Traumatology

http://tmt.sagepub.com

The Relationship Between Basic Assumptions, Posttraumatic Growth, and Ambiguity Tolerance in an
Israeli Sample of Young Adults: A Mediation-Moderation Model
Shiri Bayer, Rachel Lev-Wiesel and Marianne Amir
Traumatology 2007; 13; 4
DOI: 10.1177/1534765607299908
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://tmt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/4

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Traumatology can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://tmt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://tmt.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://tmt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/13/1/4

Downloaded from http://tmt.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on April 19, 2009

The Relationship Between Basic

Assumptions, Posttraumatic Growth,
and Ambiguity Tolerance in an
Israeli Sample of Young Adults:
A Mediation-Moderation Model

Traumatology
Volume 13 Number 1
March 2007 4-15
2007 Sage Publications
10.1177/1534765607299908
http://tmt.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com

Shiri Bayer, Rachel Lev-Wiesel, and Marianne Amir

This study examines the relationship between basic
assumptions, posttraumatic growth (PTG), and ambiguity
tolerance (AT). It is hypothesized that basic assumptions
will mediate the relationship between AT and PTG and
that trauma will have a moderating effect in this model. A
group of 274 university and college students, average age
of 23, who either experienced a traumatic event or not,
completed the following questionnaires: Measure of
Ambiguity Tolerance, World Assumptions Scale, and
Posttraumatic Growth Inventory. The results indicate that

the relationship between AT and PTG is mediated by

basic assumptions but only among participants who were
not exposed to a traumatic event. Thus, the trauma is a
moderating variable in this model. The findings are discussed in terms of a defensive search for meaning following stressful life events, according to the individuals
perception of the event.

of the present study is to examine the relationship

between tolerance of ambiguity (AT) and posttraumatic growth (PTG), and whether basic assumptions about the world mediate this relationship.

esearch concerning traumatic events has

usually emphasized psychological distress,
psychopathology, or maladaptive behavior in the
aftermath of traumatic events (Tedeschi & Calhoun,
1996; Tedeschi, Park, & Calhoun, 1998). However,
whereas some individuals find it hard to return to
normal functioning following a traumatic event, most
do not develop psychiatric conditions (van der Kolk
& McFarlane, 1996), and paradoxically, some report
positive changes in the aftermath of trauma (Tedeschi,
1999). In fact, a traumatic eventfor example,
chronic illness, bereavement, or sexual assaultmay
be used as a catalyst for personal growth (Calhoun &
Tedeschi, 1998a; Tedeschi et al., 1998). The purpose

From the School of Social Work, University of Haifa, Haifa,

Hacarmel, Israel (RL-W); Department of Psychology, Ben
Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel (SB). Marianne Amir was
in the Departments of Behavioral Studies and Social Work, Ben
Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel. Dr. Amir died of cancer
January 2003.
Address correspondence to: Rachel Lev-Wiesel, School of Social
Work, University of Haifa, Haifa, Hacarmel, Israel, 31905; e-mail:
rlev@univ.haifa.ac.il.

Keywords: basic assumptions; posttraumatic growth;

ambiguity tolerance; trauma

Posttraumatic Growth and

Basic Assumptions
According to Calhoun and Tedeschi (1998b), PTG is
a complex process, which includes coping with
intense psychological distress in the aftermath of
trauma. Thus, the individual is motivated to cope
with and find meaning in the traumatic, or seismic
event (Calhoun, 1996), that threatens the most fundamental cognitive schemas. Janoff-Bulman (e.g.,
1989a, 1989b, 1992; Janoff-Bulman & Schwarzberg,
1991) suggests that most individuals view themselves as invulnerable, thanks to three basic assumptions: that the world is benevolent, that the world is
meaningful, and that the individual himself is worthy;
as a result, the individual feels that no harm will come
to him or her. These assumptionsor illusions
are stable, unchanging, high-order, cognitive schemas

4
Downloaded from http://tmt.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on April 19, 2009

Ambiguity Tolerance in an Israeli Sample of Young Adults / Bayer et al.

(Epstein, 1980), which ordinarily remain unchallenged and unquestioned (Janoff-Bulman, 1992).
They provide the person with a sense of stability, and
compromising even one of them commonly leads to
immense anxiety (Janoff-Bulman, 1989b). Like a
psychological earthquake, a traumatic event tends
to shakeand eventually shatterthe foundations
of these schemas (Calhoun & Tedeschi, 1998b).
Indeed, the basic assumptions of traumatized individuals are less positive than those of people who
have not experienced such adversities (JanoffBulman, 1989b), and this negative outlook often
persists for years (Franklin, Janoff-Bulman, &
Roberts, 1989).
A traumatic event, which shatters the basic
assumptions, is regarded as essential for PTG to
occur. The traumatized tend to report higher growth
levels than individuals who have experienced normative events (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). To cope
with trauma, a person must reestablish his or her
basic assumptions by assimilating the trauma into
his belief system and/or by accommodating his belief
system to account for the traumatic event. This is
not an easy task: One must find good where evil lay
and meaning where meaning was lost (Calhoun &
Tedeschi, 1998b; Janoff-Bulman, 1992).
Individuals coping with a traumatic event face
a dilemma: they desire to sustain a stable belief
system, but the traumatic event strongly contradicts
the old beliefs. According to Janoff-Bulman (1989a),
there are individual differences in the basic assumptions following trauma. Some find it hard to sustain
or reestablish a positive belief system and frequently
attain a stable and integrative, but highly negative,
conceptual systemone that maintains an evil and
meaningless world and an unworthy self. Thus,
their lives are often characterized by anxiety, depression, and hopelessness. However, most reach a more
balanced viewpoint, which enables them to regard
the world and themselves as positive and simultaneously to recognize the limitations of these beliefs. In
this process, various cognitive coping strategies are
used. Denial and avoidance symptoms play a crucial
role: By modulating the constant flood of traumarelated stimuli, they allow an incremental processing thereof (Janoff-Bulman, 1992).
Whereas Janoff-Bulman stresses the negative
influences of the traumatic event, Taylor (1983) proposes a theory of cognitive adaptation, which highlights the positive results of the trauma: the need to
maintain an illusion of control and find meaning and

self-esteem after experiencing a traumatic event.

The specific cognition is less important than the
goal it intended to servethat is, maintaining the
above-stated illusions. For example, there are many
different ways of finding meaning in a traumatic
event, such as finding an explanation or finding a
way to increase ones future control of events. The
attempt to find meaning will occur at any rate and
has nothing to do with the specific coping mechanism chosen. As opposed to theories such as learned
helplessness (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale,
1978), Taylor considers the cognitive mechanisms
as flexible, whereby an explanation that has lost its
efficacy can be replaced by another that will better
maintain an illusion vital for cognitive and emotional adaptation.
Collins, Taylor, and Skokan (1990) offer an integration of these two different theories. Following a
traumatic event, they found both positive and negative changes, and the amount of positive changes
was related to the use of multiple coping mechanisms. The authors explain that upon facing a traumatic event, a person might at first react negatively
but then tries to lessen the negative outcomes and
create more positive ones. Using various coping
mechanisms, she or he may eventually build an even
more positive belief system than before the trauma
(Collins et al., 1990).

Still, What Is Posttraumatic Growth?

Although there have been broad theoretical developments, experimentally there has been little progress,
particularly concerning conceptualization and methodology of PTG (Cohen, Hettler, & Pane, 1998; Park,
1998). The relationship between PTG, psychological
well-being, mental health, and psychological distress
following a traumatic event is unclear (Cordova,
Cunningham, Carlson, & Andryowski, 2001; Park,
1998; Schaefer & Moos, 1998). There may exist a
positive relationship between PTG and both psychological distress and well-being. For instance, LevWiesel and Amir (2003) found that the level of PTG
was related to PTSD arousal symptoms. Hence, the
PTG process is not unequivocal and psychological
distress might be a precondition of growth (Calhoun
& Tedeschi, 1998b).
The vast majority of research in this field is
cross-sectional and does not allow us to examine the
growth process over time (Frazier, Conlon, & Glaser,
2001). Nevertheless, in time, people tend to report

Downloaded from http://tmt.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on April 19, 2009

Traumatology / Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2007

more positive changes as a result of the traumatic

experience (OLeary, Alday, & Ickovics, 1998). In a
unique longitudinal study, Frazier et al. (2001)
examined the long-term relationship between PTG
and psychological distress. Their findings suggest
that the growth process is not necessarily linear and
accumulating and that it is vital to develop growth
theories that will include intrapersonal changes
over time.
Most researchers see growth as a gradual
process, but there are some examples of sudden
changes in values, priorities, and lifestyles (Tennen &
Affleck, 1998). Research in this field is scarce
(OLeary et al., 1998), but it seems that such quantum change (Miller & CdeBaca, 1994) or thriving (OLeary & Ickovics, 1995) is more likely to
occur among people who have experienced feelings
of despair and loss of control over their lives
(Tedeschi, 1999; Tennen & Affleck, 1998).

Cognitive Processes
in Posttraumatic Growth
Various growth and coping models emphasize the
importance of cognitive processes, especially for
gradual growth (Calhoun, Cann, Tedeschi, &
McMillan, 2000; Cordova et al., 2001; Tedeschi,
1999). This is achieved mainly by rumination: frequent thinking about the trauma and its consequences, which enables disengagement from old
schemas, in a quasi mourning process (Tedeschi,
1999). Rumination is usually automatic and characterized by intrusion symptoms and psychological distress immediately after the trauma. Subsequently, it
will be possible to use rumination more willfully to
increase growth. However, extensive rumination is
likely to cause psychological distress and to decrease
growth (Calhoun & Tedeschi, 1998b; Tedeschi,
1999). Some studies suggest that pretrauma belief
systems may be used as a frame of reference for
assimilating, understanding, and interpreting the
traumatic event (Overcash, Calhoun, Cann, &
Tedeschi, 1996). It enables PTG (Calhoun et al.,
2000), and thus alteration of the basic assumptions
in the aftermath of trauma is sometimes unnecessary (Calhoun, Cann, Tedeschi, & McMillan, 1998).
Consequently, pretrauma cognitive schemas continue to have an effect after the traumatic event.
In summary, the realm of growth research is characterized by numerous theoretical models, hypotheses, and so forth, but few empirical studies have been

Figure 1. The cognitive appraisal model according to Lazarus

and Folkman (1984). AT = ambiguity tolerance; PTG = posttraumatic growth.

conducted on the topic. There have been various

approaches as to the cognitive processes underlying the
growth process, but many conceptual and methodological questions have been left unanswered.

Cognitive Appraisal
Lazarus and Folkman (1984) suggested a model
explaining reactions to trauma, whereby cognitive
appraisal mediates the relationship between the stressor and the subjective feeling of stress. In Figure 1,
we have depicted the model according to Lazarus
and Folkman. Cognitive appraisal has two essential
phases: Primary appraisal indicates appraising the
situation as irrelevant, beneficial, or stressful.
Secondary appraisal means examining the internal
and external resources, which affect the individuals
coping ability. Thus, the individual performs a subjective appraisal of the situation, which shapes ones
emotional and behavioral reactions and determines
the significance of situational and personal variables
for coping with the stressful event.

Ambiguity Tolerance
One of the personal variables that affects perception,
cognitive interpretation, and coping with situational factors is ambiguity tolerance (AT). FrenkleBrunswick (1948, 1949), who coined this concept,
depicts AT as a stable personality variable, originated
in emotional ambivalence, which does not allow for
tolerance of cognitive ambivalence. This is
expressed in the manner of perception, information
processing, and reaction to ambiguous stimuli.
Budner (1962) describes an ambiguous situation as
one that lacks sufficient cues and therefore cannot
be adequately structured or categorized by the individual. Individuals who are tolerant of ambiguity do
not fear such situations but welcome them and perceive them as pleasurable (Friedland & Keinan,
1991; Furnham & Ribchester, 1995; McDonald,
1970). It has been found that people with high AT
tend to be more creative, innovative, and cognitively

Downloaded from http://tmt.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on April 19, 2009

Ambiguity Tolerance in an Israeli Sample of Young Adults / Bayer et al.

complex than those with low AT (Nicotera,

Smilowitz, & Pearson, 1990; Rotter & OConnell,
1982; Tegano, 1990).
In contrast, low-AT individuals tend to perceive
ambiguous situations as threatening and stressful
and to perceive themselves as unable to cope
(Dugas, Gagnon, Ladouceur, & Freeston, 1998).
Instead, they tend to ruminate and are unable to
escape the resultant negative consequences. They
wish to avoid ambiguity and desperately seek perceptual and conceptual clarity. They adopt a concrete, rigid, dichotomous style of thinking and tend
to see life events as totally negative (Anderson &
Schwartz, 1992). The cognitive reduction of low-AT
individuals tends to cause a cognitive style of conflict avoidance (Rotter & OConnell, 1982), stereotyped thinking (Friedland, Keinan, & Tytiun, 1999),
causal attribution (Friedland & Keinan, 1991), and
magical thinking (Keinan, 1994).
Previous research also suggests that AT moderates
the relationship between the stressor and the subjective feeling of stress. Stress leads to a sense of loss of
control and reduces the individuals cognitive
resources, which are recruited to cope with the stress
and regain control (Friedland & Keinan, 1991). For
the most part, stressful situations are characterized by
high ambiguity (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), and given
that life is laden with ambiguous situations and that
low-AT individuals tend to perceive such situations as
stressful, it is possible to assume that they experience
constant stress, even in the absence of an external
stressor (Keinan, 1994).
As a result, low AT is considered a cognitive vulnerability factor. Many studies demonstrate that low
AT is associated with feelings of stress and malfunctioning in stressful situations (e.g., Frone, 1990;
Keenan & McBain, 1979; Lysonski & Andrews, 1990).
AT is also associated with a tendency toward worry,
anxiety, and depression (e.g., Anderson & Schwartz,
1992; Dugas, Freeston, & Ladouceur, 1997; Dugas
et al., 1998; Dugas, Gosselin, & Ladouceur, 2001;
Dugas, Ladouceur, Boisvert, & Freeston, 1996; Freeston,
et al., 1994; Krohne, 1989, 1993; Ladouceur, Gosselin,
& Dugas, 2000).

Research Hypotheses
This study examines the relationship between
trauma, AT, basic assumptions, and their effect on
the growth process. Its goal is to better understand
the growth process in groups of individuals who

Figure 2. Summary of the moderation and mediation model

with the s indicated. AT = ambiguity tolerance; PTG = posttraumatic growth.

have experienced a traumatic event versus those

who have not. AT and basic assumptions were
selected as major variables, inasmuch as their relationship to PTG was considered previously (see
Calhoun & Tedeschi, 1998b) but not examined
empirically. Although this model does not assume
which direction the correlations between variables
will take, it hypothesizes their relative theoretical
positions. First, it is hypothesized that there will be
no significant differences in AT levels between participants who did or did not experience a traumatic
event. In contrast, these two groups will differ in
their growth levels, such that participants who experienced a traumatic event will report higher growth
levels than those who did not experience such an
event. In addition, the relationship between AT and
growth will be mediated by the participants basic
assumptions (see Figure 2). Last, it is hypothesized
that the traumatic event will be a moderating variable in this model.

Method
Participants
This study initially recruited 361 students at various
universities and colleges in Israel, of which 274 were
divided into two groups: those who reported experiencing a traumatic event (n = 151) and those who reported
not experiencing such an event (n = 123), that is, the
trauma group and the no trauma group, respectively. The remaining 87 students were not included in

Downloaded from http://tmt.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on April 19, 2009

Traumatology / Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2007

Table 1. Distribution of the Study Population as a

Function of Demographic Variables
Variable
Type of civil trauma
(the same person can
report more than one
type of trauma)

Origin
Marital status

Posttraumatic Growth Inventory

Values

Lethal car
accident
Sudden death
of a loved one
Sexual abuse
Fire
Violent assault
Other
Native Israelis
Nonnative Israelis
Married or
living together
Unmarried

59

21.5

93

33.9

19
29
28
6
240
34
13

6.9
10.6
10.2
2.2
87.6
12.4
4.7

261

95.3

the final statistics because previous research has shown

that individuals who experienced a military traumatic
event as the 87 did tend to show a different result pattern than those who experienced a civilian traumatic
event (Ben Yaakov, 1999).
The remaining 274 participants consisted of 75
men, aged 18-39 (M = 24.94; SD = 3.06) and 199
women, aged 19-42 (M = 22.76; SD = 2.35).
Thirty-five men and 116 women experienced a
traumatic event, compared with 40 men and 83
women who did not (as measured by the traumatic
event questionnaire described below). Table 1 lists
other demographic variables. The table shows that
the most common traumatic event that the participants experienced was the sudden or unexpected
death of a loved one, the second most common
event being a lethal car accident. The table also
shows that most of the participants (approximately
88%) are native Israelis, and most (95%) are
unmarried.

Measures
Traumatic Event Questionnaire
The traumatic event questionnaire is based on a
questionnaire by Amir and Sol (1999), which was
adapted to the present study. This questionnaire
includes traumatic events reported in the empirical
literature and DSM-IV (American Psychiatric
Association, 1994), as part of the requirements for
developing PTSD. These events include fire, violent
assault, terror attacks, and so on.

Posttraumatic growth was assessed using the

Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI; Tedeschi &
Calhoun, 1996), which was translated to Hebrew
during the course of another study (Lev-Wiesel &
Amir, 2003). The Hebrew translation was modified
in places for the Israeli participants. Designed to
measure positive changes in the aftermath of
trauma, this questionnaire contains 21 items, for
example, an increase in a feeling of self-reliance
and a sense of closeness with others. Participants
rate their agreement with each item using a 6-point
Likert-type scale, ranging from 0 (I did not experience this change as result of my crisis) to 5
(I experienced this change to a very great degree as
a result of my crisis). The inventory has acceptable
construct validity, internal consistency (.90), and
test-retest reliability over a 2-month interval (.71)
(Calhoun et al., 2000; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996).
The present study also found good internal consistency (.90). Because this study included a comparison group that did not experience a traumatic event,
the original instructions were modified: Instead of
attributing the changes to the trauma, control participants were asked about changes during the
course of their lives (for a similar comparison
between participants who experienced trauma and a
comparison group, see Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996).
After completing the PTGI, participants were asked
to what extent the change was attributed to the traumatic event(s) or to other reasons.
Measure of Ambiguity Tolerance
Measure of Ambiguity Tolerance (MAT; Norton,
1975) is a scale designed to measure the degree to
which a person perceives ambiguous situations as
threatening or undesirable. It includes 61 items in
8 domains: philosophy, habits, problem solving, art
forms, job-related behavior, public image, social
interaction, and interpersonal communication. For
example, almost every problem has a solution.
Participants stated their agreement with each statement on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(very strongly agree) to 7 (very strongly disagree). The
mean score is calculated across all 61 items; the
higher the score, the lower the ambiguity tolerance.
Norton (1975) reported that this questionnaire was
significantly correlated with four other measures of
AT and with rigidity and dogmatism scales. In addition, he found an internal consistency of .89, which

Downloaded from http://tmt.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on April 19, 2009

Ambiguity Tolerance in an Israeli Sample of Young Adults / Bayer et al.

was the highest of all four scales (Furnham, 1994).

More recent studies have also found good reliabilities (e.g., Anderson & Schwartz, 1992; Zenasni &
Lubart, 2001). The present study found an internal
consistency of .90. This scale was translated to Hebrew
using the accepted cultural adaptation procedures.

Table 2. Posttraumatic Growth and Basic Assumptions

as a Function of Gender and Marital Status (N = 247)
Demographic Variables

Basic Assumptions

t
df = 272

t
df = 272

Gender
Marital status

World Assumptions Scale

The World Assumptions Scale (WAS) (Janoff-Bulman,
1989b) was designed to measure the participants
basic assumptions. It consists of 32 items, which
produced 8 factors (the factors were not used in this
study), parallel to the 8 subcategories within the 3
basic assumptions (a benevolent world, a meaningful world, and a worthy self). For example, The
world is a good place. The participants stated their
agreement on a 6-point Likert-type scale between 1
(strongly agree) and 6 (strongly disagree). Internal
consistencies of the different 4-item subscales were
between .67 and .78 (Janoff-Bulman, 1989b). The
present study, which did not use the different
subscales, found the general internal consistency of
this questionnaire to be .84. This scale was translated
to Hebrew using the accepted cultural adaptation
procedures.
Demographic Variables
Finally, participants were given a demographic form
to complete, which contained the following items:
age, education, degree, department, study load, marital status, country of birth, parents country of birth,
immigration date, and employment.

Procedure
The participants completed all questionnaires in one
session. The traumatic event questionnaire was
always given first, and the demographic form was
always given last. The sequence of all other inventories was randomized to control for any potential
order effects (no significant differences were found).
A research team member was available during completion of the questionnaires to answer possible
questions. Most participants received course credits for
their participation, although some participated on a
voluntary basis. All respondents participated in the
study anonymously and signed informed consent forms.
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

1.67
.86

4.52*
.35

*p < .01.

Results
Demographic Variables
The relationships between the categorical demographic variables and the mediating and dependent
variables (basic assumptions, PTG) are exhibited in
Table 2. The table shows significant differences in
basic assumptions according to the participants
gender. Women (M = 118.26; SD = 16.74) reported
more positive basic assumptions than men (M =
107.99; SD = 16.8). Therefore, statistic control of
the gender variable was required, and it was inserted
into the regression analyses predicting basic assumptions. On the other hand, the participants marital
status did not significantly influence their PTG and
basic assumptions scores.
Table 3 presents the correlation matrix between
demographic variables (age, education) and the
mediating and dependent variables. Significant correlations were found between age and PTG and age
and basic assumptions. In addition, a significant
correlation between years of education and basic
assumptions was found. These variables were
accordingly controlled in all the relevant statistical
analyses.

Correlations Between Research Variables

Table 4 displays the correlation matrix for the
research variables. As can be seen, all correlations
were significant, except those between trauma and
AT and between trauma and basic assumptions.
The Research Model
Relationship between trauma and growth. Significant
differences in PTG levels were suggested between
the trauma and no-trauma groups. To examine this

Downloaded from http://tmt.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on April 19, 2009

10

Traumatology / Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2007

Table 3. Correlations Between Posttraumatic Growth,

Basic Assumptions, Age, and Education (N = 274)

Age
Years of education

Posttraumatic
Growth

Basic
Assumptions

.126*
.002

.156*
.125*

*p < .05.

Table 4. Correlations Between Research

Variables (N = 274)

PTG
Basic assumptions
AT
Trauma

Posttraumatic
Growth

Basic
Assumptions

Ambiguity
Tolerance

.334**
.154*
.175**

.182**
.076

.078

NOTE: AT = ambiguity tolerance; PTG = posttraumatic growth.

*p < .05; **p < .01.

hypothesis, a t test for independent groups was performed. The results show a significant difference
between the two groups, t(272) = 2.938, p < .01.
Participants in the trauma group (M = 67.03; SD =
16.5) reported higher growth levels than those in the
no-trauma group (M = 61.02; SD = 17.24).
Mediation. The proposed model as to the relationship
between variables in this study is an integrated mediation and moderation model, from which the research
hypotheses were postulated. As for mediation, it was
hypothesized that the relationship between the independent variable AT and the dependent variable PTG
will be mediated by basic assumptions. Baron and
Kenny (1986) describe a mediating variable as one
that is influenced by the independent variables and,
in turn, influences the criteria variable. They propose
4 conditions for presuming mediation.
First, the independent variable (AT) significantly
influences the criteria variable (PTG). Second, the
independent variable (AT) significantly influences
the mediating variable (basic assumptions). Third,
the mediating variable (basic assumptions) significantly influences the criteria variable (PTG) when
the independent variable (AT) is entered into the
regression. Finally, the independent variables (AT)
influence on the criteria variable (PTG) is significantly diminished when the mediating variable
(basic assumptions) is entered into the regression.

Moderation. In addition, it was hypothesized that

the above-mentioned model will be moderated by
the trauma. According to Baron and Kenny (1986),
a moderating variable influences the relationship
between an independent variable and a dependent
variable by setting the conditions under which a certain effect will occur, in addition to the conditions
under which its direction or intensity will change.
This is typical for a weak or unstable relationship
between predictive and criteria variables (Holmbeck,
1997). Thus, it has been hypothesized that the
moderation will be portrayed by a different result
pattern in the trauma group versus the no-trauma
group. Therefore, the statistical analyses regarding
the mediation model were performed separately
for the two groups. To control the demographic
variables stated above (gender, age, education),
these variables were entered into all the regression
analyses.

The No-Trauma Group

To inspect the four conditions for mediation in the notrauma comparison group, three multiple regression
analyses were conducted. The results are summarized
in Table 5, according to the relevant condition.
Condition A. Table 5 shows that AT significantly
influences PTG, such that the lower the AT, the
higher the PTG level. Thus, the first condition
a significant influence of the independent variable
(AT) on the dependent variable (PTG)is met.
Condition B. As manifested in Table 6, there was a
significant influence of AT on basic assumptions.
Here, too, the lower the AT level, the higher the
level of the basic assumptions. Hence, the second
conditionthat is, a significant influence of the
independent variable (AT) on the mediating variable
(basic assumptions)is also fulfilled.
Condition C. As shown in Table 6, when AT and basic
assumptions were entered together into the regression analysis, a significant influence of basic assumptions on PTG ensued, such that the more positive the
basic assumptions, the higher the PTG level.
Condition D. In contrast, Table 6 demonstrates that
when these variables were entered into the regression
together with PTG as the dependent variable, ATs
decreased and became insignificant. A Sobol test
procured a significant reduction, Z = 2.196, p < .05.

Downloaded from http://tmt.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on April 19, 2009

Ambiguity Tolerance in an Israeli Sample of Young Adults / Bayer et al.

11

Table 5. Multiple Regression Analyses for the No-Trauma Group (n = 123)

Condition
A
B
C, D

Dependent Variable

Independent Variable

df

R2

AT
AT
PTG

PTG
Basic assumptions

2.541*
9.641**
4.8777**

4, 118
4, 118
5, 117

.08
.25
.17

.264**
.319**

AT
Basic assumptions

.152
.352**

NOTE: The higher the AT score, the lower the AT level. Gender, age, and years of education are statistically controlled. AT =
ambiguity tolerance; PTG = posttraumatic growth.
*p < .05; **p < .01.

Table 6. Multiple Regression Analyses for the Trauma Group (n = 151)

Condition
A
B
C, D

Dependent Variable
AT
AT
PTG

Independent Variable

df

R2

PTG
Basic assumptions

.771
1.095
3.092*

4, 146
4, 146
5, 117

.021
.029
.096

.006
.011

AT
Basic assumptions

.009
.279**

NOTE: The higher the AT score, the lower the AT level. Gender, age, and years of education are statistically controlled. AT = ambiguity
tolerance; PTG = posttraumatic growth.
*p < .05; **p < .01.

Discussion

The Trauma Group

The analyses mentioned above were conducted for
the trauma group as well (see Table 6). The table
indicates that the first two conditions for mediation
are not fulfilled, that is, the independent variable
(AT) does not affect the dependent variable (PTG).
Moreover, the independent variable (AT) does not
affect the mediating variable (basic assumptions).
Consequently, no mediation effect was observed.
Nevertheless, the influence of the basic assumptions
on PTG remained significant in this group as well,
such that the more positive the basic assumptions,
the higher the PTG level.

Summary of the Main Results

The original hypotheses of this research were essentially confirmed by the results. As assumed, the two
groups manifested a different pattern (see Figure 3):
In the no-trauma group, the basic assumptions variable was as a mediating factor between AT and PTG.
In contrast, in the trauma group, no mediation was
found. This difference in the result pattern confirms
the moderating role of the trauma in this model.

The purpose of this study was to contribute to the

body of research in the realm of posttraumatic
growth by illuminating this process from a new perspective: that is, an examination of the relationship
between exposure to trauma, tolerance of ambiguity,
basic assumptions, and their collective influence on
posttraumatic growth. The results indicate that participants who experienced a traumatic event reported
higher growth levels than those who had not experienced such an event. In addition, the relationship
between AT and growth was mediated by the participants basic assumptions, such that the lower the
AT, the higher the level of basic assumptions and,
accordingly, the higher the level of growth. This
effect was found only in the group of participants
who were not exposed to a traumatic event, whereas
a mediating effect was not observed among participants exposed to a traumatic event. Nevertheless, in
the latter group, a positive correlation was also
found between basic assumptions and growth. Thus,
exposure to trauma is a moderating factor in this
model.

Downloaded from http://tmt.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on April 19, 2009

12

Traumatology / Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2007

Figure 3. Summary of the mediation and moderation model

with the s indicated. AT = ambiguity tolerance; PTG = posttraumatic growth.

Traumatic events are considered to be qualitatively different than normative events, given that they
shatter existing psychological structures and increase
the search for meaning and control (Janoff-Bulman,
1992). When facing an event that is perceived as
threatening, the person is aided by a system of positive illusions that play an adaptive role (Taylor &
Brown, 1988), and as such they are of a defensive
quality. As mentioned above, it was also found that in
the group of participants who have not experienced a
traumatic event, a positive correlation exists between
basic assumptions and growth. Hence, it is possible
to assume that in everyday life, stressful events cause
a small-scale threat to the basic assumptions. JanoffBulman (1992) suggests that these assumptions are
high-order cognitive structures, which tend to be
self-sustained, eluding conscious awareness. This
claim, along with the findings of this study, allows us
to assume that the more a person feels threatened by
an external event, the more she or he will cling to the
defensive illusion, for example, by means of denial
(Janoff-Bulman & Timko, 1987).
It is probable that the individuals personality,
which affects ones perception of life events, will also
affect the need to defend his or her conscious awareness. As mentioned before, in the group not exposed
to trauma, it was found that the lower the AT levels,
the higher the growth levels reported by the participants. These findings may seem surprising, but it is
possible that the trauma these participants experienced stems from an accumulated feeling of distress
throughout their entire lives. At some point, even a
nontraumatic (DSM-wise) event might be that last
straw that will trigger a strong desire for change.

Another surprising finding is that, following

trauma, the AT level was not connected at all with
basic assumptions or growth. A possible explanation
for this phenomenon may be found in Calhoun and
Tedeschis (1998b) hypothesis that high versus low
AT will show different patterns of growth following
trauma: Low AT will exhibit abrupt growth, whereas
high AT will show gradual growth. They suggest that
low-AT individuals feel that, like a forest fire, which
allows renewed growth, the trauma releases them
from maladaptive goals and beliefs. Thus, individuals
with different AT levels might have reported similar
growth levels quantitatively but, in fact, experienced
two types of growth, which differ qualitatively.
Alternatively, the tendency of low-AT individuals
to feel heightened distress when facing life events
raises the hypothesis that these individuals respond
to normative events as though they were subjectively
traumatic (see Keinan, 1994). The present study
showed that, similar to individuals who experienced
a traumatic event, those with low AT reported high
growth levels compared to that of high-AT individuals, even though they had not been exposed to a
traumatic event. This is in concert with previous
studies, suggesting that low-AT individuals, show an
increased tendency for worry, magical thinking, and
causal attribution, all of which are cognitive mechanisms that distort reality somewhat to increase control (e.g., Friedland & Keinan, 1991; Keinan, 1994).
Indeed, treatment methods devised to increase the
capacity of a patient to cope with uncertainty (e.g.,
Dugas et al., 1996; Ladouceur et al., 2000) may lead
to better coping with stressful life events and
reduced symptomatology.
In contrast, under extreme stress conditions, such
as a traumatic event, it seems that the external circumstances play a more significant role than the personality (see, for instance, Friedland et al., 1999). In
other words, the growth process may be a result of
defense mechanisms designed to help individuals
cope with external events that they perceive to be
unbearable, due either to the traumatic nature of the
event itself or to their general incapacity to cope with
stressful events. Validating these assumptions will
require further studies, which should focus on examining the above-mentioned variables under different
levels of external stress.
The study has several limitations: First, an
essential modification to PTGI instructions (see the
Method section) was employed to examine PTG in
the comparison group, which had not been exposed

Downloaded from http://tmt.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on April 19, 2009

Ambiguity Tolerance in an Israeli Sample of Young Adults / Bayer et al.

to a traumatic event (for a similar modification, see

Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). Second, participants
self-report might be biased owing to the illusionbased nature of PTG (see Lehman et al., 1993; Park,
Cohen, & Murch, 1996). Third, trauma research is
mostly retrospective, which impedes our capacity to
establish viable conclusions as to the causality and
directions of the correlations between variables
(Frazier et al., 2001). It should also be noted that this
study was composed of a nonclinical, nonstratified
Israeli student sample. A similar sample has been
found to be similar to other studies conducted elsewhere regarding the frequency of traumatic events
experienced (e.g., Amir & Sol, 1999). Nevertheless, it
is possible that the correlations found in this study are
not entirely characteristic of other populations. In
this context, Israelis have been exposed to prolonged
trauma on a national basis, and therefore their baseline of trauma might be different from other cultures.

References
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. (1978).
Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington,
DC: Author.
Amir, M., & Sol, O. (1999). Psychological impact and prevalence of traumatic events in a student sample in Israel:
The effect of multiple traumatic events and physical
injury. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 12, 139-154.
Anderson, S. M., & Schwartz, A. H. (1992). Intolerance of
ambiguity and depression: A cognitive vulnerability linked
to hopelessness. Social Cognition, 10, 271-298.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychology research:
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Ben Yaakov (1999). Traumas in military and civilian contexts,
posttraumatic stress disorder and suicidal risk. Master of
arts degree dissertation, Department of Psychology, Ben
Gurion, Beer Sheva, Israel.
Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality
variable. Journal of Personality, 30, 29-50.
Calhoun, L. G. (1996, August). Posttraumatic growth: A
functional descriptive model. In R. G. Tedeschi (Chair),
Posttraumatic growth: An overview of contemporary models. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Toronto.
Calhoun, L. G., Cann, A., Tedeschi, R. G., & McMillan, J.
(1998). Traumatic events and generational differences in
assumptions about a just world. Journal of Social Psychology,
138, 789-791.

13

Calhoun, L. G., Cann, A., Tedeschi, R. G., & McMillan, J.

(2000). A correlational test of the relationship between
posttraumatic growth, religion, and cognitive processing.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 13, 521-527.
Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (1998a). Beyond recovery
from trauma: Implications for clinical practice and
research. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 357-371.
Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (1998b). Posttraumatic
growth: Future directions. In R. G. Tedeschi, C. L. Park,
& L. G. Calhoun (Eds.), Posttraumatic growth: Positive
changes in the aftermath of crisis (pp. 127-151). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohen, L. H., Hettler, T. R., & Pane, N. (1998). Assessment
of posttraumatic growth. In R. G. Tedeschi, C. L. Park, &
L. G. Calhoun (Eds.), Posttraumatic growth: Positive
changes in the aftermath of crisis (pp. 23-42). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Collins, R. L., Taylor, S. E., & Skokan, L. A. (1990). A better
world or a shattered vision? Changes in life perspectives
following victimization. Social Cognition, 8, 263-285.
Cordova, M. J., Cunningham, L. L. C., Carlson, C. R., &
Andryowski, M. A. (2001). Posttraumatic growth following breast cancer: A controlled comparison study. Health
Psychology, 20, 176-185.
Dugas, M. J., Freeston, M. H., & Ladouceur, R. (1997).
Intolerance of uncertainty and problem orientation in
worry. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21, 593-606.
Dugas, M. J., Gagnon, F., Ladouceur, R., & Freeston, M. H.
(1998). Generalized anxiety disorder: A preliminary test of a conceptual model. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 215-226.
Dugas, M. J., Gosselin, P., & Ladouceur, R. (2001).
Intolerance of uncertainty and worry: Investigating specificity
in a nonclinical sample. Cognitive Therapy and Research,
25, 551-558.
Dugas, M. J., Ladouceur, R., Boisvert, J. M., & Freeston, M. H.
(1996). Le trouble danxiete generalisee: Elements fondamentaux et interventions psychologiques [Generalized anxiety disorder: Fundamental elements and psychological
interventions]. Canadian Psychology, 37, 40-53.
Epstein, S. (1980). The self-concept: A review and the proposal
of an integrated theory of personality. In E. Staub (Ed.),
Personality: Basic issues and current research (pp. 82-132).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Franklin, K. M., Janoff-Bulman, R., & Roberts, J. E. (1989).
Long-term impact of parental divorce on optimism and
trust: Changes in general assumptions of narrow beliefs?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 743-755.
Frazier, P., Conlon, A., & Glaser, T. (2001). Positive and
negative life changes following sexual assault. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 1048-1055.
Freeston, M. H., Rhaume, J., Letarte, H., Dugas, J., &
Ladouceur, R. (1994). Why do people worry? Personality
and Individual Differences, 17, 791-802.
Frenkle-Brunswick, E. (1948). Intolerance of ambiguity as
an emotional and perceptual personality variable. Journal
of Personality, 17, 108-143.

Downloaded from http://tmt.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on April 19, 2009

14

Traumatology / Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2007

Frenkle-Brunswick, E. (1949). Tolerance towards ambiguity

as a personality variable. American Psychologist, 3, 268.
Friedland, N., & Keinan, G. (1991). The effect of stress,
ambiguity tolerance and trait anxiety on the formation of
causal relationships. Journal of Research in Personality,
25, 88-107.
Friedland, N., Keinan, G., & Tytiun, T. (1999). The effect of
psychological stress and tolerance of ambiguity on stereotypic attributions. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 12, 397-410.
Frone, M. R. (1990). Intolerance of ambiguity as a moderator of the occupational role stress-strain relationship: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11,
309-320.
Furnham, A. (1994). A content, correlational and factor analytic study of four tolerance of ambiguity questionnaires.
Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 403-410.
Furnham, A., & Ribchester, T. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the concept, its measurement and applications. Current Psychology: Development, Learning,
Personality, Social, 14(3), 179-199.
Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and
moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 65, 599-610.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1989a). The benefits of illusions, the
threat of disillusionment, and the limitations of inaccuracy. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 8, 158-175.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1989b). Assumptive worlds and the
stress of traumatic events: Applications of the schema
construct. Social Cognition, 7, 113-136.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions. New York:
Free Press.
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Schwarzberg, S. (1991). Toward a general model of personal change. In C. R. Snyder & D. R.
Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology:
The health perspective (pp. 488-508). New York: Pergamon.
Janoff-Bulman, R, & Timko, C. (1987). Coping with traumatic life events: The role of denial in light of peoples
assumptive worlds. In C. R. Snyder & C. Ford (Eds.),
Coping with negative life events: Clinical and social psychological perspectives. New York: Plenum.
Keenan, A., & McBain, G. D. M. (1979). Effects of type A
behavior, intolerance of ambiguity, and locus of control on
the relationship between role stress and work-related outcomes. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 277-285.
Keinan, G. (1994). Effects of tolerance of ambiguity on magical thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
67, 48-55.
Krohne, H. W. (1989). The concept of coping modes:
Relating cognitive person variables to actual coping behaviour. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 11,
235-248.
Krohne, H. W. (1993). Vigilence and cognitive avoidance as concepts in coping research. In H. W. Krohne (Ed.), Attention and
avoidance (pp. 19-50). Toronto: Hogrefe & Huber.

Ladouceur, R., Dugas, M. J., Freeston, M. H., Leger, E.,

Gagnon, F., & Thibodeau, N. (2000). Efficacy of a cognitivebehavioral treatment for generalized anxiety disorder:
Evaluation in a controlled clinical trial. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 68, 957-964.
Ladouceur, R., Gosselin, P., & Dugas, M. J. (2000).
Experimental manipulation of intolerance of uncertainty:
A study of a theoretical model of worry. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 38, 933-941.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and
coping. New York: Springer.
Lehman, D., Davis, C., Delongis, A., Wortman, C., Bluck, S.,
Mandel, D., et al. (1993). Positive and negative life
changes following bereavement and their relations to
adjustment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 12,
90-112.
Lev-Wiesel, R., & Amir, M. (2003). Post-traumatic growth
among Holocaust child survivors. Journal of Loss and
Trauma, 8, 229-237.
Lysonski, S., & Andrews, C. J. (1990). Effects of moderating
variables on product managers behavior. Psychological
Reports, 66, 295-306.
McDonald, A. P., Jr. (1970). Revised scale for ambiguity tolerance: Reliability and validity. Psychological Reports, 26,
791-798.
Miller, W. R., & CdeBaca, J. (1994). Quantum change:
Toward a psychology of transformation. In T. F. Heatherton
& J. L. Weinberger (Eds.), Can personality change?
(pp. 253-281). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Nicotera, A. M., Smilowitz, M., & Pearson, J. C. (1990).
Ambiguity tolerance, conflict management style and argumentativeness as predictors of innovativeness. Communication Research Reports, 7, 125-131.
Norton, R. W. (1975). Measurement of ambiguity tolerance.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 39, 607-619.
OLeary, V. E., Alday, S. C., & Ickovics, J. R. (1998). Models
of life change and posttraumatic growth. In R. G. Tedeschi,
C. L. Park, & L. G. Calhoun (Eds.), Posttraumatic growth:
Positive changes in the aftermath of crisis (pp. 127-151).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
OLeary, V. E., & Ickovics, J. R. (1995). Resilience and thriving in response to challenge: An opportunity for a paradigm shift in womens health. Womens Health: Research
on Gender, Behavior and Policy, 1, 121-142.
Overcash, W. S., Calhoun, L. G., Cann, A., & Tedeschi, R. G.
(1996). Coping with crises: An examination of the impact
of traumatic events on religious beliefs. Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 157, 455-464.
Park, C. L. (1998). Implications of posttraumatic growth for
individuals. In R. G. Tedeschi, C. L. Park, & L. G. Calhoun
(Eds.), Posttraumatic growth: Positive changes in the aftermath
of crisis (pp. 153-177). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Park, C. L., Cohen, L. H., & Murch, R. L. (1996). Assessment
and prediction of stress related growth. Journal of Personality,
64, 71-105.

Downloaded from http://tmt.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on April 19, 2009

Ambiguity Tolerance in an Israeli Sample of Young Adults / Bayer et al.

Rotter, N. G., & OConnell, A. N. (1982). The relationships

among sex-role orientation, cognitive complexity and tolerance of ambiguity. Sex Roles, 8, 1209-1220.
Schaefer, J. A., & Moos, R. H. (1998). The context for posttraumatic growth: Life crises, individual and social resources,
and coping. In R. G. Tedeschi, C. L. Park, & L. G. Calhoun
(Eds.), Posttraumatic growth: Positive changes in the aftermath of crisis (pp. 99-125). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Taylor, S. E. (1983). Adjustment to threatening events: A theory
of cognitive adaptation. American Psychologist, 38, 624-630.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A
social psychological perspective on mental health.
Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
Tedeschi, R. G. (1999). Violence transformed: Posttraumatic
growth in survivors and their societies. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 4, 319-341.
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The Posttraumatic
Growth Inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of
trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 455-471.
Tedeschi, R. G., Park, C., & Calhoun, L. G. (1998). Posttraumatic
growth: Conceptual issues. In R. G. Tedeschi, C. L. Park,
& L. G. Calhoun (Eds.), Posttraumatic growth: Positive

15

changes in the aftermath of crisis (pp. 1-22). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tegano, D. W. (1990). Relationship of tolerance of ambiguity and playfulness to creativity. Psychological Reports, 66,
1047-1056.
Tennen, H., & Affleck, G. (1998). Personality and transformation in the face of adversity. In R. G. Tedeschi, C. L.
Park, & L. G. Calhoun (Eds.), Posttraumatic growth:
Positive changes in the aftermath of crisis (pp. 65-98).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
van der Kolk, B. A., & McFarlane, A. C. (1996). The black
hole of trauma. In B. A. van der Kolk, A. C. McFarlane, &
L. Weisaeth (Eds.), Traumatic stress (pp. 3-23). New York:
Guilford.
Zenasni, F., & Lubart, T. (2001). Adaptation francaise dune
epreuve de tolerance a lambiguite: Le M.A.T [French
adaptation of a test of tolerance of ambiguity: The
Measurement of Ambiguity Tolerance (MAT)]. Revue
Europenne de psychologie applique, 51, 3-12.

Downloaded from http://tmt.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on April 19, 2009