Social Problem Solving – Foundation for Decision-making

Social problem solving refers to the process of solving problems encountered in daily life (D’Zurilla & Maydeu-Olivares, 1995). In this context “social” refers to any

problem solving that plays a factor in our ability to adapt to a constantly evolving environment and to be able to function within this environment (see D’Zurilla, Nezu & Maydeu-Olivares, 2004). The social environment comprises bothintra-andinterpersonal problem situations. Intrapersonal refers to self-based, inward problem solving such as resolving a moral dilemma, whereas interpersonal problems refer to conflict situations between individuals, such as an argument with a friend.

Social problem solving can then be defined as the ability to interpret real-life problem situations by utilizing past experience in order to generate effective solutions so as to be able to put these into action by making a decision. As such it ensues that problem-solving is an adaptive process helping to meet personal and environmental demands (D’Zurilla and Godfried, 1971).

3.2.1 Social Problem Solving Model

D’Zurilla and Godfried (1971) proposed a five-stage model of social problem solving. Stage 1 is a generalorientation to the problem itself, i.e. the problem has to be established. Stage 2 is theformulationof the problem, i.e. defining the problem at hand. Stage 3 sees the generation of alternative strategies to solve the problem. Stage 4 is

selection, i.e. a decision is made to choose one of the strategies generated in Stage 3. Finally, Stage 5 is evaluationof the decision-making, i.e. after a decision has been made the actual solution is then reviewed in terms of whether it was successful or not.

Problem solving skills comprise: a) problem definition and formulation, b) generation of alternatives, c) decision-making, and d) solution-implementation. Problem definition and formulation involve collecting the information about a problem situation in

order to understand its make up to set goals for solving the problem. Generation of alternatives refers to the production of as many solutions as possible in order to maximise the likelihood of generating an effective solution. Decision-making refers to the evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of each solution and the subsequent selection of the most effective solution from a series of alternative solutions. Solution implementation and verification refers to the actions carried out to solve the problematic situation.

The stage model of social problem solving was recently revised and simplified by D’Zurilla, et al. (2004). The revised model contains three major components and they are as follows: 1) problem, 2) problem solving, and 3) solution. It is important to underscore that problem solving involves cognitive and behavioural components. Resolution of the problem (problem solving) is a cognitive process while implementation of this solution (making the decision and implementing this decision) is behavioural. Though both are part of the same schema, they consist of two separate functions and are categorised separately by the literature – even though they work in conjunction.

The problem solving function involves specifying the problematic situation and generating several possible alternatives to that specific situation. This process is aimed at either changing the problematic situation itself or ameliorating emotional stress, or both. Secondly, a problem (or problematic situation) refers to any real life situation in which a response is needed in order to change it to a more adaptive level. However, no solutions are immediately available as a more conscious and effortful activity is required to deal with the difficulties in the problematic situation. Additionally, the solution refers to a coping response, which is specific to that problematic situation.

A successful solution to a social problem will decrease the negative impact brought by the problem and increase the maximum positive influence to both sides in an interpersonal situation (D’Zurilla et al., 2004). In basic terms, one is the actual concept for resolving a real-life problem situation and the other is the actual implementation of the concept along with the repercussions of its application. For example, deciding that in order to make new friends when moving to a new school it would be good to join the chess club denotes step-wise thinking toward resolving a problem. This is not the only way, that someone can make friends. The actual decision to join the chess club, the implementation of the decision, and the success rate of making friends are separate to the original problem solving. In practical terms, joining the chess club may not lead to any friendships, and thus would not be a successful implementation of the original problem solving. This would be considered to be a less than optimal decision as it was unsuccessful, and suggests that a new social problem solving strategy be though of in its place.

3.2.2 Measurements of Social Problem Solving Ability

One of the most commonly used measurements of social problem solving is the Means Ends Problem Solving task (MEPS; Platt & Spivack, 1974). This measure was developed to explore the way people, particularly adults, approach hypothetical problems based on real-world situations. The theoretical background and psychometric properties of the MEPS are considered below.

The MEPS is a social problem solving task that involves means-ends thinking. Means-ends thinking refers to the process of achieving a successful or desired outcome (the ‘end’) along with the steps involved in reaching this outcome (the ‘means’). As described by the authors Platt and Spivack (1975) means-end thinking has three components: “a) the ability to conceptualise the steps or the “relevant means” which are necessary to achieve the goal, b) the ability to anticipate the potential difficulties during the problem-solving process, c) the ability to appreciate that a successful problem-solving process takes time (D’Zurilla & Maydeu-Olivares, 1995, p 442).”

In the MEPS participants are presented with the beginning and end of a scenario involving a problematic social situation. The beginning contains the problem (e.g. an argument with a friend) and the end contains the desired outcome (e.g. the argument is resolved amicably). Participants are asked to explain how they would proceed from the problem to the outcome – i.e. to provide a solution, or a ‘means’ to achieving the stated ‘end’ (House & Scott, 1996).

MEPS responses are usually scored in two ways – number of means and effectiveness. Number of means refers to the number of relevant mean steps in constructing a solution to the hypothetical social problem. This provides a quantitative measure of performance. Butler and Meichenbaum (1981) suggested that assessing the quality of the MEPS solutions may be more useful than just counting the steps, especially when trying to understand differences in problem solving between groups, e.g. between children and adolescent participants.

Effectiveness refers to a “problem solving strategy that both maximizes the positive and minimizes negative short and long-term consequences, both personally and socially

(see Marx et al., 1992, p. 80). This is scored on a 7-point scale rating how successful the problem solving strategy was in achieving the desired goal. The least successful would get a 1 or a 0.

MEPS Procedure Limitations

The MEPS has been critiqued with the focus almost exclusively fallen on the external validity of the task (House & Scott, 1996). Some of the problem situations are regarded as being unrealistic in terms of personal experience, such as stealing a diamond. As a result of these concerns, the four problem situations with the greatest ecological validity have been the ones typically been used in research (e.g., being treated unfairly be a teacher/boss, having a disagreement with parent’s/a partner) and these same questions were used in this work. The final area in which the MEPS has attracted criticism is that it assesses the ability to construct a plan to solve a hypothetical problem in the absence of the normal emotional processing associated with solving social problems. Thus, it is argued that it is a measure of imaginative thinking as opposed to what it is supposedly measuring, problem solving (House and Scott, 1996).

3.2.4 Social Problem Solving and Cognitive Inhibition

D’Zurilla, Maydeu-Olivares, and Kant (1998) studied age and gender differences in social problem solving in a sample of young adults, middle aged adults, and older people and concluded that social problem solving ability increases from young adulthood to middle-age and then decreases thereafter. Berg, Klaczynksi, Calderone, and Strough (1994), however, found no difference in the effectiveness of the strategies chosen between younger adults and elderly adults. Typical development of social problem

solving ability has only been charted between young adolescents, middle-aged adults, and elderly individuals (Crone, Vendel, van der Molen, 2003; D’Zurilla, Maydeu-Olivares, & Kant, 1998) and has not been systematically compared between children and adolescents.

One reason why there may be developmental differences in social problem solving is due to differences in cognitive inhibition (part of executive functioning). Executive functions directly mediate social problem solving by allowing the necessary actions taken to resolve a problem to be handled in a ‘conscious, rational, effortful’ and purposeful fashion (D’Zurilla, et al. 2004). Shallice (1988) and Shallice and Burgess (1991) outlined in some detail how executive functions play a role in problem solving and from this model many of our views on the use of experience have been extrapolated. In their framework central executive functioning is described in terms of a supervisory attentional system (See Figure 3.1). There are three key stages in problem-solving which involve the supervisory attentional system. The initial planning stage is one where the goal is to devise a solution to a problem. The second stage involves the processes required to implement the plan and the third stage involves the monitoring of progress towards meeting the goals, so that plans can be modified if a solution does not present itself. Episodic retrieval plays a key role in the planning stage. The argument put forth suggests that discovering solutions to open-ended, unstructured problems can be facilitated by recalling previous examples of problem solving either identical or similar to the problem at hand (e.g., Dritschel, Kogan, Burton, & Goddard, 1998).

Figure 3.1Shallice and Burgess (1991) Supervisory Attention Model

The capacity to problem solve is necessary for effective social interactions. There is evidence that those who are less able to solve social problems have more difficulties in social situations. For example, youngsters judged to be less well socially adjusted gave fewer solutions or means-to-an-end when tested with the MEPS (Platt & Spivack, 1972). Additionally, behaviourally disordered adolescents are less able to provide effective problem solving responses in reaching goals in hypothetical problem situations (Beveridge & Goh, 1987).

Social interactions may be hindered if inappropriate actions within ones environment are not stopped through one’s own volition (Greening, 1997). These unbridled actions are representative of a failure of inhibitory mechanisms. For example, Greening (1997) found that adolescents with a history of stealing had deficits in problem solving abilities (means-ends) compared to adolescents who had not stolen. Adolescents and adults with a range of social maladjustments thought to reflect poor inhibition or self- regulation, have also been found deficient in means-ends skills, highlighting the link between inhibition and social problem solving (Platt & Spivack, 1976).

PLANNING IMPLEMENTING MONITORING

EXPERIENCE

If the solution is not achieved, then planning is resumed

to implement a new decision