Assessment 1–21 © The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1073191115577188 asm.sagepub.com Article For more than 60 years, researchers from a variety of disci- plines, including social and clinical psychology, have inves- tigated individual differences in tolerance–intolerance of ambiguity, a broad personality trait that refers to personal reactions to perceived ambiguous stimuli in a variety of context and situations (e.g., Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003; Kajs & McCollum, 2009; Leyro, Zvolensky, & Bernstein, 2010). Despite considerable research interest, agreement about the construct’s definition surprisingly has been low. In fact, since its initial conceptu- alization (Frenkel-Brunswik, 1949), separate research streams have emerged that splintered the construct’s con- ceptual definition, while still maintaining the same label for this construct. For instance, ambiguity “tolerance” and “intolerance” did not necessarily reflect a bipolar dimen- sion, but instead different operational definitions (Furnham & Marks, 2013; Furnham & Ribchester, 1995; Merrotsy, 2013; Valsiner & Abbey, 2006). Compounding this issue, scales that have been designed to measure the construct have demonstrated weak psycho- metric qualities (see Furnham & Marks, 2013; Merrotsy, 2013). Furthermore, because these scales were created from a rational perspective (i.e., a scale based on theory rather than factor analytical methods), separate definitions implic- itly were considered to be unidimensional constructs. Moreover, factor analytic studies of ambiguity tolerance/ intolerance measures have been sparse, leading to a lack of consensus about the phenotypic structure of the construct, hereafter referred to as attitude toward ambiguity. As a result, a call has been made to better establish construct validity, including reaching an agreement on its factorial structure (Furnham & Marks, 2013; Merrotsy, 2013). The current study aims to bridge this gap in the litera- ture. First, we explore the factorial structure of the attitude toward ambiguity using a comprehensive list of items from existing scales. We hypothesize that the attitude toward ambiguity is a multidimensional construct, with each dimension representing a specific way in which people typ- ically deal with ambiguity to make sense of a complex social world (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). Second, we adopt a sequential mapping procedure (Goldberg, 2006) to chart the emerging structure of attitude toward ambigu- ity, from broad and more general dimensions at the top of the hierarchy, to narrow and more specific ones to the bot- tom. Third, we approach this research question from an 577188ASM XX X 10.1177/1073191115577188AssessmentLauriola et al. research-article 2015 1 Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy 2 Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR Corresponding Author: Marco Lauriola, Department of Social & Developmental Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Via dei Marsi, 78, 00185 Rome, Italy. Email: marco.lauriola@uniroma1.it Attitude Toward Ambiguity: Empirically Robust Factors in Self-Report Personality Scales Marco Lauriola 1 , Renato Foschi 1 , Oriana Mosca 1 , and Joshua Weller 2 Abstract Two studies were conducted to examine the factor structure of attitude toward ambiguity, a broad personality construct that refers to personal reactions to perceived ambiguous stimuli in a variety of context and situations. Using samples from two countries, Study 1 mapped the hierarchical structure of 133 items from seven tolerance–intolerance of ambiguity scales (N = 360, Italy; N = 306, United States). Three major factors—Discomfort with Ambiguity, Moral Absolutism/Splitting, and Need for Complexity and Novelty—were recovered in each country with high replicability coefficients across samples. In Study 2 (N = 405, Italian community sample; N =366, English native speakers sample), we carried out a confirmatory analysis on selected factor markers. A bifactor model had an acceptable fit for each sample and reached the construct-level invariance for general and group factors. Convergent validity with related traits was assessed in both studies. We conclude that attitude toward ambiguity can be best represented a multidimensional construct involving affective (Discomfort with Ambiguity), cognitive (Moral Absolutism/Splitting), and epistemic (Need for Complexity and Novelty) components. Keywords ambiguity tolerance–intolerance, factor analysis, five-factor model, intolerance of uncertainty, need for closure by guest on April 2, 2015 asm.sagepub.com Downloaded from