Tolerance of ambiguity: text analytic vs self-report measures in two nonclinical groups

Avoidance of ambiguity can be examined by both text analytic and self-report methods. In previous studies using text analytic methods, clinical groups showed a higher avoidance of ambiguity than nonclinical subjects. In nonclinical subjects, however, higher avoidance of ambiguity did not correlate with emotional processes. In these studies, higher avoidance of ambiguity was assessed by a text analytic method (DoTA), which was applied to the Holtzman Inkblot Technique. However, the Inkblot Technique may not activate those cognitive-affective structures in nonclinical subjects required to elicit higher avoidance of ambiguity. Thus, the following discrepant results can be predicted: in nonclinical subjects, DoTA indicators of higher avoidance of ambiguity based on Holtzman Inkblot Technique do not show correlations with self-report measures of higher avoidance of ambiguity such as the Ambiguity Tolerance Questionnaire, the Inventory for the Measurement of Tolerance of Ambiguity (Reis inventory), or self-report measures of related traits of personality such as the Giessen Test. Self-report measures of higher avoidance of ambiguity should show such correlations. Two studies were carried out to test these hypotheses. In Study 1, 80 nonclinical subjects (48 women, M age = 34.5 yr.) were examined using the DoTA text analytic method, the Ambiguity Tolerance Questionnaire-14 and the Giessen Test. In Study 2, 82 nonclinical subjects (43 women, M age = 34.0 yr.) were tested using the Reis inventory. The results obtained in these subjects are consistent with the hypothe-