IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/srbeha/v43y2026i1p34-41.html

Intolerance of Ambiguity Mediates the Links Between Systems Thinking With Dichotomous Thinking and Attributional Complexity in a Canadian Sample

Author

Listed:
  • Adam C. Davis
  • Mirella L. Stroink

Abstract

Dichotomous thinking is often employed to break down and simplify wicked problems (e.g., climate change) arising from complex adaptive systems (CASs). However, these dilemmas display emergent properties that cannot be reduced to the individual systemic parts. In contrast, systems thinking is considered to be essential in understanding the behaviour of CASs. The capacity to work with the ambiguity of CASs and wicked problems has been posited to be an integral aspect of a systems mindset. If so, this may help to explain why systems thinkers are believed to be disinclined towards dichotomous thinking and why they prefer multicausal explanations for complex phenomena. Across 359 Canadian undergraduate participants, results showed that systems thinking negatively predicted dichotomous thinking and positively predicted attributional complexity. Intolerance of ambiguity partially mediated both of these associations. Therefore, systems thinkers may avoid using dichotomous modes of thought and prefer multicasual attributions because they are comfortable dealing with ambiguity.

Suggested Citation

  • Adam C. Davis & Mirella L. Stroink, 2026. "Intolerance of Ambiguity Mediates the Links Between Systems Thinking With Dichotomous Thinking and Attributional Complexity in a Canadian Sample," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(1), pages 34-41, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:43:y:2026:i:1:p:34-41
    DOI: 10.1002/sres.3130
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.3130
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sres.3130?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:43:y:2026:i:1:p:34-41. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/1092-7026 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.