Various studies have been done to seek the link between the capacity of a person to tolerate

ambiguity and multiple constructs. Studies ranged from its link to communication, teachings
styles to organizational performance etc. Common themes of the study involves the use of
intolerance or the opposite to constructs that involves communication.

1. (a)Students that present low ambiguous tolerance are more dependent to authority figures
compared to those who show high tolerance for ambiguity. These students view
colleagues, peers and instructors as leaders and support and preferred being directed with
guidelines that they can follow
(b) Ambiguous tolerance also shows significant correlation to teaching style.
(c) Communication apprehension is negatively correlated to ambiguous tolerance, having
informal situations that involves conversation results in stronger relationship and the
relationship weakens as subscales measuring apprehension communication become more
formal. (Arquero et. Al., 2017)

2. (a)Chen and Lovibond (2016) found in their study that instead of uncertainty, ambiguity
mostly contribute and is a powerful trigger for peoples biased way of appraising threat
and negative affect.
(b) Individuals that show higher intolerance for uncertainty shows propensity for
overthinking aversive outcomes when put in ambiguous situations.

3. Chu et. Al. (2015) in their study perpetuated that participants with high ambiguous
tolerance compared to those with middle and low, used cognitive, compensatory,
metacognitive, and social techniques more frequently.
(b) Learning strategies effect in learning second language are directly affected the
capacity of the students to learn ambiguity.

4. (a) Entrepreneur have higher capacity in tolerating ambiguous situations, people with
high tolerance for ambiguity shows complicated comprehension of things around them.
(b) There is a meaningful positive relationship between the tolerance of ambiguity and
self-esteem (Heydari et. Al., 2013).

5. In Ma and Kay’s (2017) research they concluded that people that exhibit intolerance to
ambiguous situation are those with low perceived control, showing less dislike to the
situation as it became more structured albeit undesirable.
(b)The study also studied the effect of control deprivation to the dislike of ambiguous
situations in the workplace.
(c) conclusions about the effect of lower personal control to the intention of students to
apply for jobs and internship, it is found that lower personal control results in lower
liking of university student to apply to companies with loose job guidelines.

6. Nakhostin-Ansari et. Al. (2021) surmised that there is no significant difference between
the tolerance of ambiguity situations between people of different gender and marital
status.

7. (a) Lower tolerance of ambiguity is seen associated with higher rejection sensitivity.
 (b) People with high rejection sensitivity associates ambiguous social cues with negative
and rejection cues.
(c) In situations that are full of uncertainty and ambiguity rejection sensitive persons are
more likely to respond in a less tolerant manner, expecting negative intentions and
negative outcomes. Rejection sensitive people focus more on negative outcomes of
situations that are ambiguous and unclear (Sato & Luyten, 2018)

8. Medical students involve and trained in novel situations shows positive effect in
moderating the decrease of attitude toward the undeserved population. (Wayne et. Al.,
2011)

9. (a) Career indecision is affected by the capacity of a person to tolerate ambiguity,

predicting general indecisiveness, lack and inconsistent information, and dysfunctional
belief.
(b) it is found that people who are unable to accept the inevitability of encountering
ambiguous situations are more likely to have distorted beliefs.
(c) Results supported the proposition that beyond information collecting people's
ambiguity tolerance is additionally beneficial for the relief of information deficit and
conflicts.
(d) ambiguous tolerant individuals show better use of gathered information’s into solving
conflicting information (Xu & Tracy, 2014).