Ambiguity Tolerance in Productional Creativity

Full text

Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty,
Section: Social Sciences
ISSN: 2284 – 5747 (print), ISSN: 2284 – 5747
(electronic)
Covered in: CEEOL, Index Copernicus, Ideas
RePeC, EconPapers, Socionet
AMBIGUITY TOLERANCE IN PRODUCTIONAL
CREATIVITY
Beatrice Adriana BALGIU
Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty, Section:
Social Sciences, 2014, Year III, Issue 1, pp: 29-40
Published by:
Lumen Publishing House
On behalf of:
Lumen Research Center in Social and Humanistic Sciences

Ambiguity Tolerance in Productional Creativity
Beatrice Adriana BALGIU
29
Ambiguity Tolerance in Productional Creativity
Beatrice Adriana BALGIU1
Abstract
Ambiguity tolerance consists in the “ability to live” with ambiguity to cope with the
stimuli or with the situations which are not clearly structured, which are new and complex.
The analysis of ambiguity tolerance in the studies on creativity has become relatively important
lately. The objective of present research was to analyze the ambiguity tolerance in the potential
and productional creativity. In these conditions, creativity was measured by a test of potential
creative thinking, on the one hand, and creativity tasks consisting in demand for building logo-
texts, on the other hand.
The results show that there is a positive correlation between ambiguity tolerance and
creativity, the important contribution having the ideational fluency and flexibility in both cases.
We can consider that the more individuals tolerate ambiguity, the greater their creative
potential and the more they will show it in their creative productions.
Keywords:
ambiguity tolerance, creativity, creative construction tasks, students, logos
1 Associate Professor, Politehnica University of Bucharest, Romania,
beatricebalgiu@yahoo.com, beatrice.balgiu@upb.ro.
Balgiu, B.A. (2014). Ambiguity Tolerance in Productional Creativity. Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty, Section:
Social Sciemces, Year III, Issue 1, 2014, pp. 29-40

L
ogos
U
niversality
M
entality
E
ducation
N
ovelty
Section: Social Sciences
30
1. Introduction
The analysis of ambiguity tolerance in the studies on creativity has
become relatively important lately. The latter was examined in association with
various psychological variables such as creative motivation and the need for
achievement (Stoycheva, 2008), intrinsic motivation (Urban, 2003), risk-taking
(Lauriola & Levin, 2001), with the personality factors in the Big Five model
(McCulloch, Kaul, Wagstaff & Wheatcroft, 2005), as well as with phenomena
such as organizational behaviour (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik & Welbourne, 1999),
academic achievement (Boyd, Hunt, Kandell & Lucas, 2003), academic
leadership (Kajs & McCollum, 2009) and even the propensity to cheat during
exams (Thompson, Austin & Walters, 2004).
As expected, the most frequent studies highlighted and confirmed the
association between ambiguity tolerance and potential creativity measured by
means of questionnaires and divergent thinking tests (Vernon, 1970; Sternberg
& Lubart, 1995; Durheim & Foster, 1997; Stoycheva, 2003). However, there are
very few studies on the relation between ambiguity tolerance and the
production of ideas. We will refer to the latter in the following lines. A review
study on the relationship between ambiguity tolerance and creativity found in
the work of Furnham & Marks (2013).
2. Ambiguity tolerance in the production of ideas
Ambiguity tolerance (AT) consists in the “ability to live” with ambiguity
(Stoycheva, 2003), to cope with the stimuli or with the situations which are not
clearly structured, which are new and complex (Radant, 2008). The individuals
who do not tolerate ambiguity perceive and interpret ambiguous situations as a
source of psychological discomfort and they tend to avoid the latter. In
addition, they experiment intense negative affectivity such as stress and anxiety.
The individuals who are more tolerant to ambiguity have the ability to tolerate
feelings of anxiety and uncertainty. The affective reactions are less intense and
varied. They perceive and interpret an ambiguous situation more adequately,
more realistically, without distorting the complexity of problems.
While the studies on the relation between ambiguity tolerance (AT) and
potential creativity measured by means of tests are in agreement with one
another and shed some light on the importance of AT in creativity, there is little
research on the association between AT and the activity of individuals in
creative solution tasks; this may be due to some procedures which are more
difficult than the application and quantification of questionnaires, inventories
etc.
Balgiu, B.A. (2014). Ambiguity Tolerance in Productional Creativity. Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty, Section:
Social Sciemces, Year III, Issue 1, 2014, pp. 29-40

Ambiguity Tolerance in Productional Creativity
Beatrice Adriana BALGIU
31
One such major research was conducted by Comadena (1984) who
examined the creative performance of 76 graduates during brainstorming
sessions and who observed that there was a positive relation between ambiguity
tolerance and the number of generated ideas.
In a different context, Zenasni, Besancon and Lubart (2008) used three
methods of measuring creativity for a sample of 68 subjects (34 teenagers and
34 parents): the provision of as many titles as possible in the case of some
ambiguous stimuli, the writing of stories based on ambiguous stimuli and the
application of a self-assessment scale for creative personality. Results showed
that AT is related to fluency and uniqueness and, to a smaller extent, to
originality. Individuals’ ability to tolerate ambiguity is related to the ability to
generate unique and original ideas and to produce creative stories.
After researching on the relation between teenagers’ AT and creative
performance, Stoycheva (2009) concluded that subjects with high AT generate
ideas and solutions which are more original and titles which are less descriptive
and more abstract in verbal and nonverbal tasks in Torrance tests in
comparison with the subjects with low AT. In another experimental study
(Stoycheva, Popova & Komneva, 2007) on the impact of redefining problems
in the generation of creative solutions, two groups of business administration
students were asked to generate original and efficient solutions for real life
problems. Psychologists assessed the redefinition of problem, while
experimented managers assessed the creativity of solutions proposed for the
problems. Individual differences in AT were related to the redefinition of
problems and creativity. The subjects with high AT proceeded to redefinitions
of problems subsequently assessed as larger and more generalized, and the
creativity score of the solutions in the case of redefined problems was higher
than the score in the case of the problems which were not redefined.
We also present a piece of research whose objective was the
investigation of the relationship between ambiguity tolerance, the personality
traits measured by means of questionnaires based on the Big Five model, and
ideational creativity evaluated by means of brainstorming (Balgiu, 2012). For
this, four fifty-minute brainstorming sessions were used in the case of 52
students. The method of brainstorming, conceived as a method of creating
stimulation, was used in this case in order to make students solve heuristic tasks
in order to evaluate the respective subjects’ creativity with it.
Starting from the results mentioned above, we find it important to test
the relation between AT and creativity by means of measurements which
include productional originality.
Balgiu, B.A. (2014). Ambiguity Tolerance in Productional Creativity. Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty, Section:
Social Sciemces, Year III, Issue 1, 2014, pp. 29-40

L
ogos
U
niversality
M
entality
E
ducation
N
ovelty
Section: Social Sciences
32
3. Method
Objective: 1. The evaluation of AT within a group of engineering
students; 2. The analysis of the relationship between AT and productional
creativity using as creativity indicators both a creativity test and a new method
of assessing creativity: creative construction tasks. We try to replicate the results
with new measurements within a new sample.
Hypothesis: the relation between AT and potential creativity is
consonant with the implication of AT in product creativity.
Subjects: 210 technical students (74 girls and 136 boys) from years II –
IV of the Polytechnica University of Bucharest – the largest state technical
university from Romania. The age average of the sample is: M = 20, 41 S.D. =
1,45. The participants study technical creativity (the exact name of the course in
the Romanian language is Psychoinventics) and Engineering Graphics. The
tests below were applied during the seminar classes of the respective courses.
The students were not given any material reward for the completion of
questionnaires. All participants received the questionnaires in paper-and-pencil
version.
Instruments:
1. Scale of ambiguity tolerance (Nutt, 1988) created by adapting Budner’s
1962 AT scale. The scale is made of 16 items evaluated in seven stages, from 1
− totally disagree to 7 − totally agree. 8 items are evaluated in reverse. Examples of
items: An expert who does not give a definitive answer probably does not know that much;
Teachers or supervisors who hand out vague assignments give one a chance to show initiative
and originality. According to Nutt (1988), this test has good characteristics of
measurement, and it demonstrates a quotient of internal consistency of 0,86
within the samples used.
In order to measure creativity and its parameters, we used the following
two modalities:
2. The creativity test entitled “Unusual Usages” elaborated and
standardized by Stoica-Constantin & Caluschi (1989 and revised 2006) on a
Romanian population in order to measure potential creative thinking ( =
0,89). The test consists in discovering as many usages as possible for an
ordinary cane with a spike at the lower end. The test lasts for 5 minutes
(determined by the test authors). Creativity is summarized by its three
dimensions, fluency (the total number of ideas), flexibility (the passage from
one category of items to another) and originality (calculated by checking every
answer against the list of items evaluated by means of a scale from 0 (banal) to
13, where 13 is the minimal frequency of appearance, therefore, a high degree
of originality. Finally, we add the originality scores for all the answers, thus,
obtaining a score at this factor per test). The gross scores for the three
Balgiu, B.A. (2014). Ambiguity Tolerance in Productional Creativity. Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty, Section:
Social Sciemces, Year III, Issue 1, 2014, pp. 29-40

Ambiguity Tolerance in Productional Creativity
Beatrice Adriana BALGIU
33
dimensions are turned into a standard score on the progressive scale of 1 to 9.
Our prior experience with the respective test makes us believe that it is mainly
based on the assessment of great creative force. We believe that the test
addresses the intellectual component of creativity and, at the same time, creative
attitudes such as restructuring day-to-day life, focusing on risk, the sense of
humor (the request to name less ordinary usages urges the subject to do away
with common, stereotypical images).
3. Creative construction tasks. The tasks were created starting from the
definitions proposed by Lubart (1994) and Amabile (1996), according to whom
a creative task is an open-ended solving process adapted to the abilities of
participants and guided under restrictions. This type of tasks can be used for
individuals’ assessment.
- Task no. 1 for verbal creativity with graphical support. Thus, the subjects
were asked to create logo texts for three graphical representations considered
significant for life situations, such as a microphone in a radio station, a funerary
car and a car service. These situations were chosen as they are considered to
have a large coverage in the social life of the community. The subjects were
instructed to create as many logos as possible, logos that should be different
from those that other people could propose;
- Task no. 2 is created for verbal creativity in the absence of the visual
support. The subjects were asked to create titles for a commercial for a courier
service. The time limit for completion was 30 minutes in the first case and 10
minutes in the second.
In order to measure performance we examined the fluency of ideas (the
number of relevant ideas), flexibility (the categories of answer), and originality
(the rarity of ideas). The latter was analyzed by two evaluators by means of the
inter-subjective technique which focuses on the subjective appraisal of the
original products. The two evaluators assessed the logo-texts independently on
a scale from 1 to 7: 1− banal, 7 − very original. The consensuality of the inter-
evaluators was calculated and it was satisfactory ά = 69 for task no.1, ά = 58
for task no. 2. Finally, the average of the marks given by the evaluators was
calculated. For task 1, which contains in fact three subtasks, we added the
scores for the dimensions of fluency, flexibility and originality within the three
subtasks.
Procedure: The participants are students in the course of technical
creativity (the precise title of the course in the Romanian language is
Psihoinventica) and Engineering Graphics. The tests below were applied during
the seminar classes of the respective courses. The subjects were not given any
material compensation for filling in the questionnaires. AT tests and creativity
tests were applied at the beginning of the course; towards the end of the course,
Balgiu, B.A. (2014). Ambiguity Tolerance in Productional Creativity. Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty, Section:
Social Sciemces, Year III, Issue 1, 2014, pp. 29-40

L
ogos
U
niversality
M
entality
E
ducation
N
ovelty
Section: Social Sciences
34
approximately two months later, the second method of measuring creativity was
applied. All the tests were applied collectively.
Apart from the primary analysis used for gathering the results specific to
the category of examined subjects, we used correlational analysis (a Pearson
correlation matrix). The data of the research were processed with the
STATISTICA software.
4. Results and discussions
4.1. Levels and significations of general data
As table no.1 shows, the group of subjects analyzed is characterized by
moderated AT (M = 57,87 S.D. = 7,87). We can state that the respective
students have a moderate reaction to ambiguous stimuli and they adapt to the
latter with an acceptable speed.
To the extent to which one can compare groups of youths from
different countries and having some reservations with respect to the
generalization of results, one can infer that the AT of the students who
participated in the present study is more reduced than that of the American
engineering students investigated by means of AT Budner scale (the latter
present M = 48,9 apud Aven, De Vries, Williams & Smith, 2002) and even that
of those in library science (M = 29,82, S.D. = 10,16 – Helmick, 1982) and
medicine (Sherrill, 2001). This seems plausible if we refer back to the original
standard test created by Nutt (1988) and Johns (1998) where M = 45,00. The
difference between the Romanian and the American norm can be also
explained by the asymmetry between the number of men and women in the
present sample (the prevalence of males is specific to technical universities in
Romania). We have not achieved gender differences in this regard.
Balgiu, B.A. (2014). Ambiguity Tolerance in Productional Creativity. Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty, Section:
Social Sciemces, Year III, Issue 1, 2014, pp. 29-40

Ambiguity Tolerance in Productional Creativity
Beatrice Adriana BALGIU
35
Table 1
Averages and standard deviations
The averages for the creative potential are shown in table no. 1 at the
level of standard scores (Creativity test). Originality and creativity are moderate
(class 5 and 6 from scale of 1 to 9). There is also moderate creativity (expressed
by the 4 parameters) obtained in the case of both creativity tasks, which,
possibly, prevails over low correlations in terms of number and intensity.
Some of the logos considered to have high originality (M between 5,75
− 7,75) are: For the courier service – Fast, faster and faster. Fan Curier; Faster than
optic fiber; We do away with borders; Packages under one kilo are delivered in
the solar system for free. We are not fast, it is just that the others are slow. For
the car service – Beauty spa for your car; Our deliveries are gone with the wind;
Nothing gets damaged, everything gets fixed; For the funerary car – We redefine
space and comfort for ever; The last five-star journey; Next to you until the
end; For the radio − A radio that leads a world in movement, Stop singing in the
shower! Make yourself known!; Your voice, your dream, our studio; In the
beginning was the word, wasn’t it ?
4.2. The comparative analysis of intercorrelations
Table no. 2 shows the intercorrelation of variables. We obtained
consistent correlations between the parameters of the methods of measuring
creativity (creativity test, task 1 and task 2) and between the parameters of the
two tasks which measure creativity by creating logos. There is a reduced
Variables
Means
Min.
Max.
S.D.
Tolerance of
ambiguity
57,87
37
77
7,87
Creativity test
Fluency
5,69
2
9
1,88
Flexibility
6,36
2
9
1,80
Originality
4,94
1
9
1,86
Creativity
5,66
2
9
1,86
Task 1
Fluency
7,96
1
22
4,94
Flexibility
7,71
1
20
4,67
Originality
25,70
1
95
17,77
Task 2
Fluency
4,39
1
13
2,81
Flexibility
4,10
1
11
2,64
Originality
13,42
1
49
9,33
Balgiu, B.A. (2014). Ambiguity Tolerance in Productional Creativity. Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty, Section:
Social Sciemces, Year III, Issue 1, 2014, pp. 29-40

L
ogos
U
niversality
M
entality
E
ducation
N
ovelty
Section: Social Sciences
36
number of correlations (three) between potential creativity and creativity
measured from a productional point of view.
In addition, the factorial analysis has shown a two-factor solution
(Varimax row) which comprises, on the one hand, the variables of fluency,
flexibility, originality and creativity evaluated by means of the test of potential
creativity (variance = 3, 99, proportion = .21), and, on the other hand, factor
no. 2 shows a load with the fluency, the uniqueness and the originality evaluated
by means of the task of creating logos in the case of task no. 1 ( with a visual
support) – variance = 9,10, proportion = .47. This result suggests that the two
measures address some partially distinct aspects of creativity.
Table 2
The intercorrelation of variables
Variables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1. Tolerance
of ambiguity
1
2. Fluency
(creativity test)
13
1
3. Flexibility
(creativity test)
10
76*
1
4. Originality
(creativity test)
17*
82*
65*
1
5. Creativity
(creativity test)
14*
78*
56*
69*
1
6. Fluency
(task 1)
25*
21
15
24
26
1
7. Flexibility
(task 1)
25*
19
13
22
24
99*
1
8. Originality
(task 1)
16
29*
24
31*
32*
81*
81*
1
9.Fluency
(task 2)
23*
–07
–08
–01
00
69*
71*
63*
1
10. Flexibility
(task 2)
19*
03
04
08
08
69*
70*
65*
98*
1
11.Originality
(task 2)
17
09
13
16
14
60*
61*
67*
84*
.88*
1
Further on, the correlational analysis shows the fact that AT is poorly,
but significantly linked to originality (r =.17) and potential creativity (r =.14).
We obtained moderate significant positive correlations between AT and the
fluidity and the flexibility within tasks 1 and 2 (coefficient between 19 and 25).
The relationship between AT and originality is not obvious and does not reach
p <.01. Although flexibility is quite strongly linked to originality, this difference
between results can reflect the difference of cognitive strategies in different
Balgiu, B.A. (2014). Ambiguity Tolerance in Productional Creativity. Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty, Section:
Social Sciemces, Year III, Issue 1, 2014, pp. 29-40

Ambiguity Tolerance in Productional Creativity
Beatrice Adriana BALGIU
37
tasks. Creating logos entails a developed lexis and working with metaphors;
from a cognitive point of view, it involves making analogies and working with
terms and signs of a polysemantic nature subjected to several types of possible
interpretations. As Heilbrun (2002) shows, creating a logo entails intelligence,
creativity, intuition, and vision in order to communicate something in a
concentrated verbal representation. On the other hand, the relationship
between TA and originality is not always clarified and stated. For example,
when they used the measurement of creativity by writing stories in the case of a
sample of teenagers, Zenasni et al (2008) did not find correlations between AT
and originality; they found correlations between inambiguity tolerance and
uniqueness of ideas instead.
The result we obtained with respect to the relation between AT and the
number of ideas as well as between AT and flexibility corroborates other pieces
of research (Comadena, 1984; Pürto, 2004; Stoycheva, 2008; Zenasni et al.,
2008). Taking into consideration the results, we can conclude that the more
tolerant of ambiguity individuals are, the more ideas from various categories will
be generated. If this is true at a potential level, it will probably also be true when
the subjects in cause are put in the situation to show creativity. In other words,
individuals with AT show this feature irrespective of the situation. We can
consider that a high AT would allow individuals to show their creative potential.
5. Conclusions
In general, the studies on the relation between TA and creativity used
measures of potential creativity rather than of creative performance. In the
present study we proposed the analysis of the relation between ambiguity
tolerance and productional creativity. The subjects, who are engineering
students, were asked to create logo texts for given situations and images. They
also took a test of verbal creativity calibrated to the level of the Romanian
population. The global results show a positive, though moderately intense
relation between ambiguity tolerance, the number of ideas and originality.
Therefore, the more individuals are tolerant to ambiguity, the more they will
generate more original logos. We can draw the conclusion that the more
tolerant to ambiguity individuals are, the more they will manifest their creative
potential in original results. The study is consistent with other previous pieces
of work which found that AT is positively linked to a series of indicators of the
creative behavior. In the study we have the validity of the relation between
creativity and AT in the case of creativity measurement.
We consider that one of the limits of the study is the usage of some
concrete graphical representations in creative tasks. For such a study, it would
have been more appropriate to use creative construction tasks based on the
Balgiu, B.A. (2014). Ambiguity Tolerance in Productional Creativity. Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty, Section:
Social Sciemces, Year III, Issue 1, 2014, pp. 29-40

L
ogos
U
niversality
M
entality
E
ducation
N
ovelty
Section: Social Sciences
38
generation of new ideas for ambiguous stimuli, which can be interpreted in
multiple ways. The conclusion to be drawn for future research is that the types
of tasks and/or activities need to be modified so that they should contain
ambiguous stimuli.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. (1996). Creativitatea ca mod de viaţă, [Creativity as a Lifestyle]
Bucureşti: Editura Ştiinţă şi Tehnică.
Aven, F., DeVries, P., Williams, D. G. & Smith, Ch. (2002). Inambiguity
tolerance in entrepreneurs of micro-enterprises, Journal of Business and
Entrepreneurship,
October, 14(2) http://www.questia.com/read/1P3-
1399954241/intolerance-of-ambiguity-in-entrepreneurs-of-micro-
enterprises
Balgiu, B. A. (2012). Tolerance for ambiguity and creativity. Research on
Romanian students at the Polytechnic University. Romanian Journal of
School Psychology, 5(9), 63 – 74.
Boyd, V. S., Hunt, P. F., Kandell, J. J., & Lucas, M. S. (2003). Relationship
between identity processing style and academic success in
undergraduate students. Journal of College Student Development, 44(2),
155 – 167.
Comadena, M. E. (1984). Brainstorming groups: ambiguity tolerance,
communication, apprehension, task attraction, and individual
productivity. Small Group Behavior, 15(2), 251 – 264.
Durrheim, K., & Foster, D. (1997). Ambiguity tolerance as a content specific
construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 22(5), 741 – 750.
Furnham, A., & Marks, J. (2013) Ambiguity tolerance: A review of the recent
literature. Psychology, 4(9), 717 – 728.
Heilbrun, B. (2002). Logo-ul, [The logo]. Bucureşti: Editura comunicare.ro.
Helmick, A. B. (1982). Two cognitive styles among library science students: field-
dependence/independence and tolerance-intolerance for ambiguity, Thesis (PhD)
Florida State University, Published by University Microfilms
International in Ann Arbor Mich.
Johns, G. (1998). Comportament organizaţional, [Organizational behaviour].
Bucureşti: Editura Economică.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial
coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84, 107-122.
Kajs, L. T., & McCollum, D. L. (2009). Examining tolerance for ambiguity in
the domain of educational leadership. Academy of Educational Leadership
Journal, 13(2), 1 – 16.
Balgiu, B.A. (2014). Ambiguity Tolerance in Productional Creativity. Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty, Section:
Social Sciemces, Year III, Issue 1, 2014, pp. 29-40

Ambiguity Tolerance in Productional Creativity
Beatrice Adriana BALGIU
39
Lauriola, M., & Levin, I. P. (2001). Relating individual differences in attitude
toward ambiguity to risky choices. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,
14(2), 107 – 122.
Lubart, T. I. (1994). Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg, (ed.) Thinking and problem
solving. New York: Academic Press.
McCulloch, P., Kaul, A., Wagstaff, G. F., & Wheatcroft, J. (2005). Tolerance of
uncertainty, extroversion, neuroticism and attitudes to randomized
controlled trials among surgeons and physicians. British Journal of Surgery,
92(10), 1293 – 1297.
Nutt, P. C. (1988). The tolerance for ambiguity and decision making. Columbus Ohio,
The Ohio state University, College of Bussiness Working Paper Series.
Pürto, J. (2004). Understanding creativity. Scottsdale, AZ Great Potential Press.
Radant, M. (2008). The dimensions of the complexity tolerance: a sinopsis of personality
construct, (unpublished communication), XXIX International Congress
of Psychology, Berlin, 20 – 25 iulie 2008.
Sherrill, W. W. (2001). Ambiguity tolerance among MD/MBA students:
implications for management potential. Journal of Continuing Education in
the Health Professions, 21(2), 117 – 122.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Investing in creativity. American
Psychologist, 51(7), 677 – 688.
Stoica-Constantin, A., & Caluschi, M. (1989). Ghid practic de evaluare a creativităţii,
[Practical Guide for the Assessment of Creativity]. Iaşi, Universitatea
Al. I. Cuza, 163.
Stoica-Constantin, A., & Caluschi, M. (2006). Evaluarea creativităţii. Ghid
practic, [Assessment of Creativity. Practical Guide]. Iaşi: Editura
Performantica, 107.
Stoycheva, K. (2003). Talent, science and education: How do we cope with uncertainty and
ambiguities? In P. Csermely, L. Lederman (eds.), Science education:
Talent recruitment and public understanding, Nato Science Series
V/38. Amsterdam: IOS press, 31 – 33.
Stoycheva, K. (2008). The new and the best: ambiguity tolerance and creativity motivation,
(unpublished communication), XXIX International congress of
psychology, Berlin, 20 – 25 iulie 2008.
Stoycheva, K. (2009). Tolerance for ambiguity, creativity and personality,
http://eprints.nbu.bg/1705/1/SEERCP2009_Katya%20Stoycheva.pdf
Stoycheva, K., Popova, K., & Komneva, K. (2007). Creative problem solving:
problem redefinition and generation of creative solutions. Yearbook of the
Department of Cognitive Science and Psychology of the New Bulgarian University,
17 – 31.
Thompson, J. E., Austin, J. S., & Walters, B. A. (2004). The relationship
between tolerance for ambiguity and students propensity to cheat on a
college exam. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 63 – 72
Balgiu, B.A. (2014). Ambiguity Tolerance in Productional Creativity. Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty, Section:
Social Sciemces, Year III, Issue 1, 2014, pp. 29-40

L
ogos
U
niversality
M
entality
E
ducation
N
ovelty
Section: Social Sciences
40
http://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/TLC/article/view/1904/18
83
Urban, K. (2003). Toward a componential model of creativity. In D. Ambrose, L. M.
Cohen & A.J. Tannenbaum (Eds.). Creative Intelligence: Toward
Theoretic Integration. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Inc.
Vernon, P. E. (1970). Creativity: selected readings. Middlesex: Penguin.
Zenasni, F., Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Creativity and ambiguity
tolerance: an empirical study. Journal of creative behavior, 42(1), 61 – 73.
Balgiu, B.A. (2014). Ambiguity Tolerance in Productional Creativity. Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty, Section:
Social Sciemces, Year III, Issue 1, 2014, pp. 29-40