SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING THEORY AND ASSESSMENT THOMAS - PDF document

1 SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING: THEORY AND ASSES
SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING: THEORY AND ASSESSMENT THOMAS J. social problemgenerated most remaining chapters also describe have been measure social solving ability clinical practice. problem solving to the problem solving natural environment or “real world” (D’Zurilla & any particular are interested problem solving inf

2 luences one’s life social problem s
luences one’s life social problem solving deals (e.g., insufficient finances, intrapersonal problems (emotional, behavioral, cognie tive, or health problems), interpersonal problems (e.g., conflicts, family (e.g., social problem solving D’Zurilla and Goldfried (1971) 11 give 1’ recycle + PROBLEM-SOL

3 VING f carelessness outcomes f DYSFU
VING f carelessness outcomes f DYSFUNCTIONAL problem avoidance style exit problem Figure 1.1. the social problemsolving process based the fivedimensional model D’Zurilla et al. (2002). tive in turn produce positive or ineffective problem solving negative problem impulsivity- carelessness style or most favorable prob

4 lem- solving outcomes are likely be pro
lem- solving outcomes are likely be produced score relatively positive problem carelessness style, outcomes are negative or unsatisfactory, problem solvers more likely or return goals. For example, after medical problem solving goal to one problem solvers, have high dimensions, might be more when initial outcomes are negative either

5 do get someone or rated or qualitative
do get someone or rated or qualitative discrete steps, move closer & Spivack, 1975; Spivack, Shure, & scoring are ratings “effectiveness,” “appropriateness,” “active vs. passive coping,” and “approach vs. avoidance” (Fischler & Rosenthal, Donahoe, & McFall, 1978; Getter & Chiles

6 , Strosahl, & Shearin, Marx, Williams
, Strosahl, & Shearin, Marx, Williams, & hypothetical test problems, some participants’ solutions for their current, (e.g., Marx et al., 1992; Schotte & Clum, 1987). or questionnaire p-oblem-solving self-monitoring (e.g., D’Zurilla & efficient assessment solutions only, some solving ability & Nowinski, 1981

7 ; Goddard & McFall, Nezu, Nezu, & A
; Goddard & McFall, Nezu, Nezu, & Area, 1991; Sayers & Bellack, 1995; Schotte & this approach problem solving with mental interview format, research are presented with interpersonal include a stated (e.g., to make a new friend). They are then asked a series of questions that attempt to assess different process variables (

8 e.g., generate alternative (i.e., sol
e.g., generate alternative (i.e., solution quality). Interrater (r = .83) are relatively stable over (Y = .79). solving training. many different social problemsolving research most popular 2002), (b) the Problem-Solving Inventory (PSI; Heppner & Petersen, 1982), Procedure (MEPS; & Solving Inventoryal., 2002) 52-it

9 em, Likert-type inventory consisting of
em, Likert-type inventory consisting of five major THEORY AND ASSESSMENT 19 in the solving model. Positive Problem Carelessness Style Avoidance Style this instrument, social problemsolving ability whereas “poor” social problemsolving ability and high major scales, four subscales major problemal. social problemDecision Mak

10 ing 25- item short solving dimensions
ing 25- item short solving dimensions specific skills & a measure solving appraisal,” individual’s perceptions original social problemsolving model, a general orientation component (later cific problem(problem definition formulation, generation decision making, Contrary to expectations, a principal components factor ide

11 ntified a factor structure a fiveGoldfri
ntified a factor structure a fiveGoldfried model. and the were designed Control (PC; items). Unfortunately, these constructs any particular social problem solving. most popular measure overall problemsolving ability. Empirical are reported in Heppner and D’ZURILLA, NEZU, AND MAYDEU-OLIVARES (PP) test (Denney & Pearce, 198

12 9), and the & a major their construct
9), and the & a major their construct a confirmatory factor these outcome test) and results showed that the each other, typically sharing tests are measuring different coping constructs. findings are surprising considering any particular theory social problem test items or hypothetical problems) must be solving model a problem a d

13 iscrepancy between demands response. Def
iscrepancy between demands response. Defined a test problem problem solving, a person a valid solving ability. this definition construct or then one cannot measuring problemsolving ability. some or all test responses could processing,” or learned coping from memory (see & D’Zurilla, 1999; Logan, be viewed a measure its

14 validity a measure solving ability could
validity a measure solving ability could be a discussion test construction social problemsolving mealiving are idiosyncratic a problem another person), most valid problemperformance measure be a problemsolving selfmethod in individuals are given definitions identify real problems them, and solutions (D’Zurilla & a period solut

15 ions are a global index individual’
ions are a global index individual’s social problemsolving ability. specific process generate alternative decision making. this chapter, describe a social problemempirical data. social problempositive problem negative problem (c) rational problem solving (i.e., carelessness style, Social Problempositive problem lower scores

16 negative problem impulsivity- careles
negative problem impulsivity- carelessness style, problem- solving measures are process measures. Process measures behavioral activities solving process (i.e., specific problems. a process solving perforspecific problems. time there solving performance their construct measuring problembe problem & Nezu, 1999). REFERENCES Bl

17 ack, D. R., & Frauenknecht, M. (1990
ack, D. R., & Frauenknecht, M. (1990). A primary prevention problem-solving program for adolescent stress management. In J, H. Humphrey (Ed.), 110). New L. R., & D’Zurilla, T. J. perceived informaand coping situations: Development and validation Cognitive Therapy L., & Meichenbaum, D. interpersonal problem P.

18 C. Kendall & S. D. Hollon (Eds.),
C. Kendall & S. D. Hollon (Eds.), cognitive-behavioral 225). New S. W., & Caspi, A. (1987). Everyday problem solving in adulthood and old age. Psychology and Aging, 2, 144-153. Crick, N. R., & and reformulation processing mechanisms cal Bulletin, 11.5, 74-101. 23, 345-371. 24 D’ZURILLA, NEZU, AND MAYDEU-OLIVARE