Journal of Abnormal Psychology

1971, Vol. 78, No. 1, 107-126

PROBLEM SOLVING AND BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION'

THOMAS J. D'ZURILLA ^ AND MARVIN R. GOLDFRIED
Stale University of New York at Stony Brook

Problem-solving theory and research were selectively reviewed for possible

applications in behavior modification. Problem solving was defined as a be-
havioral process which (a) makes available a variety of response alternatives
for dealing with a problematic situation and (b) increases the probability of
selecting the most effective response from among these alternatives. Five stages
of problem solving were identified: (a) general orientation or "set," (b) prob-
lem definition and formulation, (c) generation of alternatives, (d) decision
making, and (e) verification. Training in problem solving was conceptualized
as a form of self-control training, that is, the individual "learns how to solve
problems" and thus discovers for himself the most effective way of responding.
General guidelines are presented for clinical application with cases characterized
by a deficit in effective behavior and its emotional consequences.

Because of the complex and ever-changing
nature of our society, modern man finds him-
self confronted continuously by situational
problems with which he must cope. Depend-
ing upon the complexity of the situation and
the possible negative consequences of han-
dling it poorly, these problems may be trivial
or crucial. Thus, ranging from such minor
dilemmas as trying to decide what tie to wear
in the morning to more significant issues, such
as dealing with an unreasonable employer or
a nagging wife, our daily lives are replete with
situational problems which we must solve in
order to maintain an adequate level of effec-
tive functioning,
Apart from the level of complexity or the
degree of seriousness of such problems, the
effectiveness with which one is capable of
handling them clearly varies from person to
person. The existence of such individual dif-
ferences has long been recognized, as reflected
in Socrates' observation that competent indi-
viduals are "those who manage well the cir-
cumstances which they encounter daily, and
who possess a judgment which is accurate in
meeting occasions as they arise and rarely
1
The preparation of this paper was supported by
Research Grant MH1S044 from the National Insti-
tue of Mental Health. The authors would like to
thank H. William Morrison and Sidney J. Fames
for their helpful comments and suggestions in the
preparation of this paper.
2
Requests for reprints should be sent to Thomas
J. D'Zurilla,-Department of Psychology, State Uni-
versity of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook,
Long Island, New York 11790.
107
miss the expedient course of action." Con-
versely, much of what we view clinically as
"abnormal behavior" or "emotional disturb-
ance" may be viewed as ineffective behavior
and its consequences, in which the individual
is unable to resolve certain situational prob-
lems in his life and his inadequate attempts
to do so are having undesirable effects, such as
anxiety, depression, and the creation of addi-
tional 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 prob-
lem solving,
RELEVANCE OF PROBLEM SOLVING FOR
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION
The question of relevance can best be ap-
proached 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 spe-
cific 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
108 THOMAS D'ZUIULLA AND MARVIN GOLD FRIED
most instances in place of "problem." In the
present context, a situation is considered
problematic if no effective response alterna-
tive is immediately available to the individual
confronted with the situation (Davis, 1966;
Skinner, 1953). Included in this definition,
therefore, are all those situations which, by
virtue of their novel aspects, complexities,
ambiguities, or conflicting stimulus demands,
present circumstances that involve the failure
of "automatic" effective action, thus requir-
ing problem-solving behavior.
It should not be assumed that because of
the present situational emphasis in the defini-
tion of the term "problem," all relevant stim-
ulus elements must be construed as originat-
ing from the individual's external environ-
ment. Some 20 yr. ago, Bollard and Miller
(1950) stressed that an important part of any
individual's stimulus environment often con-
sists of the "feedback" from his own responses,
internal as well as overt (i.e., "response-pro-
duced cues"). Hence, any one problematic
situation may be viewed as a stimulus com-
plex including both external situational events
as well as response-produced cues resulting
from personal reactions, including thoughts
or emotional responses. Moreover, the use of
the term "situation" does not necessarily im-
ply a particular time and place. A problematic
situation may involve a series of related events
over a period of time, including a number of
different settings. The various stimulus events
which define the problematic situation are
those which are relevant for helping one to
determine what is an effective response to the
situation.
As it will be used in the present context,
problem solving may be defined as a behav-
ioral process, whether overt or cognitive -in
nature, which (a) makes available a variety
of potentially effective response alternatives
jor dealing with the problematic situation and
(b) increases the probability of selecting the
most effective response jrom among these vari-
ous alternatives. As this definition implies,
problem solving is viewed as encompassing
activities which include both the generation
of alternative responses as well as decision-
making or choice behavior (cf. Gagne, 1959;
Maier, I960). 3 In the real-life setting, the
decision-making aspect is especially impor-
tant, since most of life's problems have more
than one "correct" solution, that is, they may
be handled adequately in a number of different
ways, some of which may be more effective or
appropriate than others. In line with the above
definition, problem solving may also be de-
scribed as a learning process. The legitimate
place of problem solving in learning theory
has been asserted by Gagne (1966a) as fol-
lows :
The solving of a problem is an event which needs to
be classified, so far as the individual's behavior is
concerned, as an act of learning . . . [since] . . . the
observed events in problem solving comprise a change
in human performance, and this in turn leads us to
infer a change in human capability [p. 130).
Moreover, the present authors concur with
those who distinguish problem solving from
simple conditioning and rote learning and
view it as a transfer-of-training phenomenon
involving the operation of cognitive strategies
or "learning sets" (cf. Harlow, 1949) which
enable an individual to "create" or "discover"
symbolically solutions to a variety of unfa-
miliar problems (cf. Duncan, 1959; Gagne,
1959, 1964, 1966b; Hudgins, 1966). To those
who might question the appropriateness of
including such cognitive processes in the same
category as other kinds of learning, Hilgard
and Bower (1966) have indicated:
There may be several kinds of learning from the
simpler to the more complex, not all following the
same principles. If so, we have no assurance that the
only sharp break comes when "reasoning" appears.
Leaving the doubtful processes in simply asserts
that a complete theory of learning must have some-
thing to say about reasoning, creative imagination,
and inventiveness, in addition to what may be said
about memorizing and retaining or about the acqui-
sition of skill [p. 6],
A solution (i.e., an effective response) in a
problematic situation may now be specifically
defined as a response or pattern oj responses
which alters the situation so that it is no
3
The research and theory on decision making ac-
tually deals with more than choice behavior alone.
In many instances there is considerable overlap with
problem-solving research and theory. However, we
find the present conceptual distinction between prob-
lem solving and decision making to be a useful one
for our purposes.
 PKOBLKM SOLVING AND BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION
longer problematic to the Individual and at
the same time maximizes other positive conse-
quences and minimizes other negative ones.
The "other positive and negative conse-
quences" in this definition refer to the various
possible short-term, long-term, personal, and
social effects of the individual's response to
the situation (e.g., creation or avoidance of
additional problematic situations, pleasant or
disturbing emotional reactions, positive or
negative self-perceptions, social approval, or
censure).
It should now be clear that the goals of
problem solving and behavior modification are
one and the same, namely, to stimulate be-
havior which is likely to produce positive
consequences, that is, positive reinforcement,
and avoid negative consequences, that is, nega-
tive reinforcement. Training in problem solv-
ing, therefore, may be viewed as one of several
possible behavior modification techniques for
facilitating effective behavior. The potential
advantages of the problem-solving approach
over others, with particular reference to the
concept of self-control, will be discussed later.
At this point, it might be worthwhile to
stress the important distinction we are mak-
ing between problem solving and emitting an
effective response in a problematic situation.
As it has been denned here, problem solving
clearly refers to the process or technique by
which one attempts to "discover" a solution
to a problem. The problem-solving task is one
of learning to combine previously acquired
responses in a novel way so as to produce a
new response or response pattern and to form
a new association between this response pat-
tern and the particular problematic situation
in question. "Emitting an effective response,"
on the other hand, refers to the performance
or execution of the response, which is only one
possible outcome of an individual's problem-
solving attempts, an outcome which is a func-
tion not only of problem solving but of other
factors related to the individual's learning
history as well (e.g., anxiety, motivation, be-
havioral deficits). Thus, it is possible for an
individual to solve a problem symbolically
but fail to carry out the response in the actual
problematic situation because of such ob-
stacles as response inhibitions or other moti-
109
vational problems, or to carry it out inade-
quately because of certain performance defi-
cits.
The relevance of problem solving for be-
havior modification may now be discussed
further by considering the following two im-
portant assumptions: (a) that ineffectiveness
in coping with problematic situations, along
with its personal and social consequences, is
often a necessary and sufficient condition for
an emotional or behavior disorder requiring
psychological treatment; and (b) that general
effectiveness may be most efficiently facili-
tated by training individuals in general pro-
cedures or skills which would allow them to
deal independently with the critical prob-
lematic situations that confront them in clay-
to-day living.
The first assumption is representative of the
social-learning approach to the conceptualiza-
tion of psychopathology, an approach which
has been enjoying increasing support in recent
years (Bandura, 1969; Peterson, 1968; Ull-
mann & Krasner, 1969). Rejecting the tradi-
tional "medical" view that abnormality is best
explained in terms of symptoms of some un-
derlying "disease" process, the social-learning
approach places most of its emphasis on the
individual's learned response to more or less
naturally occurring life circumstances. When
the individual's characteristic response is in-
effective (i.e., results in negative consequences
to himself and/or others), it runs the risk of
receiving such labels as "abnormal," "dis-
turbed," or "maladjusted," depending upon
the particular behavioral norms and standards
of the person doing the judging (Bandura,
1969; Ullmann & Krasner, 1969). In attempt-
ing to account for ineffective behavior, social
learning theorists stress the inadequacy of
the person's past learning history; the indi-
vidual is prone to behave ineffectively in cer-
tain situations because he has never had the
opportunity to learn a more effective way of
responding to those particular situations. To
overcome this performance deficit, the indi-
vidual must engage in successful trial-and-
error behavior (i.e., instrumental learning),
receive "guidance" from others (i.e., prompt-
ing, social reinforcement), or pattern his be-
havior after the example of other effective
 110 THOMAS D'ZUKILLA AND MARVIN GOLDFUIED
individuals (i.e., "live" or symbolic model-
ing). 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 en-
gage in overt trial-and-error behavior, receive
guidance, or observe an effective model. We
are referring to the possibility that the indi-
vidual might be able to "figure out" what he
should do in these situations. In other words,
he might have acquired the necessary sym-
bolic skills to engage in effective problem-
solving 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 con-
sequences). It would seem reasonable from a
social-learning point of view, therefore, to hy-
pothesize that some individuals behave in-
effectively not only because of a lack of suc-
cessful learning experiences with certain spe-
cific 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 gen-
eral effectiveness in handling problematic sit-
uations 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 problem-
solving therapy program and evaluating it ex-
perimentally. 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-
sured by Rotter's Incomplete Sentence Blank),
as well as increased feelings of self-confidence
in such areas as relationships with parents,
peer relations, academic performance, mar-
riage goals, and so forth. However, since the
criteria for improvement consisted only of
attitudinal changes and there was no control
for the possibility that "nonspecific" aspects
of the therapy may have contributed to the
results (cf. Frank, 1961; Goldstein, 1962),
the findings of Morton's study can only be
viewed as offering suggestive evidence for the
beneficial effects of training in problem solv-
ing.
As far as the behavior modification litera-
ture is concerned, it is clear that most appli-
cations have emphasized discrete response
training (e.g., relaxation responses, assertive
responses) in specific problematic situations
(cf. Ullmann & Krasner, 196S; Wolpe &
Lazarus, 1966).* While a favorable outcome
has been achieved with these techniques in
many cases (cf. Franks, 1969), it would ap-
pear that the greater the deficit in indepen-
dent problem-solving behavior, the more diffi-
cult it would be to help clients who display
pervasive ineffectiveness in dealing with day-
to-day problems. Nevertheless, it is often as-
sumed that "generalized" behavior changes
and increases in independent problem-solving
ability will "automatically" follow when cli-
ents learn an effective response to one or more
specific situations. Unfortunately, however,
there is a dearth of evidence at present to
support this general assumption in the clinical
setting. We would tend to agree with Leff's
(1968) observation that:
A promising approacli to the problem [of limited
behavior changes] would seem to be one that em-
phasizes the establishment of learning and behavior
strategies or, in operant terminology, complex re-
sponse chains with general applicability, as opposed
to an approach that emphasizes discrete response
learning [p. 408],
We have already suggested that problem-
solving training may be viewed as a pro-
cedure whereby the individual develops a
4
A few recent surveys have revealed a promising
trend toward a greater emphasis on the learning of
cognitive skills to facilitate broader behavioral
changes (cf. Bandura, 1969; Goldfried, 1971; Kanfer,
1970; Krumboltz & Thoresen, 1969).
 PROBLEM SOLVING AND BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION
"learning set," or "learns how to solve prob-
lems," thus increasing the generality of effec-
tiveness. In line with this view, problem-solv-
ing training may be conceived of as a form
of sell-control or independence training. In
behavioristic terms, self-control occurs when
an individual manipulates certain aspects of
his behavior, over which he has good control,
so as to stimulate or regulate other behaviors
which are not under good control (cf. Goldia-
mond, 196S; Skinner, 1953). The major dif-
ference between the problem-solving approach
and most other forms of self-control is that in
problem solving almost the entire procedure is
performed without prior awareness of the
"correct" response, whereas in the typical
.self-control procedure, the response to be
manipulated is known in advance. In fact, the
major objective in problem solving is to
identify the most effective response, after
which other self-controlling operations may be
employed to stimulate and maintain perform-
ance of the selected course of action. Hence,
with the recent emphasis in behavior modifi-
cation on the importance of self-control (Can-
tela, 1969; D'Zurilla, 1969; Goldfried, 1971;
Goldfried & Merbaum, 1972; Kanfer, 1970),
it can be seen that the use of problem solving
has great potential for training a client to
function "as his own therapist."
Investigators in the fields of education and
industry, who are also concerned with the
development of improved techniques for fa-
cilitating new learning and behavior change,
have shown considerably more interest than
those in clinical psychology in exploring the
possible advantages of problem-solving train-
ing (cf. Crutchfield, 1969; Davis, Manske, &
Train, 1967; Olton & Crutchfield, 1969; Os-
born, 1963; Parnes, 1967). The experimental
results reported thus far in these areas on the
facilitation of problem-solving skills tend to
be quite promising. The more relevant work
will be referred to later in this article. Having
argued in support of a general view of prob-
lem solving as both a learning process involv-
ing the use of cognitive strategies and as a
self-control procedure or skill by which one
may increase his own competence, we may
now turn to a selective review and discussion
of research and theory in problem solving.
111
PROBLEM SOLVING: RESEARCH AND THEORY
Research and theory in problem solving
have come from several different fields, in-
cluding experimental psychology, education,
and industry. Some research investigators,
particularly those in experimental psychology,
have concentrated on studies of the specific
independent variables that influence typical
problem-solving performance. These studies
have primarily employed such intellectual
problematic tasks as solving water-jar prob-
lems, jigsaw puzzles, mechanical problems,
mathematical problems, anagrams, and con-
cept-identification tasks. In education and
industry, on the other hand, the emphasis has
been more on the development and evalua-
tion of procedures to facilitate effective prob-
lem-solving performance and on the use of
more creative and imaginative tasks, such as
finding unusual uses for common objects and
developing ideas for selling and improving
products. More important, however, several
studies in these areas have employed prob-
lematic tasks related to personal and social
effectiveness in dealing with various aspects
of the everyday social environment.
In this section and the one following it on
clinical applications, the problem-solving
process will be divided into several stages or
sets of cognitive operations, and each will be
discussed in turn. Although studies have
shown that there are wide differences among
individuals in the manner in which they ac-
tually go about solving problems (e.g., Bloom
& Broder, 19SO; Buswell, 1956; Schroder,
Driver, & Streufert, 1967), there has been a
remarkable degree of agreement among vari-
ous theorists and investigators working in
different areas as to the general kinds of op-
erations involved in effective problem solving
(e.g., Brim, Glass, Lavin, & Goodman, 1962;
Gofer, 1957; Crutchfield, 1969; Gagne, 1959;
Hackman, 1967; Osborn, 1963; Parnes, 1967;
Shaftel & Shaftel, 1967). Setting aside some
minor variations in wording and categoriza-
tion, the following five general stages come
closest to representing a consensus viewpoint:
(a) general orientation (i.e., "set" and atti-
tuclinal factors), (b) problem definition and
formulation, (c) generation of alternatives,
 112 THOMAS D'ZURILLA AND MARVIN GOLD FRIED
(r/) decision making (i.e., evaluation and se-
lection), 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 ap-
proach to problem solving is not meant to im-
ply that this is precisely the manner in which
problem solving is, or should actually be, car-
ried out in real life. The present authors con-
cur with Crutchfield (1969), who stresses
that problem solving rarely proceeds accord-
ing to these neatly ordered stages; more typi-
cally, 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 be-
fore making his decision. Thus, the discussion
which follows should be viewed not as a de-
scription of the actual problem-solving process
as it is likely to occur in vivo, but instead as
a way of organizing problem-solving proced-
ures or operations for purposes of study and
training.
General Orientation
It has long been recognized that an indi-
vidual's general orientation or set in ap-
proaching a situation can greatly influence
the way in which he will respond to that situ-
ation. The type of orientation which is likely
to encourage independent problem-solving be-
havior should include the set or attitude to
(a) accept the fact that problematic situa-
tions constitute a normal part of life, and that
it is possible to cope with most of these situ-
ations 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, frustra-
tion, emotional upset, and maladaptive be-
havior are likely to follow. The depressed,
"why-do-these-things-always-happen-to-me"
reaction often reflects the failure of the indi-
vidual to accept the fact that problematic sit-
uations are "normal," and that he is capable
of finding solutions to most of these situations
through his own efforts. In a study of effec-
tive behavior among college freshmen (Gold-
fried & 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. Regard-
ing 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 solv-
ers. Similarly, research findings reviewed by
Lefcourt (1966) and Rotter (1966) indicate
that an individual's general expectation of be-
ing able to control his environment can
greatly increase the likelihood that he will
actually attempt to cope with situational prob-
lems when they do in fact occur. It has also
been consistently noted in the therapy re-
search literature that the client's initial expec-
tation for positive behavior change can greatly
facilitate the actual improvement which is
made during therapy (Frank, 1961; Gold-
stein, 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 oc-
cur. 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 puz-
zled 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 suc-
ceed—where 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].
 PROBLEM SOLVING AND BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION
As this quote implies, it would appear that
one of the important identifying features of
problematic situations rests in the individual's
affective reaction to it. Rather than dwelling
on this emotional response and perhaps at-
tempting to deal with it by various techniques
of cognitive distortion (cf. R. S, Lazarus,
1966), the individual should use it as a cite to
focus attention on the problematic situation
producing it.
Along with being able to identify problem-
atic situations as they occur, it is also impor-
tant to maintain an inhibitory set prior to any
overt response. The major function of this
inhibitory set is to reduce the tendency either
to react automatically (and often inappropri-
ately) to familiar stimuli in problematic situ-
ations, or to passively avoid the problem by
"doing nothing." Several authors have de-
scribed this set as a crucial prerequisite for
effective problem solving (Bloom & Broder,
19SO; Dollard & Miller, 19SO; Osborn, 1963;
. Parnes, 1967; Shaftel & Shaftel, 1967; Si-
mon, 1957). Research findings by Bloom and
Broder (1950) indicate that less successful
problem solvers tend to be impulsive, im-
patient, and quick to give up if a solution is
not immediately apparent. Dollard and Miller
(1950) similarly maintain that the first step
in any but the most simple types of reasoning
is to "stop and think," They point out that
if the person responds immediately when con-
fronted with a problematic situation, there
may not be sufficient time for those cue-pro-
ducing responses to occur which could ensure
that he selects the most appropriate and ef-
fective course of action.
Problem Definition and Formulation
In the typical problem-solving experiment,
the problematic situation is presented to S in
a highly structured, well-defined form with
the aid of specific, detailed instructions. The
purpose of this procedure is to avoid an un-
wanted source of variance in problem-solving
performance (Gagne, 1964). In contrast to
the laboratory setting, however, most prob-
lematic situations in the real world are more
"messy," that is, vague or ambiguous, lacking
in necessary facts and information, and inade-
quate in terms of suggesting the appropriate
direction or goals for problem solving. There-
113
fore, in the real-life setting, when an indi-
vidual recognizes a problematic situation and
inhibits his tendency to respond "automati-
cally" 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 appropri-
ately so as to separate relevant from irrelevant
information, identify his primary goals, and
specify the major subproblems, issues, or con-
flicts.
The need for specificity and comprehensive-
ness 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, de-
cision making), the problem solver must
avoid the use of terms which are too vague or
ambiguous to be meaningful; he should con-
sider 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 con-
cretely, 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 con-
crete approach comes from Bloom and Brod-
er's (1950) extensive study of the problem-
solving processes of college students. Using
recognition-type test questions emphasizing
thought and reasoning, these investigators re-
ported that some 5s had difficulty with the
problems because of the presence of unfa-
miliar or highly abstract terms or ideas. The
successful problem solvers tended to translate
the difficult and unfamiliar terms into sim-
pler, 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 un-
familiar concepts and appeared to be unable
to do anything further with them.
Several researchers have attempted to in-
vestigate the information-gathering aspect of
114 THOMAS D'ZURILLA AND MARVIN GOLDFEIED
problem definition. For example, Rimoldi and
Erdmann (1967) presented a method whereby
an 5 is required to ask a prescribed set of
questions in order to solve a problem, A simi-
lar approach is used in the Inductive Teach-
ing Program of Karlins and Schroder (1967),
which consists of a set of stored facts about a
specific problematic situation. The problem
solver must get these facts by the "inquiry"
method, that is, by asking questions that will
elicit these pieces of information. In the above
approaches, the methods are designed to pro-
vide an S with the basic units of information
necessary for problem solving; they do not
train him to process or formulate the informa-
tion in a meaningful way.
In the Productive Thinking Program of
Crutchfield and his associates (Covington,
Crutchfield, & Davies, 1966; Crutchfield,
1969; Olton Si Crutchfield, 1969), on the
other hand, an attempt is made to train fifth-
grade and sixth-grade children in skills for
formulating problems. According to Crutch-
field (1969), these particular skills involve
identifying the boundary conditions of the
problem, putting the facts into some orderly
form, discriminating relevant from irrelevant
facts, recognizing gaps in the available infor-
mation, and specifying what other data are
needed to fill these gaps.
The important role of classification or con-
cept formation in problem solving has been
stressed by Gagne (1959, 1966a), who argues
convincingly that the individual in a problem-
solving situation is not responding primarily
to the physical stimuli in the situation, but
rather to mediational cues which represent
these stimuli. In other words, the individual
is dealing more with concepts and the infor-
mation conveyed by those concepts (i.e., their
"meaning") than he is with physical objects
or events in the situation. Mowrer (1960) has
pointed out that by classifying something the
individual is able to relate it to other members
of a category with which he has had experi-
ence in the past. In a similar vein, Skinner
(19S3) talked about arranging and rearrang-
ing stimuli to encourage the emission of a
response which may prove to be a solution,
which includes looking at the situation from
different viewpoints and classifying stimuli or
information in different ways. In addition to
its role in the transfer of training, classifica-
tion may also help the individual to discrimi-
nate between different problematic situations
so as to reduce the likelihood of inappropriate
generalization of past learning to new prob-
lem-solving situations (Bollard & Miller,
1950). Conceptual behavior may be what
Bloom and Broder (1950) were getting at
when they observed that their successful prob-
lem solvers seemed to "understand" the prob-
lem better than the unsuccessful problem
solvers.
A specific type of classification discussed
by several investigators involves subdividing
the problem into more manageable subprob-
lems 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 be-
tween 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 gen-
erate 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 devel-
oped in 1938 as a procedure for facilitating
"idea-finding" in group sessions, brainstorm-
ing has four basic rules: (a) Criticism is ruled
out. Adverse judgment of ideas must be with-
held until later, (b) "Free-wheeling" is wel-
comed. 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-
 PROBLEM SOLVING AND BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION
cedures are two basic principles of idea pro-
duction, that is, deferment of judgment and
quantity breeds quality. The deferment-of-
judgment principle states that a person can
generate more good quality responses if he
defers evaluation until after an adequate list
of possible alternatives has been created. In
following this principle, an individual at-
tempts to generate one alternative after an-
other without concerning himself as to their
value, acceptability, or appropriateness. While
the individual is instructed to let his imagi-
nation "run loose" and to produce an abun-
dance of response associations, he does not
engage in free association, but in "limited-cri-
teria thinking" (cf, Parnes, 1967). That is,
he limits his responses so that they are clearly
relevant to dealing with such-and-such a
problem or situation. Thus, it is apparent that
the individual's response production during
this procedure is influenced to a great extent
by the way in which the problem has been
defined and formulated.
Deferment of judgment has been given more
emphasis than by any other principle or pro-
cedure in Osborn's book and in the creative
problem-solving studies of Parnes and his
associates (e.g., Meadow & Parnes, 1959;
Meadow, Parnes, & Reese, 19 59; Parnes,
1962, 1967; Parnes & Meadow, 1960). Re-
ceiving nearly as much attention, however, is
the quantity-breeds-quality principle. Accord-
ing to this principle, the more response alter-
natives a person can generate, the more likely
he is to arrive at the potentially best ideas for
a solution.
Although there have been a number of re-
ports claiming to support the efficacy of
brainstorming, most of them have been based
upon uncontrolled training programs for ad-
ministrative personnel (cf. Clark, 19S8; Ma-
son, 1960; Osborn, 1963). While these re-
ports provide suggestive evidence in favor of
brainstorming in general, they do not permit
any definite conclusions about the value of
this approach or any of its specific principles
or procedures. However, a few other studies
have been reported which provide more ade-
quate data. Using problems requiring the
listing of all possible uses for an ordinary
broom and wire coat hanger, Parnes and his
associates (Meadow et al., 1959; Parnes &
US
Meadow, 1959) found that more good ideas
were produced under brainstorming instruc-
tions than under instructions requesting 5s
to produce only good ideas. Results consist-
ent with these were also found by Weisskopf-
Joelson and Eliseo (1961), who asked 5s to
invent brand names for new products, and
by Brilhart and Jochem (1964), who used
more socially oriented problems. On the
basis of these findings, it would appear that
the brainstorming package is more effective in
generating a greater number and variety of
potentially effective responses than the more
conventional response-production procedure
of trying to generate only good quality al-
ternatives.
Studies suggesting that Brainstorming Rule
1, namely, "criticism is ruled out," may have
an independent facilitative effect on the gen-
eration of good alternatives have been re-
ported by Bayless (1967) and by Parloff and
Handlon (1964). These studies showed that
when compared with critical instructions,
noncritical or low critical instructions resulted
in significantly more responses in general and
more "good" responses in particular. In the
Bayless study, however, this effect was ob-
tained only with a problem about which 5s
had firsthand knowledge; with a less familiar
problem, the results were reversed. Since the
critical set was introduced by instructing 5s
to discuss specific criteria for a "good" solu-
tion before brainstorming, it is possible that
this helped 5s to better understand and for-
mulate the unfamiliar problem. A study rele-
vant to this interpretation was carried out
by Davis and Manske (1966), who instructed
5s to imagine themselves in specific situa-
tions (e.g., on a picnic at the beach) and
then list all the possible uses they could think
of for particular objects (e.g., a wire coat
hanger) in those situations. The ideas pro-
duced by this group were compared to a
group instructed to think of all possible uses
for particular objects, but without reference
to any specific situations. The results showed
that the experimental group produced more
ideas, a higher proportion of original ideas,
and a higher proportion of "good" ideas (i.e.,
ideas rated as both original and practical).
Consistent with Bayless' (1967) findings,
these results suggest that more and better
116 THOMAS D'ZUKILLA AND MARVIN GOLDFEIED
ideas for solutions may be produced when
the problem solver responds to the relevant
situational cues and other information asso-
ciated with the task or problem.
The second rule of brainstorming, that is,
"free-wheeling" is welcome, essentially re-
quests that 5s "be original." Most relevant
here is the research on Maltzman's (1960)
technique for training in originality. In the
Maltzman method, a modified free associa-
tion situation is employed in which 5s are
repeatedly presented with a list of stimulus
words and are instructed to give a different
response to a word each time it is presented.
On the basis of a series of experiments (cf.
Maltzman, Bogartz, & Breger, 1QS8; Maltz-
man, Simon, Raskin, & Licht, 1960), Maltz-
man concluded that his training method
facilitated originality during training, on a
subsequent test list of stimulus words, and
on Guilford's (19SO) Unusual Uses test of
creativity. When Mednick's (1962) Remote
Associations Test (RAT) was used to assess
treatment effects, however, the Maltzman
procedure failed to improve scores on this
measure, although it did tend to produce
more uncommon responses (Caron, Unger, &
Parloff, 1963). It is possible that the Maltz-
man technique can contribute to problem-
solving effectiveness in situations in which
there are a number of possible good ideas or
solutions, but it may have limited value for
problems having only one or a few specific
solutions (cf. Davis, Manske, & Train, 1967).
A useful modification of the Maltzman
technique has been presented by Freedman
(196S). Instead of having 5s produce one
associate at a time to each stimulus word,
Freedman allowed them 30 sec, to generate
as many associations as possible before mov-
ing on to the next stimulus word. The 5s
trained by this procedure did significantly
better on the RAT than did 5s who either
only defined the same list of words or who
simply read the list of associations given by
the training group. Apart from the positive
findings on the RAT, these results are also
significant in that they indicate that it was
the process of creating many associations, not
merely the instructional set to generate many
associations, that facilitated originality.
The "quantity" rule seems to enjoy the
most support of all the brainstorming rules
and may very well be implicitly involved to
a significant degree in all of them. In the
studies on brainstorming by Parnes and
his associates, which have been referred to
earlier, an important additional finding was
that there was a significant correlation be-
tween total quantity of ideas and number of
"good" ideas. Parnes (1961) also showed
that following brainstorming instructions, sig-
nificantly more "good" ideas tend to be
among the last half of idea output than
among the first half. Maier and Hoffman
(1964) also reported that in group problem
solving, later solutions tend to be superior to
first ideas.
It does not seem that experimentation is
required to confirm the potential utility of
the fourth brainstorming rule, namely, that
"combination and improvement" of ideas are
sought. It is self-evident that a combination
of two or more ideas or courses of action will
often be superior to any one of its compo-
nents, or that an idea will often be improved
on by modifying it in various ways. What
is most important for training purposes is
that instructions or procedures be employed
to ensure that 5s will consider all possible
combinations and variations of response al-
ternatives. For this purpose, Osborn (1963)
has described the use of a technique called
"forced relationships," which involves the
combination of each specific idea for a solu-
tion with every other idea. When the problem
has been broken down into various subprob-
lems or issues, ideas might be generated first
for dealing with each of the subproblems,
followed by a forced-relationships procedure
whereby each idea for a particular subprob-
lem is combined with every other idea for
the other subproblems.
Up to this point, the discussion has been
concerned primarily with procedures designed
to facilitate as great a variety of response al-
ternatives as possible. In addition, however,
the generation-of-alternatives stage of prob-
lem solving must also employ procedures to
ensure that response alternatives will be iden-
tified and described at an appropriate level
of specificity. The need for clarity and con-
creteness is no less important here than in
the problem definition and formulation phase.
 PROBLEM SOLVING AND BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION
In attempting to assess effectiveness in han-
dling problematic situations among college
freshmen, the present authors (Goldfried &
D'Zurilla, 1969) have observed that 5s have
the tendency to describe their responses pri-
marily in terms of general "strategies" (i.e.,
objectives with very general or vaguely stated
means) rather than specific behaviors. For
example, an 5 might state that he would
"improve study habits" without describing
how he might go about accomplishing this.
To deal with this lack of specificity, Maier
(1960) has stressed the need for instructions
requesting 5s to state their solutions in terms
of specific actions. An alternative procedure
is to encourage the problem solver first to
generate as many general strategies as pos-
sible, then to enter the decision-making phase
and select the best strategy or set of strate-
gies, and finally to return to the generation
of alternatives phase in order to produce as
many alternative specific behaviors as possi-
ble for carrying out the selected strategies
(cf. Crutchfield, 1969; Hackman, 1967).
There appear to be certain advantages to this
procedure. If the problem solver were to work
only at the specific behavior level without
first considering strategies, there would be a
greater likelihood of "getting into a rut" and
staying within only one or a few types of ap-
proaches; if these few approaches were not
the best for the particular problem in ques-
tion, effectiveness would be reduced. A fur-
ther possible advantage is that the procedure
may increase efficiency. By first selecting the
best strategy, it would only be necessary to
generate specific behaviors for that particu-
lar strategy. Considering the much greater
number of alternatives that one would have
to generate in working only at the specific
behavior level, it is clear that the strategy-
to-specific behavior method would involve a
considerable saving in time.
In summary, the above research indicates
that the brainstorming package is effective in
facilitating good quality response alternatives
in problem solving. Due to the lack of con-
trolled comparative studies on the four brain-
storming rules, no conclusions can be drawn
regarding the relative contribution of each of
the rules for effective problem-solving be-
havior. Thus, in developing a problem-solving
117
training program at this time, it would seem
appropriate to present all four rules with
equal emphasis.
Decision Making
By generating a number of alternative
courses of action, the problem solver has, in
a sense, exchanged old problems for new ones.
Had the individual been able to come up
with only one available option, he would have
been able to take action in the problematic
situation without having to go through this
phase. As noted in the previous section, how-
ever, when more possible alternatives are gen-
erated, there is a greater likelihood that the
individual will have good quality options at
his disposal. It should be stressed, though,
that the "goodness" of the alternatives in
these various studies was typically deter-
mined by either E or a pool of judges. Al-
though the evidence indicates that brain-
storming instructions do indeed result in a
greater number of good quality alternatives,
the findings of a study by Johnson, Parrett,
and Stratton (1968) have suggested that in-
dividuals may not always be able to identify
accurately the best of the alternatives they
have generated. It is toward the goal of de-
scribing guidelines for the selection of the
most appropriate course of action that we
turn to a discussion of decision theory.
It is possible to distinguish between two
general approaches which have been taken
in the study of decision making, namely, the
descriptive and the normative models (Becker
& McClintock, 1967; Edwards, 1961; Ed-
wards, Lindman, & Phillips, 196S). The de-
scriptive model concerns itself with the at-
tempt to describe and predict the way in
which individuals typically go about making
decisions. The normative model, on the other
hand, involves the specification of rules which
one may follow in order to optimize the qual-
ity of decisions in specific situations as well
as to improve one's general decision-making
ability. Past research efforts which have at-
tempted to apply the descriptive model of
decision making have shown people to be less
rational than one would expect on the basis
of decision theory. Thus, Miller et al. (1960)
observed:
118 THOMAS D'ZURILLA AND MARVIN GOLDFEIED
An ordinary person almost never approaches a prob-
lem 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 ap-
proach, which involves the delineation of
guidelines to help improve one's decision-
making ability, holds the most promise for
behavior modification. Since relevant empiri-
cal research on the normative model is lack-
ing, 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 "good-
ness" 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 Mor-
genstern (1944) to describe mathematically
the process of choice in economics and games,
utility theory involves a means-end concep-
tualization 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 in-
volves a subjective estimate of the probabil-
ity that each particular alternative will
achieve any given outcome, as well as sub-
jective 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 rela-
tively 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 finan-
cial consequences. The application of the util-
ity theory in other areas is not nearly as
straightforward. Churchman (1961) has de-
scribed in great detail some of the complica-
tions involved in the use of personal and
social values in estimating utility. As a way
of approaching this problem, it would be im-
portant to consider any evaluation of an out-
come in light of the problematic situation in
question. During the problem definition and
formulation phase of the problem-solving se-
quence, the individual has already delineated
the primary conflicts and issues which more
clearly define the task at hand. In a sense,
this sets off the context within which any
evaluation of the consequences of a response
alternative must be made. This can simplify
the task of determining the utility of conse-
quences or outcomes, but it by no means
eliminates the necessitj' for some value judg-
ments. In training a person to improve his
problem-solving ability, the determination of
the utility of a decision should be made in
light of that individual's own values. In the
case of training programs directed at more
than one individual at a time, utility may
be determined by "significant others" who
have contact with the individuals in ques-
tion, who typically label what is effective in
that particular environment, and, most im-
portant, whose values are likely to be adopted
by those involved in the training program (cf.
Goldfded & D'Zurilla, 1969).
The estimation of consequences likely to
follow any course of action is similarly sub-
jective. There is no way in which an indi-
vidual can know the consequences of his ac-
tions in advance, particularly when he is
considering a novel response. In addition, any
given course of action, while serving as a
means to a given outcome, typically has a
number of "other" consequences associated
with it, long-term as well as short-term con-
sequences and social as well as personal ones.
For example, as Edwards et al. (196S)
pointed out, the payoff matrix for any given
course of action must consider such conse-
quences as cost, effort, and comfort to the
individual. Recognizing these various com-
plexities, Simon (19S7) has nonetheless main-
tained that based on the knowledge of gen-
eral empirical relationships an individual may
have gained from his own past experience,
his knowledge of the experience of others,
and information about the existing proble-
matic situation resulting from a careful state-
ment and formulation of the problem, most
people should be able to form at least gen-
 PROBLEM SOLVING AND BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION
eral estimates of the consequences associated
with various courses of action.
Following the prediction and evaluation of
consequences, one reaches the final step in
the decision-making stage, namely, making
the judgment as to which alternative is the
"best" or "optimal." It is at this point that
the computer-programming model places the
most severe demands on the human problem
solver. He must attempt to weigh the various
alternatives, each one against all others, con-
sidering the values of the various expected
consequences as well as their estimated like-
lihood of occurrence. As noted above, research
evidence suggests that when left to his
own devices, man is not nearly as rational
as a decision-making model would suggest
(Churchman, 1961; Feather, 1959; Shepard,
1964; Simon, 1955, 1957; Wilson & Alexis,
1962). We would stress again, however, that
the normative model of decision making fo-
cuses more on what an individual might do
to improve his decision-making ability, rather
than describing what he actually does in
practice.
In the section on the generation of alter-
natives, we differentiated between "strategies"
or general courses of action and the specific
ways in which these alternatives might be
implemented. The process of deciding upon
the best general strategy, on the one hand,
and the most effective specific behaviors, on
the other, is basically the same, and follows
those principles of decision theory outlined
above. The only difference between the two
procedures is in the objective against which
the utility is to be estimated. In the case of
the selection of the best strategy to pursue in
a problematic situation, the value of the strat-
egy is judged against its likelihood of effec-
tively resolving the major issues or conflicts.
In the case of the evaluation of specific means
of implementing the strategy selected, the ef-
fectiveness with which the strategy is imple-
mented is used in estimating its value.
Verification
We are now at a point in the problem-
solving sequence at which the nature of the
situational demands has been analyzed, the
various possible courses of action have been
generated, and a decision has been made on
the basis of predictions about the potential
119.
utility of each available option. The purpose
of all this has been to maximize the chances
that the chosen course of action will have a
favorable outcome. The final stage of prob-
lem solving, namely, verification, takes place
after the chosen course of action has been
carried out and is designed to assess the ac-
tual outcome so as to make self-correction
possible. Without this step, an individual
may persist in the performance of an inade-
quate course of action instead of attempting
to find out where the trouble is and correct-
ing it. This possibility is suggested by the
results of a series of experimental studies by
Levinc, Leitenberg, and Richter (1964) on
the choice behavior of 5s under different
"feedback" conditions. They found that when
5s received no information about the out-
come of their responses to a series of two-
choice discrimination problems, they con-
tinued to respond as though E was saying
"right" following each of their choices. Thus,
it can be seen that if the problem solver is
to be maximally effective, he must take steps
to obtain accurate information about the ac-
tual consequences of his chosen course of
action so that he could determine whether his
choice was, in fact, the "best" one.
Perhaps the most relevant description of
the verification stage of problem solving
comes from the work of Miller et al. (1960).
In conceptualizing the relationship between
an individual's plans and his actions, these
investigators have proposed a "Test-Operate-
Test-Exit" (TOTE) unit. They suggest that
in a variety of activities, including problem
solving, the individual's operations are guided
by the extent to which the outcome of his
activities is congruent or incongruent with a
given standard. If. after engaging in some
cognitive or behavioral operations, the indi-
vidual "tests" or matches the progress he has
made and decides that it is congruent with
a standard, he then stops or "exits" from
these activities. If, on the other hand, he finds
the match to be "incongruent," he continues
to "operate" until a successful match is ob-
tained. Thus, the TOTE unit may be con-
strued basically as referring to a feedback
loop, whereby the individual makes use of
various guidelines for controlling his own be-
havior.
The standard for exiting in this final stage
120 THOMAS D'ZURILLA AND MARVIN GOLDFRIED
involves a testing or determination of the ex-
tent to which the alternative finally selected
effectively resolves the major conflicts or is-
sues which comprise the problematic situa-
tion. In order to deal with a problematic
situation at more than just a hypothetical
level, the individual must carry out the se-
lected course of action, either in the life
situation or by role-playing the situation,
observe the various consequences of his ac-
tions, and test or match this outcome against
his expected outcome. If the match is satis-
factory, 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 defi-
nition and formulation, generation of alterna-
tives, 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 hav-
ing clearly predictable outcomes, where the
utility values of these various alternatives are
fairly well defined, and where precise mathe-
matical 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 al-
ways possible for one to expect to achieve the
most "optimal" solution in any given situa-
tion. In commenting on his behavioral model
of rational choice, Simon (19S7) has argued
that man cannot realistically expect to com-
pletely "maximize" his success in any given
problematic situation, but instead should set
as his standard for exiting one which "satis-
fices," that is, where he finds himself to be
reasonably successful. Despite the fact that
maximization is extremely unlikely in real-
life problem solving, the use of a problem-
solving strategy for normative or prescriptive
purposes can nonetheless be expected to in-
crease 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 set-
ting. Some of the possible tactics are outlined
below, with the full recognition that the ac-
tual 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 ap-
pears that the client's difficulties are result-
ing from the ineffectiveness with which he
handles a broad range of problematic situa-
tions, 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 thera-
pist tells him exactly what to do. This type
of client has an adequate repertoire of gen-
eral performance skills but a deficit in inde-
pendent 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 train-
ing is one who possesses good problem-solving
skills but fails to use them because of emo-
tional 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 solv-
ing but also response execution. Hence, a
"broad-spectrum" approach (A. A. Lazarus,
1966) would be used most often, where prob-
lem-solving training is employed along with
a variety of other behavior modification tech-
niques, such as behavior rehearsal or system-
atic desensitization.
 PKOBLEM SOLVING AND BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION
Problem solving might also be used within
a broader therapy program in those instances
in which a particularly difficult problematic
situation occurs in the client's life, such that
the best course of action is apparent neither
to the client nor to the therapist and in which
the consequences of an ineffective alternative
might be quite serious or even disastrous.
Such an approach to "crisis intervention"
would not only help the therapist and client
"figure out" how to deal with a difficult im-
mediate situation, but may also increase the
client's ability to handle future crisis on his
own. Similarly, toward the end of a rather
long-term therapy program, a therapist might
want to employ problem-solving training so
that the client may learn to rely more on his
own resources and less on the advice and di-
rection of the therapist.
Treatment Procedures
The training procedures proposed here can
be viewed as a behavior modification pro-
gram in which the desired behavioral out-
come, that is, effective problem solving, is
achieved in progressive steps. For each prob-
lematic 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 intro-
duced 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 out-
come, 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 rein-
forcement. During the early phase of train-
ing, the therapist demonstrates the problem-
solving procedures while the client passively
observes. Since the technique is primarily a
covert set of operations which cannot be di- of this general orientation is to provide the client
121
rectly observed, the therapist verbalizes all
of his thoughts as he proceeds through the
five stages. As the client gradually takes a
more active role in problem solving, the ther-
apist begins to function primarily as a super-
visor-consultant, that is, asking and answering
questions (prompting) to guide the client,
encouraging and evaluating in vivo applica-
tions, and reinforcing (i.e., praise, approval)
successive, approximations to effective prob-
lem-solving performance.
Training in the first stage of problem solv-
ing, general orientation, begins with an ex-
planation and discussion of the rationale and
course of treatment, as well as the changes
which are expected to result from it. Rational
discussion is also conducted to give the client
an understanding of the factors contributing
to the occurrence of problematic situations
(e.g., changing roles, new environments) and
to reinforce the expectation that he can learn
to cope independently with most of these
situations. The set to recognize the occurrence
of problematic situations in one's daily life
and to inhibit the tendency to react "auto-
matically" without carefully thinking things
through should be stressed during this dis-
cussion. In addition, the client may be made
more sensitive to the various problematic
situations in his life by outlining the general
areas of daily living in which such situations
might occur (e.g., family relationships, job
situations, health, etc.), describing the differ-
ent kinds of issues or conflicts which often
make situations problematic (e.g., competing
goals or demands, obstacles interfering with
goals, etc.), and presenting him with exam-
ples of common problematic situations. The
client is then asked to begin identifying
problematic situations from his own life ex-
periences, past, present, and expected future.
As part of this task, he is instructed to ob-
serve his own behavior in the life setting be-
tween sessions and keep a daily record of
problematic situations. Since such situations,
prior to their resolution, are likely to produce
emotional reactions (e.g., feelings of uncer-
tainty, confusion, frustration, etc.), it should
be pointed out to the client that these feel-
ings can serve as a useful signal for him to
look for the events (cognitive and external)
which may be setting off these feelings."
5
We should point out that the primary function
122 THOMAS D'ZURILLA AND MARVIN GOLDFRIED
In light of the tendency of most clients to
describe their problems in relatively abstract
terms, often overlooking important details,
one might anticipate that the situations in-
itially recorded by the client will be presented
in "rough" form, that is, general descriptions
or judgments regarding the nature of the situa-
tion without too much regard for objectivity,
specificity, clarity, or detail. The second stage
of problem-solving training, namely, problem
definition and formulation, is designed to
teach the client to state his problem in such
a way as to provide the kind of information
which is likely to maximize performance in
subsequent stages of problem solving. For
example, let us consider the case of Sally
Evans, a housewife, who initially reported the
following problematic situation: "I became
upset and depressed last night because my
husband was out working late and I was
home alone." e Starting with this "rough" de-
scription, Sally was taught to define the situa-
tion more adequately by identifying all rele-
vant details and circumstances related to the
situation and describing them in specific, con-
crete terms, including not only present events,
but related background information as well.
It was stressed that both external situational
events and internal events (e.g., thoughts,
feelings) would be important for a complete
description of the situation. In addition, Sally
was informed that if there were any aspects
of the situation about which she needed more
information in order to arrive at an adequate
definition, she would have to seek out this
information from available sources. This proc-
ess finally resulted in the following descrip-
tion of the problematic situation:
My husband and I have been married for three
years, and have a two-year-old child. During the
past six months, my husband has had to work late her husband's fatigue and habit of going right
in the evening, usually until about 10 PM. He will
continue to work these late hours for some time,
as we need the money badly. However, I have been
feeling increasingly lonely, anxious, and depressed in
with an initial set of expectations prior to the actual one will break in.
training in the other stages of problem solving. Once
the individual begins to practice the problem-solving
technique and is successful in coping with actual
problematic situations, these expectations should be
strengthened. Thus, it is a self-reinforcing process
which is ultimately responsible for establishing the
problem-solving "set."
0
Although this example is based upon an actual
case seen by one of the authors, the name Sally
Evans is purely fictitious.
the evening after our child goes to bed and I am
waiting for my husband to come home. I have been
trying to amuse myself by watching T.V. or read-
ing, but this doesn't work. I don't like being alone
every evening. I enjoy being with people and en-
gaging in interesting social conversation. Also, we
live on a street that doesn't have many homes and
is not well lighted, and I am afraid that someone
will find out that I am alone in the evening and try
to break in. When my husband finally comes home,
he is usually very tired and goes right to bed. As
a result, we have no sex at all during the week. This
leaves me quite frustrated. 7
Once the situation was adequately defined,
Sally was taught how to jonmilate the
problem by identifying her major "goals"
(i.e., behavioral objectives, desired reinforc-
ing events) and the issues which make the
situation problematic. In Sally's case, it was
determined that her most important goals
were the desire for social interaction on week
nights, the desire for more sex during the
week, and the desire to feel safer in the even-
ing. Sometimes a goal which is stated initially
by a client is not really the most basic one.
This can often be determined by following a
stated goal with a "why" question. For ex-
ample, when Sally first stated that her goal
was to get her husband to spend more time
home in the evenings, she responded to the
why question by stating the three more basic
goals described above. Thus, it can be seen
that if Sally had accepted her goal of having
her husband spend more time home in the
evening without trying to identify more basic
goals, the problematic situation would have
been incompletely and inadequately formu-
lated. At this point, it was possible to show
Sally that her problem involved the following
issues: her desire for social interaction on
week nights versus her husband's absence, her
desire for more sex during the week versus
to sleep after coming home in the evening,
her desire to feel safer in the evening versus
her husband's absence and her fear that some-
Working with a well-defined and forrnu-
7
Space limitations prevent us from listing still
other details which might be relevant to this particu-
lar 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 mar-
riage relationship. This information could be im-
portant in determining the major problematic issues
and the best possible courses of action.
 PROBLEM SOLVING AND BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION
lated situation, the next step was to train
Sally in the generation of alternatives. First,
she was taught to distinguish between a
"strategy" and a "specific behavior." Then,
following instruction in the four modified
rules of brainstorrning, Sally began generating
strategy-level responses for dealing with her
situation, while keeping in mind the major
goals and issues which she had previously
identified. Her list of strategies included the
following:
"Take steps to get a girlfriend or relative to visit
me occasionally on week nights," "Take steps to get
my husband to be more interested in sex during
the week," "Take steps to have an affair with an-
other man," and "Take steps to arrange safeguards
against someone breaking in."
Since Sally was in the early stages of train-
ing, examples and other prompts (i.e., ques-
tions, partial solutions) were often used to
encourage her to stay with the task and avoid
giving up the search for strategies prema-
turely.
When it appeared that all possible strategy-
level alternatives had been identified, train-
ing 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 "infe-
rior" ones. She was informed that this de-
cision should be based on the identification of
one or more highly likely and extremely nega-
tive consequences which would suggest that a
more serious, detailed consideration of the
strategy would be unproductive and unwar-
ranted. 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 conse-
quences?" To facilitate this procedure, Sally
explored possible consequences in four differ-
ent 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 cate-
gory covered the consequences that the strat-
egy 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 con-
sequences, Sally focused on both the per-
sonal and social effects of the strategy in her
immediate life situation, with particular ref-
erence 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 pos-
sibility of avoiding similar problematic situ-
ations and the effects on long-range personal
goals and social relationships. For example,
the following are a few of the possible conse-
quences which Sally identified for the strategy
"Take steps to have an affair with another
man": interesting social conversation, pleas-
urable sex experience, gifts, enjoyable social
activities, guilt feelings, my husband finding
out, separation and divorce, emotional prob-
lems 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-proc-
essing 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 com-
puter. 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 con-
sequences 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 se-
lected 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-alterna-
tives stage in order to produce specific be-
havioral alternatives for implementing her
124 THOMAS D'ZURILLA AND MARVIN GOLDFKIED
strategies, using the same procedures she em-
ployed 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 be-
havioral alternatives as possible, Sally again
applied the decision-making principles in or-
der to select the most effective means of im-
plementing her chosen strategies.
Considering the strong emphasis which we
have placed on the cognitive operations be-
lieved 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 pri-
marily 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 bet-
ter 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 re-
quired 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 cloth-
ing when her husband comes home in the
evening, initiating sex early in the morning
occasionally, and having special "dead locks"
put on all doors to the outside. The outcome
of these actions was "satisfactory" to Sally;
thus she felt she could terminate her problem-
solving efforts for this particular situation.
In some instances it might not be appro-
priate to expect that the client will be capa-
ble of carrying out his selected course of ac-
tion. This may be the case in instances in
which there are serious behavioral deficits
(e.g., lack of assertiveness, lack of social
skills) and/or strong emotional inhibitions
(e.g., fear of rejection, performance anxiety).
It is clear, therefore, that a careful assess-
ment of response capabilities and inhibitions
is required before an adequate judgment can
be made regarding the extent to which an
individual might be capable of coping with
certain kinds of problematic situations with-
out receiving additional treatment.
Concluding Comment
Thus far, informal clinical experimentation
and preliminary pilot work with college fresh-
men suggest that the problem-solving ap-
proach to behavior modification is a promis-
ing one which deserves further research and
clinical investigation. The present writers are
currently engaged in the planning and de-
velopment stage of a research project de-
signed to assess the outcome of two types of
problem-solving training programs, one which
employs traditional, interview methods and
another which is based upon programmed,
self-instructional procedures. In addition to
outcome studies, process research is also
needed which attempts to assess the relative
contribution of each of the five problem-solv-
ing stages to overall problem-solving effec-
tiveness.
REFERENCES
BANDURA, A. Principles of behavior modification.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1969.
BAYLESS, O. L. An alternative pattern for problem
solving discussion. Journal of Communication,
1967, 17, 188-197.
BECKER, G. M., & McCLiNxocx, C. G. Value: Be-
havioral decision theory. Annual Review of Psy-
chology, 1967, 18, 239-286.
BLOOM, B. S., & BRODEE, I,. J. Problem-solving
processes of college students. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1950.
BKILIIART, J. K., & JOCHEM, L. M. Effects of differ-
ent patterns on outcome of problem-solving dis-
cussion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1964, 48,
175-179.
 PROBLEM SOLVING AND BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION
BRIM, 0. G., JR., GLASS, D. C., LAVIN, D. E., &
GOODMAN, N. Personality and decision processes.
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1962.
BUSWELL, G. T. Patterns of thinking in solving prob-
lems. University of California Public Education,
1956, 12, 63-148.
CARON, A. J., UNGKR, S. M., & PARLOFF, M. B. A test
of Maltzman's theory of originality training. Jour-
nal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1963,
1, 436-442.
CAUTELA, J. R. Behavior therapy and the need for
behavioral assessment. Psychotherapy: Theory,
Research and Practice, 1968, 5, 17S-179.
CAUTELA, J. R, Behavior therapy and self control:
Techniques and implications. In C. M. Franks
(Ed.), Behavior therapy; Appraisal and status.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.
CHURCHMAN, C. W. Prediction and optimal decision.
Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1961.
CLARK, C. H. Brainstorming. New York: Doubleday,
1958.
COFER, C. N. Reasoning as an associative process:
III. The role of verbal responses in problem solv-
ing. Journal of General Psychology, 1957, 57, 55-
68.
COVINGTON T , M. V., CRUTCHFIELD, R. S., & DAVIES, L.
B. The productive thinking program. Berkeley,
Calif.: Brazelton, 1966.
- CRUTCHMELD, R. S. Nurturing the cognitive skills of
productive thinking. In, Life skills in school and
society. Washington, D. C.: Association for Super-
vision and Curriculum Development, 1969.
DAVIS, G. A. Current status of research and theory in
human problem solving. Psychological Bulletin,
1966, 66, 36-54.
DAVIS, G. A., & MANSKE, M. E. An instructional
method of increasing originality. Psychonomic Sci-
ence, 1966, 6, 73-74.
DAVIS, G. A., MANSKE, M. E., & TRAIN, A. J. Train-
ing in creative thinking. (Occasional Paper No. 6)
Madison: University of Wisconsin, Researcli and
Development Center for Learning and Re-educa-
tion, 1967,
DOLLAED, J., & MILLER, N. E. Personality and psy-
chotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950.
DUNCAN, C. P. Recent research on human problem
solving. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 397-429.
D'ZuRiLLA, T. J. Reducing heterosexual anxiety. In
J. D. Krumboltz & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Behav-
ioral counseling: Cases and techniques. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969.
EDWARDS, W. Behavioral decision theory. Annual
Review of Psychology, 1961, 12, 473-498.
EDWARDS, W., LINDMAN, H., & PHILLIPS, L. D.
Emerging technologies for making decisions. In T.
M. Newcomb (Ed.), New directions in psychology
H. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965.
ELLIS, A. Reason and emotion in psychotherapy.
New York: Lyle Stuart, 1962.
FEATHER, N. T. Subjective probability and decisions
under uncertainty. Psychological Review, 1959, 66,
150-169.
FRANK, J. D. Persuasion and healing. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins Press, 1961.
FRANKS, C. M. (Ed.) Behavior therapy: Appraisal
and statin. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.
125
FREEDMAN, J. L. Increasing creativity by free-
association training, Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology, 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: Rand-
McNally, 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 behavioral-
analytic model for assessing competence. In C. D.
Spielbergcr (Ed.), Current topics in clinical and
community psychology, Vol. /. New York: Aca-
demic 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 deter-
miner of job behavior. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Psychological Associa-
tion, 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 psychol-
ogy. 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 THOMAS D'ZURILLA AND MARVIN GOLDFKIED
havioral counseling: Cases find techniques. New
York: Holt, Rinchart & Winston, 1969.
LAZARUS, A. A. Broad-spectrum behaviour therapy
and the treatment of agoraphobia. Behavior Rc-
search and Therapy, 1966, 4, 95-97.
LAZARUS, R. S. Psychological stress and the coping
process. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.
LEFCOURT, H. M. Internal versus external control of
reinforcement: A review. Psychological Bulletin,
1966, 65, 206-220.
LEFF, R. Behavior modification and the psychoses
of childhood: A review. Psychological Bulletin,
1968, 69, 396-409.
LEVISE, M., LEITENBERC, H., & RICHTER, M. The
blank trials law: The equivalence of positive
reinforcement and nonreinforcemcnt. Psychological
Review, 1964, 71, 94-103.
MAIER, N. R. F. Screening solutions to upgrade
quality: A new approach to problem solving under
conditions of uncertainty. Journal oj Psychology,
I960, 49, 217-231.
MAIER, N. R. F., & HOFFMAN, L. R. Financial incen-
tives and group decision in motivating change.
Journal of Social Psychology, 1964, 64, 369-378.
MALTZMAN, I. On the training of originality. Psy-
chological Review, 1960, 67, 229-242.
MALTZMAN, I., BOGARTZ, & BREGER, L. A procedure
for increasing word association originality and its
transfer effects. Journal oj Experimental Psychol-
ogy, 1958, 56, 392-398.
MALTZMAN, I., SIMON, S., RASKIN, D., & LIGHT, L.
Experimental studies in the training of originality.
Psychological Monographs, I960, 74(6, Whole No.
493).
MASON, J. G. How to be a more creative executive.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.
MEADOW, A., & PAKNES, S. J. Evaluation of training
in creative problem-solving. Journal oj Applied
Psychology, 1959, 43, 189-194.
MEADOW, A., PARNES, S. J., & REESE, H. Influence
of instructions and problem sequence on a creative
problem-solving test. Journal oj Applied Psychol-
ogy, 1959, 43, 413-416.
MEDNICK, S. A. The associative basis of the creative
process. Psychological Review, 1962, 69, 220-232.
MILLER, G. A., GALANTER, E., & PRTBRAM, K. H.
Plans and the structure oj behavior. New York:
Holt, Rinchart & Winston, 1960,
MORTON, R. B. An experiment in brief psycho-
therapy. Psychological Monographs, 1955, 69(1,
Whole No. 386).
MOWRER, 0. H. Learning theory and the symbolic
processes. New York: Wiley, 1960.
OLTON, R. M., & CRUTCHFIFXD, R. S. Developing the
skills of productive thinking. In P. Musscn, J.
Langer, & M. V. Covington (Eds.), Trends and
issues in developmental psychology. New York:
Holt, Rinchart & Winston, 1969.
OSBORN, A. F. Applied •imagination: Principles and
procedures of creative problem-solving (3rd ed.).
New York: Scribner's, 1963.
PASLOFF, M. B., & HANDLON, J. H. The influence of
criticalncss on creative problem-solving in dyads.
Psychiatry, 1964, 27, 17-27.
PARNES, S. J. The creative problem-solving course
and institute at the University of Buffalo. In S. J.
Panics & H. F, Harding (Eds.), A source book for
creative thinking. New York: Scribner's, 1962.
PARNES, S. J. Creative behavior guidebook. New
York: Scribner's, 1967.
PARSES, S. J., & MEADOW, A. Effects of "brainstorm-
ing" instructions on creative problem-solving by
trained and untrained subjects. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 1959, 50, 171-176.
PARNES, S. J., & MEADOW, A. Evaluation of per-
sistence of effect produced by a creative problem-
solving course. Psychological Reports, 1960, 7,
357-361.
PETERSON, D. R. The clinical study of social behavior.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 19(
PHILLIPS, E. L. Psychotherapy: A modern theory
and practice. Englcwood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-
Hall, 1956.
RIMOLDI, H. J. A., & ERDMAXN, J. B. Problem
solving: The process. Psychological Reports, 1967,
20, 317-318.
ROTTER, J. B. Social learning and clinical psychology.
Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1954.
ROTTER, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal
versus external control of reinforcement. Psycho-
logical Monographs, 1966, 80(1, Whole No. 609).
SCHRODER, H. M., DRIVER, M, J., & STREUFERT, S.
Human information processing. New York: Holt,
Rinchart & Winston, 1967.
SHAFTEL, F. R., & SHAFTEL, G. Role-playing for
social values: Decision-making in- the social studies.
Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967.
SHELLY, M. W., II, & BRYAN, G. L. (Eds.) Human
judgments and optimality. New York: Wiley, 1964.
SHEPARD, R. N. On subjectively optimum selection
among multiattribute alternatives. In M. W.
Shelly, II, & G. L. Bryan (Eds.), Human judg-
ments and optimality. New York: Wiley, 1964.
SILBER, E., HAMBURG, D. A., COELHO, G. V.,
MURPHEY, E. B., ROSENBERG, M., & PEARLIN, L. I.
Adaptive behavior in competent adolescents.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 1961, 5, 354-365.
SIMON, H. A. A behavioral model of rational choice.
Quarterly Journal oj Economics, 1955, 69, 99-118.
SIMON, H. A. Administrative behavior. New York:
The Free Press of Glencce, 1957.
SKINNER, B. F. Science and- human behavior. New
York: Macmillan, 1953.
ULLMANN, L. P., & KRASNER, L. (Eds.) Case studies
in behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rine-
hart & Winston, 1965.
ULLMANN, L. P., & KRASNER, L. A psychological
approach to abnormal behavior. Englcwood Cliffs,
N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969.
VON NEUMANN, J., & MORGENSTERN, 0. Theory of
games and economic behavior. Princeton, N. J.:
Princeton University Press, 1944.
WEISSKOPF-JOELSON, E., & Ei.isEO, S. An experi-
mental study of the effectiveness of brainstorming.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1961, 45, 45-49.
WILSON, C., & ALEXIS, M. Basic frameworks for
decisions. Journal of the Academy of Management,
1962, 5, 150-164.
WOLPE, J., & LAZARUS, A. A. Behavior therapy tech-
niques: A guide to the treatment of neuroses. New
York: Pergamon Press, 1966.
(Received March 30, 1970)