Professional Documents
Culture Documents
miss the expedient course of action." Conversely, much of what we view clinically as
"abnormal behavior" or "emotional disturbance" may be viewed as ineffective behavior
and its consequences, in which the individual
is unable to resolve certain situational problems in his life and his inadequate attempts
to do so are having undesirable effects, such as
anxiety, depression, and the creation of additional problems. It is the purpose of this
paper to review the problem-solving research
and theoretical literature which seem to have
relevance for problem solving in "real-life"
situations, to show how difficulties in problem
solving may arise, and to suggest possible
training or therapeutic procedures which may
be employed to facilitate more effective problem solving,
RELEVANCE OF PROBLEM SOLVING FOR
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION
The question of relevance can best be approached by discussing some of the major
terms, that is, problem, problem solving, and
solution, as they would be applied within the
context of the real-life social setting instead
of the laboratory.
The term problem will refer here to a specific situation or set of related situations to
which a person must respond in order to
function effectively in his environment. To
point up this situational emphasis (as opposed
to the traditional "intrapsychic" connotation
of the word "problem" in clinical psychology),
the term problematic situation will be used in
107
108
109
110
individuals (i.e., "live" or symbolic modeling). However, it is at this point that most
social-learning theorists fail to consider the
possibility that an individual may learn an
effective response to at least some problematic
situations on his own without having to engage in overt trial-and-error behavior, receive
guidance, or observe an effective model. We
are referring to the possibility that the individual might be able to "figure out" what he
should do in these situations. In other words,
he might have acquired the necessary symbolic skills to engage in effective problemsolving behavior (e.g., associating previously
learned responses to form an appropriate
novel response pattern, predicting the personal
and social consequences of his new behavior,
and making value judgments about these consequences). It would seem reasonable from a
social-learning point of view, therefore, to hypothesize that some individuals behave ineffectively not only because of a lack of successful learning experiences with certain specific situations, but, in addition, because of a
deficit or some kind of disruption in one or
more aspects of problem-solving performance.
The second assumption, namely, that general effectiveness in handling problematic situations may best be facilitated by training in
general problem-solving skills, has received
less attention in clinical psychology. Although
the discussion of response alternatives and
consequences is a long-standing practice in
brief, directive psychotherapy (e.g., Kelly,
1955; Phillips, 1956; Rotter, 19S4), very
little has been done toward developing this
procedure into a formal, systematic problemsolving therapy program and evaluating it experimentally. One early attempt worthy of
note, however, occurred in a study by Morton
(19SS). With the objective of developing a
form of brief psychotherapy, Morton used
training procedures in which the client's TAT
protocols were used as a point of departure
for discussing such things as the nature of
the problem facing the main character in the
story, his response to the situation, as well as
other possible alternative responses and their
consequences. In comparison to the no-therapy
controls, the experimental group demonstrated
an increase in general adjustment (as mea-
We have already suggested that problemsolving training may be viewed as a procedure whereby the individual develops a
4
111
112
(r/) decision making (i.e., evaluation and selection), and (e) verification.
Before discussing the research and theory
relevant to each stage, it should be pointed
out that our use of a stage-sequential approach to problem solving is not meant to imply that this is precisely the manner in which
problem solving is, or should actually be, carried out in real life. The present authors concur with Crutchfield (1969), who stresses
that problem solving rarely proceeds according to these neatly ordered stages; more typically, the stages usually overlap and interact
with each other. For example, the individual
ma)' be working on decision making and then
go back to the generation of alternatives or
problem definition for more information before making his decision. Thus, the discussion
which follows should be viewed not as a description of the actual problem-solving process
as it is likely to occur in vivo, but instead as
a way of organizing problem-solving procedures or operations for purposes of study and
training.
General Orientation
It has long been recognized that an individual's general orientation or set in approaching a situation can greatly influence
the way in which he will respond to that situation. The type of orientation which is likely
to encourage independent problem-solving behavior should include the set or attitude to
(a) accept the fact that problematic situations constitute a normal part of life, and that
it is possible to cope with most of these situations effectively, (b) recognize problematic
situations when they occur, and (c) inhibit
the tendency to respond either on the first
"impulse" or to "do nothing."
In describing the assumptions underlying
his "rational-emotive" therapy, Ellis (1962)
has observed that many individuals tend to
maintain irrational expectations about the
world around them. To the extent that an
individual continues to expect that certain
things "should" (or "should not") occur,
when realistically it is unlikely (or likely)
that they will occur, disappointment, frustration, emotional upset, and maladaptive behavior are likely to follow. The depressed,
"why-do-these-things-always-happen-to-me"
reaction often reflects the failure of the individual to accept the fact that problematic situations are "normal," and that he is capable
of finding solutions to most of these situations
through his own efforts. In a study of effective behavior among college freshmen (Goldfried & D'Zurilla, 1969), we have observed
that various types of problematic situations
tend to be natural occurrences in the course of
college life and work, Similarly, studies of
effective coping among normal adolescents by
Silber, Hamburg, Coelho, and their associates
(Hamburg & Adams, 1967; Silber, Hamburg,
Coelho, Murphey, Rosenberg, & Pearlin,
1961) have shown that a. number of "critical
transitional tasks" constitute the natural
process of interpersonal development. Regarding the anticipation of ability to cope, Bloom
and Broder (19SO) found that successful
problem solvers had greater confidence in
their ability to solve the problems presented
to them than did unsuccessful problem solvers. Similarly, research findings reviewed by
Lefcourt (1966) and Rotter (1966) indicate
that an individual's general expectation of being able to control his environment can
greatly increase the likelihood that he will
actually attempt to cope with situational problems when they do in fact occur. It has also
been consistently noted in the therapy research literature that the client's initial expectation for positive behavior change can greatly
facilitate the actual improvement which is
made during therapy (Frank, 1961; Goldstein, 1962).
Even if one accepts the complexities of his
surrounding environment and is optimistic
about his ability to handle various situations
effectively, it may not always be easy to
identify problematic situations when they occur. The usual process of problem recognition
has been described most vividly by Miller,
Galanter, and rribram (1960):
In ordinary affairs we usually muddle ahead, doing
what is habitual and customary, being slightly puzzled when it sometimes fails to give the intended
outcome, but not stopping to worry much about the
failures because there are too many other things still
to do. Then circumstances conspire against us and
we find ourselves caught failing where we must succeedwhere we cannot withdraw from the field, or
lower our self-imposed standards, or ask for help, or
throw a tantrum. Then we may begin to suspect
that we face a problem [p. 171].
113
fore, in the real-life setting, when an individual recognizes a problematic situation and
inhibits his tendency to respond "automatically" according to his first impulse, he must
then (a) define all aspects of the situation in
"operational" terms and (b) formulate or
classify elements of the situation appropriately so as to separate relevant from irrelevant
information, identify his primary goals, and
specify the major subproblems, issues, or conflicts.
The need for specificity and comprehensiveness in describing the details of the problem
cannot be overstated. In order to ensure the
effectiveness of subsequent problem-solving
behavior (e.g., generation of alternatives, decision making), the problem solver must
avoid the use of terms which are too vague or
ambiguous to be meaningful; he should consider all the available facts and information
and, if necessary, seek additional information
not immediately available (Crutchfield, 1969;
Osborn, 1963; Parnes, 1967). The latter is
especially important when the situation, or the
context in which the situation occurs, contains
many unfamiliar or novel features.
By stating a problem specifically and concretely, the individual may be forcing himself
to make relevant what may have seemed at
first glance to be irrelevant (Crutchfield,
1969; Osborn, 1963; Parnes, 1967; Skinner,
1953). Some empirical support for this concrete approach comes from Bloom and Broder's (1950) extensive study of the problemsolving processes of college students. Using
recognition-type test questions emphasizing
thought and reasoning, these investigators reported that some 5s had difficulty with the
problems because of the presence of unfamiliar or highly abstract terms or ideas. The
successful problem solvers tended to translate
the difficult and unfamiliar terms into simpler, more concrete, or more familiar terms;
they would often substitute an illustration or
example for a vague concept and then work
with the problem in these more concrete
terms. Unsuccessful problem solvers, on the.
other hand, tended to accept the vague or unfamiliar concepts and appeared to be unable
to do anything further with them.
Several researchers have attempted to investigate the information-gathering aspect of
114
its role in the transfer of training, classification may also help the individual to discriminate between different problematic situations
so as to reduce the likelihood of inappropriate
generalization of past learning to new problem-solving situations (Bollard & Miller,
1950). Conceptual behavior may be what
Bloom and Broder (1950) were getting at
when they observed that their successful problem solvers seemed to "understand" the problem better than the unsuccessful problem
solvers.
A specific type of classification discussed
by several investigators involves subdividing
the problem into more manageable subproblems or issues (e.g., Osborn, 1963; Parnes,
1967). One way of conceptualizing an issue
is in terms of a conflict between a goal and
some physical or social obstacle standing in
the way of the goal. Still another type of issue
might involve a conflict or dissonance between two or more seemingly incompatible
goals. Once the problem has been formulated
adequately, the problem solver is ready to
begin generating alternatives.
Generation oj Alternatives
The major task during this stage is to generate possible solutions appropriate to the
particular problematic situation, and to do it
in such a way as to maximize the likelihood
that the most effective response will be among
those generated.
Much of the research in this area can be
discussed in relation to Osborn's (1963)
method of "brainstorming." Originally developed in 1938 as a procedure for facilitating
"idea-finding" in group sessions, brainstorming has four basic rules: (a) Criticism is ruled
out. Adverse judgment of ideas must be withheld until later, (b) "Free-wheeling" is welcomed. The wilder the idea, the better; it is
easier to tame clown than to think up. (c)
Quantity is wanted. The greater the number
of ideas, the greater the likelihood of useful
ideas, (d) Combination and improvement are
sought. In addition to contributing ideas of
their own, participants should suggest how
ideas of others can be turned into better
ideas, or how two or more ideas can be joined
into still another idea. (See Osborn, 1963, p.
156.) Underlying these brainstorming pro-
US
116
117
118
An ordinary person almost never approaches a problem systematically and exhaustively unless he has
been specifically educated to do so. It is much more
natural for him to visualize what is and what ought
to be and to focus on the gap between them than
to visualize some huge set of alternative possibilities
through which he must search [p. 174].
Thus, it would appear that the normative approach, which involves the delineation of
guidelines to help improve one's decisionmaking ability, holds the most promise for
behavior modification. Since relevant empirical research on the normative model is lacking, it is necessary to limit the discussion at
this point to the theoretical aspects of this
approach to decision making.
In the process of determining the "goodness" of any particular course of action, past
work on decision making has made extensive
use of utility theory (Becker & McClintock,
1967; Churchman, 1961; Edwards et al.,
1965; Shelly & Bryan, 1964). Based on the
pioneering efforts of von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944) to describe mathematically
the process of choice in economics and games,
utility theory involves a means-end conceptualization of decision making. Following the
paradigm described by Edwards (1961), the
expected utility of any alternative may be
arrived at by a joint consideration of the
value of each outcome, as well as by the
likelihood that the alternative will result in
achieving this outcome. The utility model
which most closely parallels human behavior
in problematic situations is one which involves a subjective estimate of the probability that each particular alternative will
achieve any given outcome, as well as subjective determination of the value of the
various outcomes. Edwards has referred to
this as the subjectively expected utility model
of human choice.
In certain types of decisions, the utility of
any given objective can be defined in a relatively straightforward fashion. For example,
in economics the value of a given course of
action (e.g., buying or selling) can typically
be determined in light of the probable financial consequences. The application of the utility theory in other areas is not nearly as
straightforward. Churchman (1961) has described in great detail some of the complications involved in the use of personal and
119.
120
involves a testing or determination of the extent to which the alternative finally selected
effectively resolves the major conflicts or issues which comprise the problematic situation. In order to deal with a problematic
situation at more than just a hypothetical
level, the individual must carry out the selected course of action, either in the life
situation or by role-playing the situation,
observe the various consequences of his actions, and test or match this outcome against
his expected outcome. If the match is satisfactory, the problem-solving process can be
terminated. If the individual finds the match
to be unsatisfactory, however, he continues
to "operate" (i.e., returning to problem definition and formulation, generation of alternatives, and/or decision making), repeating this
procedure until a satisfactory match is finally
achieved.
Unlike problem solving in situations where
there exists a known set of alternatives having clearly predictable outcomes, where the
utility values of these various alternatives are
fairly well defined, and where precise mathematical operations may be used in deciding
on the best available solution, the criteria for
exiting in real-life problem solving may not
be as precise as one would like. Because of
the complexities of situations with which
people must cope, as well as man's limited
information-processing abilities, it is not always possible for one to expect to achieve the
most "optimal" solution in any given situation. In commenting on his behavioral model
of rational choice, Simon (19S7) has argued
that man cannot realistically expect to completely "maximize" his success in any given
problematic situation, but instead should set
as his standard for exiting one which "satisfices," that is, where he finds himself to be
reasonably successful. Despite the fact that
maximization is extremely unlikely in reallife problem solving, the use of a problemsolving strategy for normative or prescriptive
purposes can nonetheless be expected to increase an individual's general effectiveness in
handling most problematic situations.
CLINICAL APPLICATION
Principles of problem solving, as outlined
in the previous section, may be applied in a
variety of different ways in the clinical setting. Some of the possible tactics are outlined
below, with the full recognition that the actual evaluation of these procedures awaits
empirical verification.
Assessment for Treatment
Prior to the application of any behavior
modification program, an adequate assessment
is required in order to determine the most
appropriate procedures to use (Bandura,
1969; Goldfried & Pomeranz, 1968). This
assessment should be repeated periodically
throughout treatment so that new procedures
may be instituted when they are likely to be
of value (Cautela, 1968). Whenever it appears that the client's difficulties are resulting from the ineffectiveness with which he
handles a broad range of problematic situations, we would suggest that problem-solving
training might be useful.
Probably the most appropriate case for this
technique is the so-called "dependent" client
who cannot cope with problematic situations
on his own, but can perform quite effectively
with a minimum of difficulty when the therapist tells him exactly what to do. This type
of client has an adequate repertoire of general performance skills but a deficit in independent problem-solving ability. The major
goal of treatment with this client should be
to teach him new problem-solving skills and
not to merely feed him an unending series of
"solutions." Another type of ineffective client
who might benefit from problem-solving training is one who possesses good problem-solving
skills but fails to use them because of emotional inhibitions (e.g., anxiety elicited by
stopping to think, evaluating alternatives,
acting on one's own decision, etc.). In cases
such as this, a graded-tasks approach to
problem-solving training and implementation
might produce a disinhibiting effect through
a process similar to in vivo desensitization
(cf. Wolpe & Lazarus, 1966). In general,
however, ineffective clients are likely to show
a combination of difficulties (i.e., deficits and
inhibitions), involving not only problem solving but also response execution. Hence, a
"broad-spectrum" approach (A. A. Lazarus,
1966) would be used most often, where problem-solving training is employed along with
a variety of other behavior modification techniques, such as behavior rehearsal or systematic desensitization.
121
Treatment Procedures
The training procedures proposed here can
be viewed as a behavior modification program in which the desired behavioral outcome, that is, effective problem solving, is
achieved in progressive steps. For each problematic situation used for training, the client
reaches some minimal criterion for adequate
performance in one stage of problem solving
before he is allowed to go on to the next, and
so on until all stages have been completed
and the problem satisfactorily "solved."
New problematic situations are then introduced and the training procedures repeated
until a satisfactory level of problem-solving
effectiveness has been achieved in all five
stages. By this time, the problem-solving
process should have become a well-established
response sequence in a manner similar to the
learning of a "response chain" in operant
conditioning, in which each "link" acquires
the capacity to serve as a cue for the next
and a conditioned reinforcer for the last and
the entire chain is reinforced by the final outcome, that is, satisfactory problem resolution.
In the process of training, other principles of
behavior modification may also be employed
fruitfully, the most important of which would
be modeling for imitation and social reinforcement. During the early phase of training, the therapist demonstrates the problemsolving procedures while the client passively
5
observes. Since the technique is primarily a
We should point out that the primary function
covert set of operations which cannot be di- of this general orientation is to provide the client
122
7
Space limitations prevent us from listing still
other details which might be relevant to this particular problematic situation such as the nature of the
husband's conversational and sexual behavior when
he is not tired and other aspects of the general marriage relationship. This information could be important in determining the major problematic issues
and the best possible courses of action.
Since Sally was in the early stages of training, examples and other prompts (i.e., questions, partial solutions) were often used to
encourage her to stay with the task and avoid
giving up the search for strategies prematurely.
When it appeared that all possible strategylevel alternatives had been identified, training in decision making was introduced to
teach Sally how to evaluate her strategies.
Her major task was to identify the likely
consequences of each strategy and assign
values to them for use in determining the best
strategy or set of strategies for dealing with
her particular situation. To begin with, Sally
engaged in a rough "screening" of her list of
strategies to eliminate any obviously "inferior" ones. She was informed that this decision should be based on the identification of
one or more highly likely and extremely negative consequences which would suggest that a
more serious, detailed consideration of the
strategy would be unproductive and unwarranted. Following this initial screening, Sally
began considering the remaining strategies
by asking herself the following question: "If
I were to carry out this particular course of
action, what are the various possible consequences?" To facilitate this procedure, Sally
explored possible consequences in four different categories: personal, social, short-term,
and long-term. In the personal category, she
considered consequences in terms of her own
feelings, needs, and desires. The social category covered the consequences that the strategy might have on the "significant others" in
her life, as well as the reactions of others to
123
her. In her consideration of short-term consequences, Sally focused on both the personal and social effects of the strategy in her
immediate life situation, with particular reference to the stated goals and issues involved
in the problematic situation. With regard to
long-term consequences, Sally attempted to
anticipate the possible future results of a
particular course of action, including the possibility of avoiding similar problematic situations and the effects on long-range personal
goals and social relationships. For example,
the following are a few of the possible consequences which Sally identified for the strategy
"Take steps to have an affair with another
man": interesting social conversation, pleasurable sex experience, gifts, enjoyable social
activities, guilt feelings, my husband finding
out, separation and divorce, emotional problems in my child. Next, it was necessary for
Sally to consider the likelihood of occurrence
of these consequences and their value to her.
Because of man's limited information-processing ability, memory, and knowledge of
relevant information in any given situation,
it is unrealistic to expect that any client can
carry out the decision-making process with
the exact quantitative precision of a computer. Thus, at this point, Sally was dealing
with only a limited number of "significant"
consequences rather than with all possible
consequences. In estimating the likelihood of
occurrence of consequences, she considered
only three broad categories, that is, "highly
likely," "likely," and "unlikely." Similarly,
the assignment of values to the various consequences was made in general terms, that is,
"positive," "negative," and "neutral." All of
this information was recorded by Sail)' on a
special checklist (cf. Osborn, 1963; Parries,
1967) so that she could more easily compare
the different alternatives. After carefulty
weighing the various alternatives, Sally selected the set of strategies (in some cases
there might be only one) which she predicted
would have the best "payoff" in the sense of
resolving the major issues while maximizing
the likelihood of other positive consequences
and minimizing the likelihood of the negative
ones.
Once a set of strategies was selected, Sally
then returned to the generation-of-alternatives stage in order to produce specific behavioral alternatives for implementing her
124
strategies, using the same procedures she employed before in generating the strategics.
For example, in the case of the strategy
"Take steps to get a girlfriend or relative to
visit me occasionally on week nights," Sally
came up with such specific behaviors as "Ask
my mother to spend an evening with me at
least one night each week," "Ask several
neighbors if they would like to have a card
game at my house one night each week," and
"Inform my friends that I am beginning to
conduct a sewing class one evening each
week." After having generated as many behavioral alternatives as possible, Sally again
applied the decision-making principles in order to select the most effective means of implementing her chosen strategies.
Considering the strong emphasis which we
have placed on the cognitive operations believed to increase the probability of effective
behavior, we must guard against the danger
that we are teaching the client little else but
to become obsessive in his thinking. Some
means must be provided to encourage the
client to "exit" from the decision-making
stage of problem solving so that verification
of his decision can be made possible (cf.
Miller et al., 1960). Consequently, once the
client has decided upon what he believes to
be the most effective course of action, it is
the role of the therapist to encourage him to
act on his decision and then to verify the
extent to which his prediction of the outcome
was accurate. Training in verification primarily involves teaching the client to observe
and record the consequences of his actions.
If the client is "satisfied" with the outcome,
then the problem-solving process can at last
be terminated. Should he find that the actual
outcome has failed to satisfactorily "match"
his predicted outcome, he must "return to
the drawing board" and attempt to arrive at
another solution which might produce a better match. At this point he would take on
the role of a "trouble-shooter," trying to find
out where he had gone wrong and correcting
his errors. In Sally's case, her decision required her to engage in a variety of different
behaviors, including such things as asking
some friends in for a card game once each
week, enrolling in an evening adult-education
class in home economics, wearing sexy clothing when her husband comes home in the
evening, initiating sex early in the morning
125
FREEDMAN, J. L. Increasing creativity by freeassociation training, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1965, 69, 89-91.
GAGNE, R. M. Problem solving and thinking. Annual
Review of Psychology, 1959, 10, 147-172.
GAGNE, R. M. Problem solving. In A. W. Melton
(Ed.), Categories of human learning. New York:
Academic Press, 1964.
GAGNE, R. M. Human problem solving: Internal and
external events. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Problem
solving: Research, method and theory. New York:
Wiley, 1966.
GAONE, R. M. Varieties of learning and the concept
of discovery. In L. S. Shulman & E. R. Keislar
(Eds.), Learning by discovery. New York: RandMcNally, 1966.
GOLDFRIED, M. R. Systematic desensitization as
training in self-control. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 1971, in press.
GOLDFRIED, M. R., & D'ZURILLA, T. J. A behavioralanalytic model for assessing competence. In C. D.
Spielbergcr (Ed.), Current topics in clinical and
community psychology, Vol. /. New York: Academic Press, 1969.
GOLDFRIEO, M. R., & MERBAUM, M. (Eds.) Behavior
change through self-control. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, 1972, in press.
GOLDFKIED, M. R., & POMERANZ, D. M. Role of
assessment in behavior modification. Psychological
Reports, 1968, 23, 75-87.
GOLDLIMOND, I. Self-control procedures in personal
behavior problems. Psychological Reports, 1965,
17, 851-868.
GOLDSTEIN, A. P. Therapist-patient expectancies in
psychotherapy. New York: Pergamon Press, 1962.
GUILFORD, J. P. Creativity. American Psychologist,
19SO, 5, 444-454.
HACKMAN, J. R. The nature of the task as a determiner of job behavior. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D. C., September 1967.
HAMBURG, D. A., & ADAMS, J. E. A perspective on
coping behavior. Archives of General Psychiatry,
1967, 17, 277-284.
HARLOW, H. F, The formation of learning sets.
Psychological Review, 1949, 56, 51-65.
HII.GAED, E. R., & BOWER, G. H. Theories of learning
(3rd ed.) New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
1966.
HUDGINS, B. B. Problem solving in. the classroom.
New York: Macmillan, 1966.
JOHNSON, D. M., PARROTT, G. R., & STRATTON, R. P.
Production and judgment of solutions to five
problems. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1968, S9(No. 6, Pt. 2).
KAXFER, F. H. Self-regulation: Research, issues and
speculations. In C. Neuringcr & J. L. Michael
(Eds.), Behavior modification in clinical psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970.
KARLINS, M., & SCHRODER, H. M. Discovery learning,
creativity and the inductive teaching program.
Psychological Reports, 1967, 20, 867-876.
KELLY, G. A. The psychology of personal constructs.
II: Clinical diagnosis and psychotherapy. New
York: Norton, 1955.
KRUMBOLTZ, J. D., & TIIORESEN, C. E. (Eds.) Be-
126