Psychometric facets of Antifragility: Tolerance of Ambiguity, Hardiness, and Growth

Abstract

This paper considers the issues, which are concerned with a new concept of antifragility. Quite recently, considerable attention has been paid to the concept of antifragility. Antifragility gains a special importance in studying psychological characteristics which enable to cope with stress, overcome life difficulties, and be tolerant of uncertainty (T. N. Kornilova, 2015; D. A. Leontiev, 2015). N. Taleb (2014)
defines antifragility as an attribute of living systems, which manifests itself in the use of any stressors for the benefit of development. This study attempts to demonstrate a common factor of antifragility at the psychometric level when “measuring” several psychological characteristics such as hardiness, tolerance of ambiguity, psychological
wellbeing, and coping strategies. The authors (a) offer a brief theoretical overview of the concepts considering human
development as the result of overcoming (crises, difficulties), (b) distinguish the concepts of endurance and antifragility, and (c) consider antifragility as a generalized concept of various psychological phenomena related to “improving through challenges”.
A small mixed-age sample of respondents demonstrated that antifragility was most closely associated with parameters of hardiness, tolerance of ambiguity, and psychological wellbeing. Antifragility was less associated with coping strategies. The respondents who scored high on antifragility (a) realized it at the level of selfappraisal,
(b) had a pronounced risk-taking, sense of control and control over the
environment, (c) emphasized the presence of life goals, (d) calmly perceived uncertain situations, (e) were able to see a positive side of uncertainty, and (f) were generally inclined to a positive reappraisal of difficulties. The factor analysis of the studied parameters clearly revealed a single factor. The basic load was distributed between
the parameters of dispositional antifragility, hardiness, personal growth, and tolerance of ambiguity. The authors draw conclusions about (a) the presence of a common factor of antifragility at the psychometric level and (b) the easiness of differentiation
of the concepts of endurance and antifragility in respondents’ representations.