Characteristics of ambiguity tolerance in social sciences and humanities students

The article presents the results of research on ambiguity tolerance in Social Sciences and Humanities students representing different years of study (freshmen, sophomore, junior), different programs (State and Municipal Administration, Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Employment Psychology, Law), and different levels of ambiguity tolerance (low, medium, high). The findings indicate differences in ambiguity tolerance across the different levels (years) of the education process. Freshmen are more tolerant toward ambiguity than sophomores. In turn, sophomores show more ambiguity tolerance than juniors. This can be attributed to the greater openness of students to new experiences at the initial stages of their education versus their preference for stability of the learning process and psychological comfort at the later stages. Students specializing in psychology showed the lowest levels of ambiguity tolerance. All respondents with a positive attitude toward uncertainty were found to demonstrate less prominent negativity of mood, less sensitivity, and less anxiety, all this observed alongside a greater positivity of mood, greater activity, greater initiative, greater sociability, more prominent desire to be in the center of attention, and greater readiness to solve problems in socially acceptable ways. Furthermore, higher levels of ambiguity tolerance correspond to lower neuroticism in State and Municipal Administration and Employment Psychology students, lower emotional sensitivity in Law students and Clinical Psychology students, and greater extraversion in Psychology and Clinical Psychology students. The most prominent joint contribution to the researched phenomenon is made by the generalized indicators (factors) of character accentuation, especially in the group of Clinical Psychology students. Thus, the paper reveals the characteristics of ambiguity tolerance in the students of Social Sciences and Humanities. This topic is of value to both science and practice, it follows the modern trends in the development of the professional sphere, yet remains understudied. This work expands the knowledge of ambiguity tolerance as a complex personal construct.