UNCERTAINTY TOLERANCE IN THE PROCESS OF COMMANDER’S DECISION-MAKING
Oleg Hmilar
Ivan Chernyakhovsky National Defense University of Ukraine
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2693-1906
Sergiy Cherevychnyi
Ivan Chernyakhovsky National Defense University of Ukraine
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9691-5261
PDF 75-83

Keywords

tolerance
intolerance
uncertainty
decision-making
commander
coping strategy
difficult situation
stress

How to Cite

Hmilar, O., & Cherevychnyi, S. (2020). UNCERTAINTY TOLERANCE IN THE PROCESS OF COMMANDER’S DECISION-MAKING. PSYCHOLOGICAL JOURNAL, 6(2), 75-83. https://doi.org/10.31108/1.2020.6.2.7

Abstract

The uncertainty tolerance is an example of a phenomenon, the value of which is increasing in all spheres of modern life. In the article, uncertainty tolerance is interpreted through the prism of the concept of authoritarian individuality, dispositional models and algorithms for managerial decision-making. Semantically, uncertainty tolerance and intolerance are decoded by the authors as a personality trait, socio-psychological setting, cognitive-perceptual formation, and as a potential source of threat.

It was found that uncertainty tolerance is a multiplicity of complex reactions that have a situation-specific variable. With this approach, the future of the individual is perceived as a source of discomfort, potential danger, and causes feelings of fear, anxiety, and uncertainty. On the contrary, a person with a high level of uncertainty tolerance understands the future as an opportunity to get new experience.

85 officers-trainees of Ivan Chernyakhovsky National Defense University of Ukraine participated in our study. It was defined that the subjects of uncertainty, which is mainly caused by the complexity of the situation, are experiencing negative emotions and stress. We identified two types of coping strategies among the ways of overcoming uncertainty: problem-oriented and emotionally-oriented.

Uncertainty factors that have a significant influence on the commander’s decision-making process and basic behavioural strategies to reduce the impact of uncertainty on the decision-making were investigated.

It was found out that it is important for the decision-maker to develop the ability to regulate the course of his mental states. The article concludes that uncertainty enables a commander to obtain, find and implement a solution, which does not come from his life experience, but, in turn, unlocks his potential. On the contrary, a constant desire for certainty often leads, at the same time, to static, stagnant, "vicious circle" past mistakes.

 

PDF 75-83

References

Kornylova T. V., Chyhrynova Y. A., Kornylov S. A., Novykova M. A. (2010). Princyp neopredelennosty: Edynstvo intelektualno-lichnostnoho potentsyala. Moskow: Smysl.

Lukovytskaya E. G. (1996). Neopredelennost i otnoshenye k ney: psyhologycheskoe opredelenie. Teoretycheskiey prykladniye voprosy psyhologyy, 2 (2), 53–62.

Lushyn P. V. (2005). Lychnostnie izmeneniya kak protses: teoriya i praktyka: monohr. Odessa, Aspekt.

Leonov Y. N. (2004). Tolerantnost k neopredelennosty kak psyhologicheskiy fenomen: istoriya stanovleniya konstrukta. Vestnyk Udmurtskoho universiteta, 4, 43–52.

Frankl V. (1990). Men’s Search for Meaning. Moskow: Progress.

Hmilar O. F. (2018). The critical and positive thinking of the officer. Scientific notes of the National University of Ostroh Academy. Section “Psychology”, 7, 72–76.

Andersen S. M., Schwartz A. H. (1992 Intolerance of ambiguity and depression: A cognitive vulnerability factor linked to hopelessness. Social Cognition, 10 (3), 271–298.

Bochner S. (1965). Defining Intolerance of Ambiguity.The Psychological Record, 15, 393–400.

Badner S. (1962). Intolerance of Amdiguity as a Personality Variable. Journal of Personality, 30, 29–50.

Frenkel-Brunswik E. (1948). Tolerance of Ambiguity as a Personality Variable. American Psychologist, 3, 263–268.

Hallman R. J. (1963). The Necessary and Sufficient Conditions of Creativity. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 3 (1), 14–27.

Hartmann F. (2005).The effects of tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty on the appropriateness of accounting performance measures. Abacus, 41(3), 241–264.

Hofstede G. (2003). Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (P. 543–551). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.

Litman J. A. (2010). Relationships between measure of I-and D-type curiosity, ambiguity tolerance, and need for closure: An initial test of the wanting-liking model of information-seeking. Personality and Individual Difference. 48(4), 397–402.

McLain D. L. (1993). The MSTAT-I: A new measure of an individuals tolerance for ambiguity. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 53 (1), 183–189.

Norton R. W. (1975). Measure of ambiguity tolerance. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39(6), 607–619.

Ray J. J. (1987). Intolerance of ambiguity among psychologist: A comment on maier and lavrakas. Sex Roles, 16(11/12), 559–562.

Rotter N. G. Connel A. N. (1982). The relationships amongsex-role orientation, cognitive complexity and tolerance for ambiguity. Sex Roles. 8(12), 1209–1220.

Stoycheva K. (2010). Tolerance for ambiguity, creativity, and personality. Bulgarian Journal of Psychology. 11(4), 178–188.

Hazen B. T. (2012). The role of ambiguitytolerance in consumer perception of remanufactured product. International Journal of Production Economics, 135(2), 781–790.

Herman J. L. (2010). The tolerancefor ambiguity scale: Towards a more refined measure for international management research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 34(1), 58–65.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright Notice

Articles in the Psychological Journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License International CC-BY that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. For more detailed information, please, fallow the link - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/