The word “addicted” here is a metaphor, not a clinical claim. But it is an accurate one. The certainty drive builds when unsatisfied, motivates approach toward anything that provides resolution, motivates avoidance of anything that increases ambiguity, and produces temporary relief when satisfied. Then the relief fades. The drive rebuilds. In an environment structurally incapable of providing lasting certainty, this cycle runs indefinitely. Which is, more or less, the job description.

What the need for cognitive closure actually is

Arie Kruglanski and Donna Webster’s research at the University of Maryland identified what they called the need for cognitive closure — a motivational drive toward clear, firm answers and away from ambiguity. Everyone has some level of it. The strength varies between people and is amplified by situational conditions. Chronic time pressure, cognitive fatigue, and high-stakes decisions all increase it. Entrepreneurship provides all three simultaneously, which is convenient.

People with high need for cognitive closure experience unresolved uncertainty as genuinely aversive — not merely annoying but psychologically distressing in a way that motivates active resolution. The drive operates like this: unresolved question produces discomfort, discomfort motivates certainty-seeking, certainty-seeking produces closure, closure produces temporary relief, new uncertainty emerges, repeat. In a stable environment, mostly functional. In an early-stage business where almost nothing is certain, the hamster wheel does not stop.

Why the brain processes uncertainty as a threat

The anterior cingulate cortex — the brain’s conflict-monitoring system, responsible for noticing when expected and actual outcomes do not match — activates under unresolved uncertainty. The same stress cascade that responds to physical danger is triggered by cognitive uncertainty. Your brain does not reliably distinguish between “a predator might be nearby” and “I don’t know if this product is going to work.” Evolution optimised for survival, not for tolerating ambiguous investor feedback.

The dopamine system responds to uncertainty resolution with a relief signal. This is why closing a deal feels disproportionately good, why getting a clear answer produces genuine pleasure even if the answer is no, and why compulsively checking your metrics provides momentary relief that lasts approximately until you close the tab. The relief is real. It is also temporary. The next uncertainty is already queuing.

Hirsh, Mar, and Peterson’s psychological entropy model formalised this in Psychological Review in 2012: uncertainty is processed as disorder requiring resolution. The brain deploys significant resources attempting to impose order. In permanently uncertain environments, those resources run chronically without resolution.

Seizing and freezing — what this looks like in practice

Kruglanski identified two specific patterns that high need for closure produces under sustained uncertainty.

Seizing is rushing toward any available answer faster than the evidence supports. The entrepreneur who commits to a market position before adequate research, or makes a hiring decision after one conversation, is often seizing. The certainty of having decided feels less aversive than the uncertainty of the open question. The decision may be wrong. It feels better than not deciding.

Freezing is maintaining a commitment once made because reopening it would reactivate the uncertainty that was resolved by making it. This sits underneath the pivot resistance covered in the pivoting article — not just sunk cost and identity threat, but the simple neurobiological unpleasantness of reopening a question the brain already closed.

Schumpe and colleagues’ 2017 research found that high need for closure amplifies risk perception — people with stronger certainty drives perceive the same objective risk as higher than those with lower drives. The certainty addiction produces a loop: more need for closure, higher perceived risk, stronger motivation to seek or maintain certainty, less tolerance for the ongoing ambiguity that genuine market discovery requires.

The irony worth naming: the certainty-seeking that feels like decisive leadership often produces worse strategic outcomes than tolerating the discomfort of staying in the question longer. Every premature commitment forecloses options. Every frozen position resists the update the environment is sending. The entrepreneurial environment rewards people who can act under uncertainty without pretending it has been resolved. Most people find this considerably harder than it looks from the outside.

If the pattern described here is producing visible consequences — premature commitments you later regret, a consistent inability to sit with ambiguity that is affecting your decisions or your team — that is worth exploring with a psychologist. Understanding the mechanism is not the same as working through it.

What actually helps

Tolerance of uncertainty is a skill, not a fixed personality trait. The mechanism for building it is the same graduated exposure process used in cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety: repeated, deliberate exposure to uncertainty without the certainty-seeking response.

Hold an open question without immediately seeking resolution. Notice the discomfort. Do not act on it. The discomfort is a real neurobiological threat response. With repeated practice, the stimulus decouples from the automatic response. The tolerance builds.

This is not comfortable. It is considerably less uncomfortable than running a business governed by the certainty drive’s worst decisions.

A book worth reading alongside this

Antifragile by Nassim Taleb makes the most ambitious argument on this topic — that the correct response to uncertainty is not merely tolerance but designing systems that benefit from disorder. His concept of antifragility provides the most generative framework for the closing question: not how do I survive uncertainty, but how do I build something that gets stronger because of it.

This article discusses psychological patterns documented in research on cognitive closure, uncertainty, and decision-making. It is not designed to identify, diagnose, or assess any psychological condition. If these patterns are significantly affecting your decisions or wellbeing, speaking with a psychologist can provide personalised guidance that an article cannot.

This article is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional psychological advice, diagnosis, or treatment. If you are experiencing significant psychological distress, please consult a qualified mental health professional.

Sources: Kruglanski, A.W. & Webster, D.M. (1996), Psychological Review, 103(2). Webster, D.M. & Kruglanski, A.W. (1994), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6). Hirsh, J.B., Mar, R.A. & Peterson, J.B. (2012), Psychological Review, 119(2). Schumpe, B.M. et al. (2017), Personality and Individual Differences, 107.