Structural ambiguity and limits to coping

How well a person can cope with any situation is determined, among other factors, by his ability to resolve the ambiguity of that situation, which in turn depends on its structural complexity. We attempted to analyze a whole range of situations in terms of three dimesions: differentiations, the number of alternatives perceived; articulation, the differentiation and rankability of these alternatives; and loading, the emotional loading (positive or negative) associated with the situation. The efficiency of mapping with these dimensions was investigated by analyzing the effects of 75 situations on coping, as reported in the literature. These were divided into three groups, 25 situations in each, associated with good coping, reduced coping, and failure to come (in terms of performance relative to a baseline or to the population's norm). The interaction between the demands imposed by the complexity of the situation and the success of coping was analyzed by the Multidimensional Scalogram Analysis (MSA). Results show effectiveness of coping to be inversely related to the structural complexity of a situation, mapped in terms of articulation, loading and differentiation. The relative importance of these dimensions is as ordered above; this offers a possible way to construct an "ambiguity score" which may be the primary factor determining the coping limit set by any situation.