17(1), 200. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-1028-7
7.
BokuniewiczS. (2019). Faith in a just world and ways to combine with stress and ambiguous situation. E-methodology, 6(6), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.15503/emet2019.65.79
8.
BokuniewiczS. (2020). Tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity of the situation and anxiety as a state and as a feature. Journal of Education, Culture and Society, 11(2), 224–236. https://doi.org/10.15503/jecs2020.2.224.236
BurrusJ.JacksonT.HoltzmanS.RobertsR. D. (2016). Teaching high school students to manage time: The development of an intervention. Improving Schools, 20(2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216650309
12.
ByrneB. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.
13.
BystritskyA.KronemyerD. (2014). Stress and anxiety: Counterpart elements of the stress/anxiety complex. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 37(4), 489–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2014.08.002
14.
CaoY.GaoJ.ZhouT. (2023). Orderliness of campus lifestyle predicts academic performance: A case study in Chinese university. In MontagC.BaumeisterH. (eds), Digital phenotyping and mobile sensing: Studies in neuroscience, psychology and behavioral economics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98546-2_9
15.
CaulfieldM.AndolsekK.GrbicD.RoskovenskyL. (2014). Ambiguity tolerance of students matriculating to U.S. medical schools. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 89(11), 1526–1532. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000485
16.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
17.
CheungG. W.LauR. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 296–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300343
18.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
ChirumboloA.AreniA. (2010). Job insecurity influence on job performance and mental health: Testing the moderating effect of the need for closure. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31(2), 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831x09358368
21.
ClaessensB. J. C.van EerdeW.RutteC. G.RoeR. A. (2007). A review of the time management literature. Personnel Review, 36(2), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480710726136
22.
ClausiusR. (1865). The mechanical theory of heat—with its applications to the steam engine and to physical properties of bodies. John Van Voorst.
23.
CohenS.KamarckT.MermelsteinR. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404
24.
CohenS.WilliamsonG. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In SpacapanS.OskampS. (eds), The social psychology of health: Claremont symposium on applied social psychology (pp. 31–67). Sage.
25.
CudeckR.BrowneM. W. (1992). Constructing a covariance matrix that yields a specified minimizer and a specified minimum discrepancy function value. Psychometrika, 57(3), 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02295424
26.
DeYoungC. G. (2013). The neuromodulator of exploration: A unifying theory of the role of dopamine in personality. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 762. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00762
27.
DouglasH. E.BoreM.MunroD. (2016). Coping with university education: The relationships of time management behaviour and work engagement with the five factor model aspects. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 268–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.004
28.
ErdfelderE.FaulF.BuchnerA. (1996). Gpower: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203630
29.
Ewa KrautzA. (2021). Tolerance of ambiguity, need for cognitive closure and feeling like a different person when speaking different languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2021.1879091
30.
FalkR. F.MillerN. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press.
FuX. L.ZhangK.ChenX. F.ChenZ. Y. (2022). Report on national mental health development in China (2021–2022). Social Sciences Academic Press. (China).
33.
GärtnerJ.BußeniusL.PredigerS.VogelD.HarendzaS. (2020). Need for cognitive closure, tolerance for ambiguity, and perfectionism in medical school applicants. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 132. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02043-2
34.
GraceM. (2009). Developing high quality decision-making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 551–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701744595
35.
HirshJ. B.MarR. A.PetersonJ. B. (2012). Psychological entropy: A framework for understanding uncertainty-related anxiety. Psychological Review, 119(2), 304–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026767
36.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
37.
IacobucciD. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit Indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.003
38.
IannelloP.MottiniA.TirelliS.RivaS.AntoniettiA. (2017). Ambiguity and uncertainty tolerance, need for cognition, and their association with stress. A study among Italian practicing physicians. Medical Education Online, 22(1), 1270009. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2016.1270009
39.
IyengarS. S.LepperM. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995–1006. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995
40.
JachH. K.SmillieL. D. (2019). To fear or fly to the unknown: Tolerance for ambiguity and Big Five personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 79(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.02.003
KlineR. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
43.
KoolhaasJ. M.BartolomucciA.BuwaldaB.de BoerS. F.FlüggeG.KorteS. M.MeerloP.MurisonR.OlivierB.PalanzaP.Richter-LevinG.SgoifoA.SteimerT.StiedlO.van DijkG.WöhrM.FuchsE. (2011). Stress revisited: A critical evaluation of the stress concept. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(5), 1291–1301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.02.003
44.
KruglanskiA. W. (2004). The psychology of closed mindedness. Psychology Press.
45.
KruglanskiA. W.WebsterD. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing”. Psychological Review, 103(2), 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263
46.
MacCallumR. C.BrowneM. W.SugawaraH. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
47.
McLainD. 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
48.
McLainD. L. (2009). Evidence of the properties of an ambiguity tolerance measure: The multiple Stimulus types ambiguity tolerance scale-II (MSTAT-II). Psychological Reports, 105(3 Pt 1), 975–988. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.105.3.975-988
49.
McLainD. L.KefallonitisE.ArmaniK. (2015). Ambiguity tolerance in organizations: Definitional clarification and perspectives on future research. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 344. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00344
NeubergS. L.JudiceT. N.WestS. G. (1997). What the Need for Closure Scale measures and what it does not: Toward differentiating among related epistemic motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1396–1412. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1396
56.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
57.
RatcliffeM. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069970190203
58.
RoetsA.HielA. v. (2008). Why some hate to dilly-dally and others do not: The arousal-invoking capacity of decision-making for low- and high-scoring need for closure individuals. Social Cognition, 26(3), 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.3.333
59.
RoetsA.KruglanskiA. W.KossowskaM.PierroA.HongY. (2015). The motivated gatekeeper of our minds: New directions in need for closure theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 221–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/BS.AESP.2015.01.001
60.
RoetsA.SoetensB. (2010). Need and ability to achieve closure: Relationships with symptoms of psychopathology. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(2), 155–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.09.013
61.
RoetsA.Van HielA. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.004
62.
RosenN. O.IvanovaE.KnäuperB. (2014). Differentiating intolerance of uncertainty from three related but distinct constructs. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 27(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2013.815743
63.
SachdevaR. (2022). Pandemic, perceived risk, and cognitive dissonance as antecedents to need for cognitive closure. International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology, 13(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijssmet.298676
64.
SchwartzB. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. HarperCollins Publishers.
SpitzerR. L.KroenkeK.WilliamsJ. B.LöweB. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092–1097. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092
67.
WebsterD. M.KruglanskiA. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1049–1062. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.67.6.1049
68.
WhiteH. A. (2022). Need for cognitive closure predicts stress and anxiety of college students during COVID-19 pandemic. Personality and Individual Differences, 187, 111393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111393
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
