See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283797833
Personal problem solving: A descriptive study of individual
differences
Article in Journal of Counseling Psychology · November 1982
DOI: 10.1037//0022-0167.29.6.580
CITATIONS
READS
42
3,254
1 author:
Puncky Paul Heppner
University of Missouri
191 PUBLICATIONS 11,219 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Mentoring View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Puncky Paul Heppner on 04 May 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Journal of Counseling Psychology
1982, Vol. 29, No. 6,580-590
Copyright 1982 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
0022-0167/82/2906-0580$00.75
Personal Problem Solving: A Descriptive Study
of Individual Differences
, P. Paul Heppner, Janet Hibel, Gary W. Neal,
Charles L. Weinstein, and Fredric E. Rabinowitz
University of Missouri—Columbia
This study examined differences between students who have perceived themselves as "successful" and "unsuccessful" problem solvers. Specifically, differences were examined across a range of cognitive, affective, and behavioral
variables, with two different types of problems—intrapersonal and interpersonal. Twenty undergraduate students who scored high and 20 who scored low
on an independently developed Problem Solving Inventory (a) were questioned about how they solved interpersonal and intrapersonal problems within
a 1-hour structured interview, and (b) completed the Mooney Problem Checklist. Following the session, interviewers rated each subject on several cognitive and behavioral variables, and they recorded behavioral observations and
anecdotal events. The results revealed that the self-perceived "successful"
and "unsuccessful" problem solvers differed (a) in the number of problems
they acknowledged on the Mooney; (b) on a number of self-report ratings
about the personal problem solving process (e.g., attributions, expectations,
intervention strategies, attitudes, and behaviors); and (c) on ratings made by
the interviewers on several cognitive and behavioral variables. In addition,
results indicated that the type of personal problem being solved affected the
problem-solving process.
Applied real-life problem solving is of
special concern for professionals who are
interested in helping others solve problems
that are particularly troublesome. Counselors are a group of such professionals who
are interested in problem solving. Krumboltz (1965) indicates that "the central reason for the existence of counseling is based
on the fact that people have problems that
they are unable to resolve by themselves" (p.
383). Yet, after reviewing much of the
problem-solving literature, Horan (1979)
concluded that investigators have not developed a technology for helping clients with
Portions of this article were previously presented at
the annual meeting of the American College Personnel
Association, Detroit, March 1982.
This research was supported in part by a research
grant from the University of Missouri Research
Council.
We thank C. Steven Richards and Robert H. Dolliver
for their comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.
Requests for reprints or copies of the instruments
(PSI, PSSIP, or IRQ) should be sent to P. Paul
Heppner,, 210 McAlester, Hall, Psychology Department,
University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211.
regard to problem solving and decision
making (Horan, 1979).
Much of the earlier problem-solving research examined how people solved impersonal predefined laboratory problems such
as puzzles, anagrams, and water-jar problems (e.g., Jacobus & Johnson, 1964; Tresselt
& Mayzner, 1960). These predefined
problems are different than the real-life
personal problems that daily confront people, and there is evidence to suggest that the
manner in which the laboratory problems are
solved may be less complex than personal
problems (Horan, 1979; Jam's & Mann, 1977;
Spivack & Shure, 1974; Wickelgren, 1974).
For example, Janis and Mann (1977) have
compiled evidence that suggests that people
making decisions,in hypothetical laboratory
problems often react entirely differently
when confronted with similar cognitive
problems involving real consequences.
More recently, investigators have begun
to examine events that affect how people
solve real-life personal problems. For example, researchers have investigated individual differences in people's ability to provide appropriate means to the solution of a
580
581
PERSONAL PROBLEM SOLVING
problem (e.g., Platt, Siegel, & Spivack, 1975;
Platt & Spivack, 1972), the utility of problem-solving training as a maintenance
strategy (Richards & Perri, 1978), the relationship between problem-solving skills and
depression (Doerfler & Richards, 1981), reinforcement schedules of successful problem
solvers (Perri & Richards, 1977), and the
efficacy of problem-solving training workshops on enhancing specific problem-solving
skills (e.g., Dixon, Heppner, Petersen, &
Ronning, 1979; D'Zurilla & Nezu, 1980; Nezu
& D'Zurilla, 1979,1981).
Although these and other studies in the
area have been productive, much remains
unknown about the process of how people
attempt to and actually do solve real-life,
applied problems. After reviewing and
evaluating the literature on the assessment
of interpersonal problem solving, Butler and
Meichenbaum (1981) concluded, "It is our
hunch that searching for innovative assessment methodologies that allow us to describe
the complex interplay of cognitive, affective,
and behavioral variables that characterize
problem solving in 'real-life' situations will
provide the greatest increments in our understanding of interpersonal problem-solving at work" (p. 48). Bloom and Broder
(1950) report one of the few descriptive
studies that have examined the complex interplay of variables that interact during the
problem solving process. Bloom and Broder
acknowledge, however, that they did not
investigate how people solve nonacademic
problems.
One strategy to identify essential variables
in the real-life problem-solving process is to
examine differences between people who
differ along important problem-solving dimensions. The purpose of this study was to
describe differences between individuals
who perceived themselves in ways similar to
what has been traditionally labeled as
"successful" or "unsuccessful" problem
solvers in terms of (a) a range of cognitive,
affective, and behavioral self-report activities; (b) cognitive and behavioral differences
within an assessment interview; and (c) the
number and nature of personal problems.
In addition, previous research has also
suggested that the nature of the problem
may affect the problem-solving process
(Meichenbaum, 1977; Meichenbaum,
shaw, & Himel, 1982; Perri & Richards]
1977). For example, Perri and Richards
(1977) found that the techniques (e.g., selfreinforcement, stimulus control), used by
effective self-managers appeared to vary
across problems (e.g., dating, overeating).
Hence, this study also examined differences
on a range of cognitive, behavioral, and affective self-report activities specifically
across interpersonal and intrapersonal
problems. Interpersonal problems were
operationalized as difficulties between individuals (e.g., with a boy/girlfriend, parents,
authority figures, peers), whereas intrapersonal problems were operationalized as difficulties within an individual (e.g., study
problems, being overweight, low self-con-t
cept).
Method
Subjects
Subjects were students enrolled in introductory
psychology classes at a large midwestern university.
Approximately 200 students initially completed the
Problem Solving Inventory (PSI; Heppner & Petersen, 1982) as part of the mass testing program at the
beginning of the winter semester,, 1981. From this
group, the 10 highest male and female scorers and the
10 lowest male and female scorers were selected for
further participation. From these samples 34 of the 40
students agreed to participate. Those who did not
participate indicated they either already had their research requirement fulfilled or were too busy with
coursework and midterm exams; these 6 students were
replaced with students who had similar PSI scores,
The PSI scores from the two final samples were as follows: highest scorers, M = 114.9, SD = 8.3; lowest
scorers, M = 56.6, SD = 7.0. These subjects had a mean
age of 20.9 years, were primarily freshmen (75%) and
were unmarried (90%). They were told only that the
study investigated different problem-solving styles, and
that they would be asked to complete a questionnaire
and respond to several questions about how they solve
personal problems. All subjects received 2 hours of
research credit for their participation.
Instruments
The Problem Solving Inventory (Heppner & Petersen, 1982) is an instrument that assesses people's perceptions of their personal problem-solving behaviors
and attitudes. The PSI consists of thirty-two 6-point
Likert items; low scores indicate behaviors and attitudes
typically associated with "successful" problem solving.
The PSI is a self-rating questionnaire, and this information should not be considered synonymous with ac-
582
HEPPNER, HIBEL, NEAL, WEINSTEIN, AND RABINOWITZ
tual problem-solving skills (Heppner, 1982). An earlier
factor analysis revealed three distinct constructs:
problem-solving confidence (11 items), approachavoidance style (16 items), and personal control (5
items). Reliability estimates revealed that the constructs were internally consistent (.72 to .90; n = 150)
and stable over time (.83 to .89; n = 31). Initial estimates of validity suggested the instrument is measuring
constructs that are (a) amenable to change through
specific skills training in problem solving, (b) related to
general self-perceptions of problem-solving skills; (c)
related to personality variables, most notably an internal locus of control; (d) unrelated to conceptualizing
the means of solving a hypothetical prbblem situation;
and (e) unrelated to intelligence or social desirabiltiy
(Heppner & Petersen, 1982).
A range of cognitive, affective, and behavioral selfreport activities were assessed through a detailed,
structured interview developed for this study; the interview protocol was labeled the Problem Solving Style
Interview Protocol (PSSIP). For example, cognitive
activities were assessed through self-report ratings such
as attributions of causality and expectations of success;
affective activities were assessed through self-report
ratings such as emotionality and specific emotions (e.g.,
hope); behavioral activities were assessed through
self-report ratings such as the use of drugs and talking
with friends. (The respective items that assess these
activities are identified in Table 1.) Items for the
protocol were based on interview questions used in a
study of naturally occuring self-controlled behaviors
(Perri & Richards, 1977), theoretical and research articles on problem-solving (e.g., Bloom & Broder, 1950;
D'Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971; Rotter, 1978), and the experience of professionals knowledgeable in the area.
Three types of question formats were used: 7-point
Likert scales (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely), open-ended
questions, and yes/no questions. In all, 43 questions
were developed; the 40 questions that required interval
ratings are summarized in Table 1. To assess subjects'
problem-solving style with respect to both intrapersonal
and interpersonal problems, the PSSIP consisted of the
same series of 43 questions being asked twice, once for
each type of problem. One question did not pertain to
intrapersonal problems (# 28), leaving only 42 questions
for this problem type. The order of inquiry for interpersonal and intrapersonal problems was counterbalanced across subjects. No reliability or validity estimates exist for the PSSIP at this time.
Cognitive and behavioral differences between
subjects were assessed by interview ratings on the Interviewer Rating Questionnaire (IRQ). The instrument
consisted of thirteen 7-point Likert items (1 = strongly
disagree, 7 = strongly agree) and 1 item asking the interviewer to judge whether the subject scored high or
low on the PSI. (These questions are summarized in
Table 2, below.) In addition, the questionnaire asked
the interviewer for behavioral observations or anecdotal
events about the subject. No reliability or validity estimates exist for the IRQ.
The number and nature of personal problems was
assessed by the Mooney Problem Checklist (Mooney &
Gordon, 1950). The instrument consists of 330 items,
which constitute 11 scales or major problem areas:
Health and Physical Development; Finances, Living
Conditions and Employment; Social and Recreational
Activities; Social-Psychological Relations; PersonalPsychological Relations; Courtship, Sex and Marriage;
Home and Family; Morals and Religion; Adjustment to
College Work; The Future: Vocational and Educational; and Curriculum and Teaching Procedure. Low
scores indicate a low frequency of reported problems.
The Mooney has been used extensively in studies of
student problems (e.g., De Sena, 1966; Hartman, 1968;
Koile & Bird, 1956), and test-retest reliabilities range
from .90 to .98.
Interviewers
The interviewers were four advanced doctoral students (three males, one female) in counseling psychology, all of whom have had considerable training and
experience in interviewing and counseling. The interviewers were trained by the principal investigator,
a PhD-level counseling psychologist with several years
of research experience in problem solving. Training
consisted of imparting basic information about the
problem-solving process through reading relevant research articles (e.g., D'Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971;
Heppner, 1978) and through participation in group
discussions. In addition, training focused on conducting the interview in a standardized format by restricting interview comments to a limited set of verbal
cues and follow-up questions (e.g., "Tell me more" "And
then what?"). Training also included at least one
practice interview and an evaluation or debriefing session among all the interviewers and principal investigator. In all, formal training (excluding the practice
interview) was conducted in about 5 hours.
Procedure
After the mass testing program at the beginning of the
semester, the select group of 40!subjects was randomly
assigned to one of four interviewers, who were blind
concerning the subjects' PSI scores. The interviewers
contacted each subject individually, asked him or her
to participate in the study, and scheduled a time for the
detailed interview based on the PSSIP.
Order of presentation (interpersonal and intrapersonal problems) was counterbalanced to counteract any
effect on subjects' ratings. On arriving for the interview, half of the subjects were asked to consider first
interpersonal problems they had experienced or were
experiencing as they .responded to the first set of questions (e.g., problems with boy/girlfriends, parents, authority figures, peers). Confidentiality was assured,
and the Likert rating scale was explained. The interviewer proceeded to ask the subject the series of questions and recorded the subjects' responses. When the
subject completed answering all of the questions about
how he or she solved the previously specified interpersonal problems, the subject was then asked to respond
to a similar set of questions, but this time by contemplating intrapersonal problems (e.g., study problems,
being anxious, being overweight, low self-concept).
The other half of the subjects were first asked to focus
on intrapersonal problems and then on interpersonal
problems. Each interview was recorded on audiotape
to assist interviewers in documenting the subjects'
complete response. Each interview was about 1 hour
PERSONAL PROBLEM SOLVING
in length- Following each interview, the interviewers
completed the IRQ, and subjects completed the
Mooney.
Design and Analyses
The factorial design included two levels of problem
solving (PSI: high vs. low), two types of personal
problems (intrapersonal vs. interpersonal) and subject
sex (male vs. female). Preliminary analyses examined
order and interviewer effects. Data analyses included
a series of three-way repeated-measures analyses of
variance (ANOVAs) on the PSSIP data and two-way
ANOVAS on the IRQ and Mooney data. Exceptions
were made on frequency data, which were subjected to
chi-square analyses.
Results
Preliminary Analysis
To determine whether the order in which
the problems were discussed in the interview
(intrapersonal or interpersonal) affected the
subjects' ratings, a series of analyses (t tests
and chi-squares) was conducted on subjects'
ratings for each question. Results indicated
no order effect for 40 out of 42 analyses (intrapersonal problems) nor for 42 out of 43
analyses (interpersonal problems), ps > .05.
In short, the order in which the types of
problems were examined (interpersonal or
intrapersonal) in general did not differentially affect subjects' problem-solving ratings.
To determine if interviewers might have
differentially affected subjects' ratings on
the interview questions, a series of analyses
(ANOVAs and chi-squares) was conducted on
subjects' ratings for each question. Results
indicated that 40 out of 42 analyses (intrapersonal problems) and 41 out of 43
analyses (interpersonal problems) did not
reach statistical significance (ps > .05). In
short, there did not seem to be significant
differences across interviewers on subjects'
ratings of the interview questions.
Interview Data (PSSIP)
A series of repeated-measures ANOVAs
(mixed model) and chi-squares were conducted on the appropriate subjects' ratings
of the interview questions. Table 1 summarizes the means, standard deviations, and
main effect F ratios for subjects' interval
583
ratings of the 40 interview questions from
the PSSIP by the three independent variables
(PSI, sex, problem type). In addition, a few
significant interactions were found, PSI X
Sex and Type X Sex; the main effects will be
discussed first, followed by a delineation of
the significant interactions.
PSI. A series of PSI X Problem Type X
Sex repeated measures ANOVAs (mixed
'model) was conducted on subjects' interval
ratings of the interview questions. Of the 40
interval questions, the three-way ANOVAs
revealed 24 statistically significant main
effect differences by PSI (ps < .05). The 24
main effects are delineated in Table 1; the
degrees of freedom for each analysis are 1
and 32. Briefly, subjects who scored low
(the traditional "successful" problem solvers), as compared to those who scored high
on the PSI, rated themselves as more motivated to solve their problems, expected to be
more successful, perceived both their ability
and amount of effort,as being more important in solving problems (and luck less important), rated themselves less impulsive
and avoidant in solving problems, more
systematic, persistent, and serious in their
problem-solving efforts, delay gratification
more, and perceived problems as a normal
part of life. In addition, subjects who scored
low (as opposed to high) on the PSI reported
having a clearer understanding of the problem, less often wished a problem would disappear, reported learning more from observing others, used drugs and alcohol less
often, brainstormed more, rated themselves
as more intuitive, cautious, serious, and
systematic in making decisions while also
being less impulsive and avoidant with descision making, and rated themselves as more
trusting of the other person in an interpersonal problem. In addition, chi-square
analyses revealed one statistically significant
finding: Subjects who scored high on the
PSI (as compared to those who scored low)
disproportionally reported having the most
difficulty in taking action in intrapersonal
problems, x2(4) = 13.5, p < .009. This
pattern was not found in interpersonal
problems (p > ,05), nor were these differences found in specific strategies used (ps >
.05).
Problem type, A series of PSI X Problem
Type X Sex repeated-measures ANOVAs on
en
00
Table 1
Summary of the Means, Standard Deviations, and Main Effect F Ratios for Subjects' Interval Ratings of Interview Questions on the PSSIP by
Problem Solving Level (PSI), Sex, and Problem Type
High
Question
1. Source of problem
internally caused? (C)
2. Source of problems
externally caused? (C)
3. When problems, how emotional
do you get? (A)
4. How much do you show emotion? (A)
5. How useful are emotions in solving problems? (A)
6. How motivated to solve problems? (A)
7. How successful do you expect to be? (C)
8. Solving problems dependent on difficulty? (C)
9. Solving problems dependent on ability? (C)
10. Solving problems dependent on luck? (C)
11. Solving problems dependent on effort? (C)
12. Spontaneous problem-solving style? (C)
13. Impulsive problem-solving style? (B)
14. Systematic problem-solving style? (B)
15. Avoidance problem-solving style? (B)
16. Cautious problem-solving style? (B)
17. Easy come — easy go problem-solving style? (B)
18. Serious problem-solving style? (B)
19. Problems are a normal part of life? (C)
20. Persist in solving insolvable problems? (B)
Male
Low
SD
M
M
Type
o
bex
PSI
SD
F
M
Female
SD
M
SD
F
Intrapersonal
Interpersonal
M
M
SD
SD
tc
M
hi
Z
F
X
.4.5
'3.8
5.2
4.0
3.3
4.8
4.9
28.6%
24.0%
17.0%
31.0%
3.3
3.5
3.4
3.9
4.3
2.8
5.1
5.5
4.2
ja
1.3 4.3
1.4
.5
4.4
1.5
4.4
1.3
.01 4.8
1.3 4.0
1.4 10.0**
1.5
1.3
1.7
3.9
1.5
4.1
1.2
.53 3.7
1.5
4.4
1.1
1.4 5.1 1.3
1.7 3.9 1.4
1.3 4.1 1.8
1.2 6.1
.9
.9 5.7 1.0
15.9 21.6% 11.6
9.4 29.2% 9.5
13.8 5.8% 5.7
16.5 43.7% 15.7
1.3 3.5 1.9
1.3 2.6 1.5
1.5 5.2 1.4
1.6 2.4 1.6
1.2 5.0 1.5
1.5 2.4 1.4
1.0 5.8
.8
1.3 6.3 1.0
1.2 5.8 1.1
.2.
.1
5.1
3.5
3.6
5.6
5.3
25.4%
25.8%
14.1%
35.3%
3.3
3.3
4.6
3.3
4.6
2.6
5.5
5.9
5.3
1.4
1.7
1.6
1.3
1.0
14.5
8.6
9.3
17.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.0
1.3
1.4
5.3
4.2
3.6
5.4
5.2
25.5%
25.9%
12.6%
36.8%
3.6
3.1
4.0
3.5
4.9
2.7
5.6
6.0
5.0
5.1
3.1
19.1***
10.7**
3.3
4.3*
18.5***
8.3**
.3
6.4*
20.7***
15.4***
3.4
1.1
8.5**
6.0*
29.2***
1.3 .17
1.4 5.2
1.6 4.3
1.5 3.4
1.5 3.8
1.7 .3
1.2 5.4
1.3 .4
1.1 .3
.9 5.2
14.1 24.5% 14.6 .0
10.1 27.4% 9.4 .4
14.2 8.7% 8.3 4.3*
17.9 39.4% 16.4 .7
1.7 .5
1.4 3.6
1.6 2.9
1,3 1.4
1.7 2.3
1.5 4.0
1.8 3.0
1.7 .8
1.5 4.7
1.3 .2
1.5 .0
1.5 2.6
1.0 5.4
1.0 .3
1.4 5.9
1.0 .1
1.5 3.9
1.3 4.7
5.1
3.73.8
5.5
5.3
24.7%
27.3%
10.2%
37.8%
3.3
3.1
4.6
2.9
4.4
2.5
5.3
5.8
5.1
9.5**
1.3
.8
1.5 3.7
.1
1.6
1.1 1.1 ~
1.0
.2
.1
14.2
10.8
.7
14.1 1.9
17.0
.2
1.6 1.6
1.5
.0
1.8 7.7**
1.8 4.4*
1.3 3.7
1.5
.3
.9 3.3
1.1 2.4
1.5
.3
t-5
z
t-<
<
ts
1
H
Z
^
a
JO
5
z
0
s
H
ts
21. Willing to delay gratification? (B)
22. Clear understanding of problem? (C)
23. Often hope problem would disappear? (A)
24. How resolved does problem need to be before feel OK? (C)
25. Learn by observing how other people solve problems? (B)
26. Make environmental changes to deal with problem? (B)
27. Trust other persons in interpersonal problems? (A)
28. Use drugs and alcohol? (B)
29. How often engage in physical activities? (B)
30. Put problems aside, let incubate (not avoid)? (C)
31. Brainstorm many alternatives? (B)
32. Talk with friends? (B)
33. Decision making style spontaneous? (B)
34. Decision making style intuitive? (B)
35. Decision making style serious? (B)
36. Decision making style impulsive? (B)
37. Decision making style cautious? (B)
38. Decision making style systematic? (B)
39. Decision making style easy come - easy go? (B)
40. Decision making style avoidance? (B)
3.9
4.7
5.7
5.5
3.6
3.5
3.4
2.1
3.6
3.8
3.5
4.7
3.5
3.6
5.1
3.5
4.3
3.7
2.8
3.6
1.4
1.2
1.4
.8
1.2
1.8
.8
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.6
5.0
5.6
4.0
5.7
4.7
3.6
3.1
1.4
4.5
4.2
5.2
4.5
3.5
4.4
5.9
2.5
5.3
5.32.2
2.0
1.6
.9
1.7
.9
1.0
1.7
1.0
.7
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.4
.6
1.5
1.3
1.2
.9
1.3
7.5**
8.4**
15.7***
.7
8.0**
.1
4.7*
4.5*
3.5
4.1
15.9***
.2
.0
4.6*
12.4**
7.2*
7.2*
18.9***
3.5
12.9***
.4.8
5.2
4.4
5.6
4.0
3.5
1.4
1.3
1.7
1.0
1.4
1.7
4.1
5.1
5.3
5.6
4.3
3.6
1.7
1.0
1.8
.8
1.6
1.8
2.8
.12
3.4
.0
.3
.1
1.8
4.0
3.9
4.6
4.6
3.4
4.1
5.6
3.3
4.8
4.6
2.6
2.7
1.2
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.4
.8
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.6
1.7
4.1
4.1
4.1
1.3
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.7
1.3
1.7
0.0
.0
1.3
1.5
.1
.1
.7
1.1
2.3
.0
.2
.5
.1
4.7
3.6
3.8
5.4
2.7
4.8
4.4
2.4
2.9
4.3
5.2
4.8
5.5
4.2
3.9
1.6
1.2
1.9
.8
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.1
1.6
1.4
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.5
4.2
4.0
4.2
4.3
3.4
4.1
5.5
2.9
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.6
4.6
5.1
4.9
5.8
4.1
3.2
1.5
1.1
1.7
1.0
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.3 1.5
.5
1.8
.1
1.8
1.7 2.0
1.4 6.0*
1.6
.3
1.5 .5
1.0
.9
1.4
.4
1.2 7.3*
1.6
.3
.1
1.3
1.8 5.5*
4.0
4.0
4.5
4.9
3.6
3.9
5.6
3.1
5.0
4.5
2.5
3.0
1.1
.1
.02
2.5
.1
4.9*
"0
tc
O
z
f
3
o
P
Ed
cc
o
t-1
HH
O
Note. All ratings were made on a 1-7 Likert scale (not at all/extremely) except questions 8-11, which asked subjects for a percentage.
The letter following each question indicates the domain of the self-report activity: A = Affective, B = Behavioral, C = Cognitive. PSSIP = Problem Solving Style
Interview Protocol. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
01
oo
Cn
586
HEPPNER, HIBEL, NEAL, WEINSTEIN, AND RABINOWITZ
Table 2
Summary of the Means, Standard Deviations, and F Ratios for the Interviewers' Interval
Ratings on the IRQ by Subject Problem Solving Level (PS/) and Sex
PSI
Low
Question
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
S willingness to disclose?
S was cooperative?
S put forth effort?
S was aware of PS process?
S had good social skills?
S was anxious?
S was impatient?
S was antagonistic?
S gave thoughtful answers?
S was insightful?
S perceived reality accurately?
S was honest?
S had effective problem-solving skills?
'
Sex
High
Male
F
M
SD
M
SD
4.7
5.8
5.7
5.0
5.1
3.1
3.0
2.0
4.9
4.6
4.9
5.4
5.1
1.9
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.5
4.3
5.2
4.9
3.8
3.8
4.5
3.6
2.5
3.0
3.3
4.1
4.9
3.1
1.8
A
1.2
2.1
1.2 4.2*
1.6
6.6*
1.4 10.4**
1.6
8.0**
1.6
1.0
1.3
1.9
1.5 7.4**
1.6
7.7**
1.4
4.0
1.1 2.9
1.6 16.5***
Female
M
SD
M
SD
F
4.9
5.8
5.4
4.9
4.5
3.5
3.0
2.1
4.5
4.2
4.7
5.4
1.8
.9
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.2
1.1,
1.81.6
1.3
1.0
1.8
4.1
5.2
5.2
3.9
4.5
4.1
3.6
2.4
3.9
3.7
4.3
4.9
3.8
1.9
1.4
1.2
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.8
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.3
1.1
1.8
1.6
2.1
.3
4.6*
0.0
1.3
1.5
.7
1.6
1.3
1.0
1.9
1.5
4.4
Note. IRQ = Interviewer Rating Questionnaire. *p< .05. **p < .01. ***p< .001.
the PSSIP data revealed eight statistically
significant (ps < .05) main effect differences
by problem type (see Table 1). In comparing subjects' responses to interpersonal
versus intrapersonal problems, the interviewers rated intrapersonal problems as
being more internally caused (and conversely
interpersonal problems as more externally
caused). The interviewed subjects also
rated themselves as (a) being more systematic and less avoidant in solving intrapersonal problems, (b) described their decision
making as being more cautious and avoidant
with interpersonal problems, (c) perceived
themselves as talking more often with
friends about interpersonal problems, (d)
and making more environmental changes
with intrapersonal problems.
Sex. Two statistically significant main
effects were found by subject sex. Males
rated luck as more important than females
in solving personal problems (p < .05). In
addition, males report thinking as the most
frequent strategy for intrapersonal problems, whereas females report 2 talking as
the most frequent strategy, % (3) = 12.8,
p < .005.
Interactions. The three-way ANOVAs
revealed statistically significant PSI X Sex
interactions on four questions from the
PSSIP (ps < .05). Tukey post hoc comparisons revealed the following. Males who
scored high on the PSI (the traditional
"unsuccessful" problem solver) reported that
solving problems was significantly more
dependent on luck (ps < .01) and significantly less dependent on effort (ps < .05)
than the other groups. Conversely, females
who scored high on the PSI rated themselves
as significantly lower in terms of the seriousness of their decision making style (ps <
.01) as compared to the other groups. Finally, males who scored low on the PSI (the
traditional "successful" problem solvers)
rated themselves as significantly less spontaneous in decision making than females who
scored low (p < .05). Finally, two ANOVAs
also revealed statistically significant Problem Type X Sex interactions on two questions. Tukey post hoc comparisons revealed, however, only one significant comparison: Males reported they were significantly less spontaneous in solving intrapersonal problems (ps < .05), than the other
comparison groups.
Interview Rating Questionnaire (IRQ)
First, possible differences across interviewers' ratings were examined; a set of
587
PERSONAL PROBLEM SOLVING
ANOVAs and one chi-square were conducted on the appropriate interviewers'
ratings of the 14 IRQ questions. No statistically significant differences were found
across interviewers on all the questions (ps
>.05). Second, a set of 2 (PSI: high vs. low)
X 2 (sex: male vs. female) ANOVAs and one
chi-square were conducted on the appropriate 14 questions. Table 2 presents a
summary of the means, standard deviations,
and F ratios for interviewers' interval ratings
on the IRQ by PSI and Sex. Examination
of the F ratios revealed several statistically
significant (ps < .05) PSI main effects (see
Table 2; degrees of freedom are 1 and 36).
Interviewers rated subjects who scored low
(the traditional "successful" problem solvers) as compared to those who scored high
on the PSI as putting forth more effort, as
being more aware of their problem-solving
process, as having better social skills, as
being less anxious, as giving more thoughtful
answers, and being more insightful. In addition, ANOVAs revealed one statistically
significant sex main effect (p < .05); interviewers rated male subjects as being more
aware of their problem-solving processes
than female subjects. No statistically significant PSI X Sex interactions were found
(ps>.05).
,
Interviewers also correctly identified
subjects as either scoring high or low on the
PSI on 33 of the 40 cases. A chi-square
one-sample test (goodness-of-fit) analysis
revealed that this proportion was statistically significant, X2(D = 26.6, p < .001.
Mooney Problem Checklist
Subjects' scores on each of the 11 scales on
the Mooney Problem Checklist as well as the
total inventory were also analyzed by using
a set of 2 (PSI: high vs. low) X 2 (sex: male
vs. female) ANOVAs. Examination of the-I*1
ratios revealed no sex main effects (ps > .05)
,and three PSI main effects. Specifically,
subjects who scored low (the traditional
"successful" problem solvers) as compared
to high on the PSI reported fewer problems
with regard to Health and Physical Development, F(l, 36) = 4.65, p < .05, SocialPsychological Relations, F(l, 36) = 7.66, p
< .009, and Personal-Psychological Relations, F(l, 36) = 7.49, p < .009. No signifi-
cant differences were found between low and
high scorers on the PSI on the total problem
score of the Mooney, F(l, 36) = 2.95, p < .09.
Finally, no statistically significant PSI X Sex
interactions were found (ps > .05).
Discussion
; The results of the study support previous
research that found differences across
problem-solving styles. Specifically, students who perceived themselves in ways
similar to what has been traditionally considered as effective problem solving (i.e.,
having confidence, personal control, and
approaching problems), as compared to
students whose ratings were dissimilar, also
(a) rated themselves as being more systematic in decision making and problem solving
in general (e.g., Bloom & Broder, 1950), (b)
report having a clearer understanding of the
problem (e.g., Bloom & Broder, 1950; Doerfler & Richards, 1981), and (c) rated themselves as- being less impulsive and less
avoidant in the problem-solving process (e.g.,
Bloom & Broder, 1950). The results also
empirically confirm observations made in
the literature about what problem solvers
should do, such as engaging in brainstorming
activities (see D'Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971),
and perceiving problems a&a normal part of
life (see D'Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971;
Heppner, 1978). In addition, the results
further extend previous research by finding
additional differences across problem-solving styles, specifically in terms of cognitions
(e.g., attributions, expectations), behaviors
(e.g., using drugs, observing others), and affect (e.g., perceived motivation, hope). In
essence,-these differential ratings (as delineated in the results) imply a range of cognitive, affective, and behavioral activities that
increase or decrease the probability of cuing
effective, task-oriented responses during a
very complex chain of events called problem
solving.
A few of these findings merit additional
comments. Students who perceived themselves as similar to the traditional "successful" problem solvers believed that their
abilities were more important in solving
problems, and perceived luck or chance to be
less important. This finding is consistent
with related research on locus of control
588
PERSONAL PROBLEM SOLVING
(Rotter, 1966; 1978), and suggests that attributional styles deserve more attention in
relationship to personal problem solving.
The perceived "successful" problem solvers
also differed from "unsuccessful" problem
solvers across a number of approach and
avoidant behaviors (e.g., motivated to solve
problems, delay gratification, expect to be
successful). A critical variable may be the
extent to which problem solvers actively
persist in working on a problem as opposed
to engaging in irrelevant avoidant strategies.
Finally, the perceived "successful" problem
solvers rated themselves as being more
trusting of the other person in an interpersonal problem, which provides some support
for Rotter's (1978) claim that interpersonal
trust is an important expectancy in problem
solving.
Observations from the interviewers also
suggest cognitive and behavioral differences
across problem-solving styles. First, interviewers rated the students who scored low on
the PSI as being more effective problem
solvers than those who scored high on the
PSI. Second, the interviewers rated the
perceived "successful" problem solvers as
being more insightful, more aware of their
problem-solving processes, and their answers
were rated as more thoughtful. The interviewers also made several anecdotal observations that were consistent with the
above-mentioned ratings. The other anecdotal observations suggested that there
might be differences between the two groups
in terms of social anxiety, acceptance and
utilization of affect, quickness in understanding the interview questions, and selfdoubts about the adequacy of their interview
responses. The interviewers with only
moderate training in the problem-solving
area correctly identified 83% of the students
as being either high or low scorers on the
PSI; the interviewers reported that this
was a relatively easy task. Data from the
Mooney Problem Checklist also revealed
that the perceived "successful" problem
solver reported experiencing fewer personal
problems, which seems consistent with the
interviewers differential ratings regarding
effectiveness, insightfulness, and awareness.
Although this study provides additional information about students who perceive
themselves as similar to the traditional
"successful" or "unsuccessful" problem
solvers, additional research is needed to examine the relationship between self-appraisal variables (e.g., confidence) and
problem-solving skill.
The results of this study also support
earlier research that suggested that the nature of the problem may affect the problemsolving process (Meichenbaum, 1977; Meichenbaum et al., 1982). The differences
when solving interpersonal as opposed to
intrapersonal problems seemed to fall into
three categories: (a) the source or cause of
the problem, (b) the process of solving the
problem, and (c) intervention strategies.
These findings indicate that in solving intrapersonal problems, students report more
approach behaviors and more confidence,
perhaps because they feel they have greater
control of more variables in problems of that
nature. These results also are consistent
with the findings of Perri and Richards
(1977), who found that problem-solving
techniques used by effective self-managers
varied according to the problem that they
were facing. This implies that various
problems may cue different problem-solving
behaviors and cognitions. Important patterns in previous research may have been
overlooked because these differences across
problems were not given attention. In addition, future research might also examine
the frequency of various behavioral, cognitive, and affective responses across problem
types and across problem solvers.
There are several limitations of the study.
First, it is important to note that all findings
in this study are correlational in nature,
making cause and effect relationships
difficult to isolate; therefore the conclusions
are tenuous. Second, the multitude of
analyses employed in the study did increase
the likelihood of Type I errors; readers are
cautioned to consider the inflated alpha
levels when interpreting the results. Conversely, power considerations and the likelihood of Type II errors also suggest that
relationships that were not found (e.g., relationships between problem-solving style
and sex) merit replications. At this time, the
number of differences between those who
score high and low on the PSI suggests the
need for additional research to examine
these and other problem-solving differences
HEPPNER, HIBEL, NEAL, WEINSTEIN, AND RABINOWITZ
in greater detail. The utility for both researchers and practitioners of thoroughly
assessing and describing the target behaviors
(in this case problem solving) and corresponding deficits within individuals has been
discussed (e.g., Karifer & Goldstein, 1980;
Kanfer & Saslow, 1969); such an approach
seems particularly well suited for the applied
problem-solving process. Probably as much
can be learned about the problem-solving
process by studying the ineffective as well as
the effective problem solver (Urbain &
Kendall, 1980).
Finally, it is important to note that findings also have implications for problemsolving training. For example, previous efforts to increase the effectiveness of various
problem solving skills have used subjects
who have expressed an interest in wanting to
learn more about problem solving (Dixon et
al., 1979), college students who were vocationally undecided and anxious (Mendonca
& Siess, 1976), or the typical introductory
psychology student (e.g., D'Zurilla & Nezu,
1980; Nezu & D'Zurilla, 1981). Conversely,
the effects of problem-solving training with
people who have a number of problemsolving deficits as well as people other than
university students (e.g., community, inpatients at a VA hospital) are less well researched. Different intervention strategies
may be needed to alter different behavioral
and cognitive differences across subjects
within a real-life problem-solving context.
Particularly, applied research that would
examine the long-term effects of such
training are needed. Finally, research that
relates these and other findings to effective
and ineffective problem solvers in their
natural environment is needed (cf. Perri &
Richards, 1977).
References
Bloom, B. S.,- & Broder, L. J. Problems solving processes of college students. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1950.
Butler, L. & Meichenbaum, D. The assessment of interpersonal problem-solving skills. In P. C. Kendall
& S. D. Hollen (Eds.), Assessment strategies for
cognitive-behauioral interventions. New York:
Academic Press, 1981.
De Sena, P. A. Problems of consistent over-, under-,
and normal-achieving college students as identified
by the Mooney Problem Check List. Journal of
Educational Research, 1966,59, 251-355.
589
Dixon, D. N., Heppner P. P., Petersen, C. H., & Ronning, R. R. Problem solving workshop training.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1979, 26,
133-139.
Doerfler, L. A., & Richards, C. S. Self-initiated attempts to cope with depression. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 1981,5, 367-371.
D'Zurilla, T. J., & Goldfried, M. R. Problem-solving
and behavior modification. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 1971, 78,107-126.
D'Zurilla, T. J., & Nezu, A. A study of the generation
of alternative process in social problem solving.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1980,4, 67-72.
Hartman, B. J. Survey of college students' problems
identified by the Mooney Problem Check List.
Psychological Reports, 1968,22,715-716.
Heppner, P.P. A review of the problem-solving literature and its relationship to the counseling process.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1978, 25,
366-375.
Heppner, P. P. A problem solving inventory. In P. A.
Keller & L. G. Ritt (Eds.), Innovations in clinical
practice: A source book. Sarasota, Pla.: Professional Resource Exchange, 1982.
Heppner, P. P., & Petersen, C. H. The development
and implications of a personal problem-solving inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1982,
29, 66-75.
Horan, J. J. Counseling for effective decision making:
A cognitive-behavioral perspective. North Scituate,
Mass.: Duxbury Press, 1979.
Jacobus, K. A., & Johnson, N. F. An experimental set
to adopt set. Psychological Reports, 1964,15,737.
Janis, I. L,, & Mann, L. Decision making: A psychological analysis or conflict, choice, and commitment.
New York: Free Press, 1977.
Kanfer, P. H., & Goldstein, A. P. (Eds.). Helping
people change (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon
Press, 1980.
Kanfer, F. H., & Saslow, G. Behavioral diagnosis. In
C. M. Franks (Ed.), Behavior therapy: Appraisal
and status. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.
Koile, E. A,, & Bird, D. J. Preferences for counselor
help of freshman problems. Journal of Counseling
• Psychology, 1956,3,97-106.
Krumboltz, J. D. Behavioral counseling: Rationale
and research. Personnel and Guidance Journal,
1965,44, 383-387.
Meichenbaum, D. Cognitive behavior modification:
An integrative approach. New York: Plenum
Press, 1977.
Meichenbaum, D., Henshaw, D., & Himel, N. Coping
with stress as a problem-solving process. In W.
Krohne & L. Laux (Eds.), Achievement, stress, and
anxiety. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, 1982.
Mendonca, J. D., & Siess, T. F. Counseling for indecisiveness: Problem-solving and anxiety management
training. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1976,
23, 339-347.
Mooney, R. L., & Gordon, L. V. Manual: The Mooney
Problem Checklists. New York: Psychological
Corporation, 1950.
Nezu, A., & D'Zurilla, T. J. An experimental evaluation
of the decision-making process in social problem
solving. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1979,3,
269-277.
590
HEPPNER, HIBEL, NEAL, WEINSTEIN, AND RABINOWITZ
Nezu, A-., & D'Zurilla, T. J. Effects of problem definition and formulation on decision making in the social
problem-solving process. Behavior Therapy, 1981,
12,100-106.
Perri, M. G., & Richards, C. S. An investigation of
naturally occurring episodes of self-controlled behaviors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1977,
24,178-183.
Platt, J. J., Siegel, J. M., & Spivack, G. Do psychiatric
patients and normals see the same solutions as effective in solving interpersonal problems? Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1975,
43, 279.
Platt, J. J., & Spivack, G. Problem-solving thinking of
psychiatric patients. Journal of Consulting and'
Clinical Psychology, 1972,39,148-151.
Richards, C. S., & Perri, M. G. Do self-control treatments last? An evaluation of behavioral problem
solving and faded counselor contact as treatment
maintenance strategies. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 1978,25, 376-383.
Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal
versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966,80(1, Whole No. 609).
Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for problem
solving and psychotherapy, •_ Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 1978, 2,1-10.
Spivack, G., & Shure, M. B. Social adjustment of
young children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1974.
Tresselt, M. E., & Mayzner, M. S. Switching behavior
in a problem solving task. Journal of Psychology,
1960,50, 349-354.
Urbain, E. S., & Kendall, P. C. Review of social-cognitive problem solving interventions with children.
Psychological Bulletin, 1980,88,109-143.
Wickelgren, W. A. How to solve problems. San
Francisco, Calif.: Freeman, 1974.
Received February 1,1982
Revision received April 12,1982
Acknowledgment
The Editor wishes to acknowledge the following individuals who served as ad hoc
reviewers during 1981:
Donald R. Atkinson
Ricki S. Bander
Bianca L. Bernstein
Bruce Biskin
Linda Brooks
James C. Brown
Monroe A. Bruch
Clarke G. Carney
Jean A. Carter
Charles D. Claiborn
Peter Cimbolic
Christine A. Courtois
Robert Dies
Fred J. Dorn
Howard J. Douglass
Thomas E. Dowd
Robert Elliott
Herbert A. Exum
Helen S. Farmer
Gerald A. Gladstein
Gail Hackett
Jo-Ida Hanson
View publication stats
Edward O. Hascall
Mark A. Hector
Charles A. Heikkinen
Susan S. Hendrick
P. Paul Heppner
• JohnR. Hoeppel
James G. Hollandsworth
Elizabeth Holloway
Richard Johnson
Steven Kaplan
Charles J. Krauskopf
Michael B. LaCrosse
George F. Leddick
Robert W. Lent
Chalsa Loo
Thomas E. Malloy
William R. McKelvain
Daniel S. McKitrick
Lydia Y. Minatoya
Ellen Ostrow
Susan D. Phillips
Patricia M. Raskin
Harvey Resnick
C. Steven Richards
Charles Saltzman
David Schlenoff
Lawrence J. Schneider
William Sedlacek
Linda Seligman
Linda Sherman
Saul Shiffman
Thomas Skovolt
Robert B. Slaney
Sharon B. Spiegel
Joseph Stokes
Donald Strassberg
Derald Wing Sue
Stanley Sue
Terrence J. Tracey
Georgiana Shick Tryon
Brupe Wampold
Judith Worrell
Everett J. Worthington
Kathy P. Zamostny