Social problem solving predicts decision making styles among US Hispanics

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.08.016Get rights and content

Abstract

While recent research has explored the psychometric properties of the Social Problem Solving Inventory-Revised (SPSI-R; D’Zurilla, Nezu, Maydeu-Olivares, 2002) in Spain, this research has not extended to North American Hispanics. The purpose of this study is threefold: First, we examine the reliability of the SPSI-R subscales in a sample of US Hispanics. Second, we investigate whether SPSI-R gender differences generalized to this population. Finally, we examine the relationships between social problem solving and decision making styles. Our findings demonstrate that SPSI-R gender differences emerged in this sample of participants. In addition, the SPSI-R demonstrates good reliability and is related to decision making styles.

Introduction

Social problem solving (SPS) refers to problem solving as it occurs in the real world. SPS has been defined as the general coping strategy by which a person attempts to identify effective coping responses for specific problematic situations (D’Zurilla & Nezu, 1999). Social problem solving is important for psychological adjustment because it influences adaptive functioning across a wide range of stressful situations. Hence, it is not surprising that SPS is related to many different forms of maladjustment and psychopathology, as well as positive psychological adjustment (see reviews in Chang, D’Zurilla, & Sanna, 2004; D’Zurilla & Nezu, 1999).

Most of the research on social problem solving and adjustment is based on a social problem solving model that was originally introduced by D’Zurilla and Goldfried (1971) and later expanded by D’Zurilla and colleagues (D’Zurilla and Nezu, 1982, D’Zurilla and Nezu, 1999; D’Zurilla, Nezu, & Maydeu-Olivares, 2002; Maydeu-Olivares & D’Zurilla, 1996). An assumption of this model is that problem solving is largely determined by two general processes: (1) problem orientation and (2) problem-solving style. Problem orientation is a cognitive-emotional process that primarily serves as a motivational function in social problem solving. Problem-solving style consists of the cognitive and behavioral activities by which a person attempts to understand problems in everyday living and find effective coping responses. Research on these two major problem-solving processes by D’Zurilla et al. (2002) has identified a five-dimensional model of social problem solving. Positive problem orientation and rational problem solving are constructive dimensions that increase the likelihood of positive problem-solving outcomes, whereas negative problem orientation, impulsivity/carelessness style, and avoidance style are dysfunctional dimensions that are likely to produce negative outcomes. A brief description of the SPS dimensions is provided below.

Positive problem orientation (PPO) is a constructive problem-solving cognitive set that involves the general disposition to (a) appraise a problem as a positive challenge, (b) believe that problems are solvable, but take time, effort, and persistence (c) believe in one’s personal ability to solve problems and commit oneself to solving problems rather than avoiding them. In contrast, negative problem orientation (NPO) is an inhibitive cognitive-emotional set that involves the general tendency to (a) view a problem as a significant threat, (b) doubt one’s personal ability to solve problems successfully, and (c) easily become frustrated and upset when confronted with problems in everyday living.

Rational problem solving (RPS) is a constructive problem-solving style that is defined as the deliberate and systematic application of effective problem-solving skills. A rational problem solver systematically gathers facts and information about a problem, identifies obstacles, sets realistic problem-solving goals, generates a variety of possible solutions, anticipates the consequences of the different solutions, judges and compares the alternatives, and then implements a solution while carefully monitoring and evaluating the outcome.

Impulsivity/carelessness style (ICS) is a dysfunctional problem-solving pattern characterized by active attempts to apply problem-solving strategies and techniques, but these attempts are narrow, impulsive, careless, hurried, and incomplete. A person with this problem-solving style typically considers only a few solution alternatives, often impulsively going with the first idea that comes to mind. In addition, he scans alternative solutions and consequences quickly, carelessly, and unsystematically, and inadequately monitors solution outcomes.

Avoidance style (AS) is another dysfunctional problem-solving pattern characterized by procrastination, passivity and dependency. The avoidant problem solver prefers to avoid problems rather than confront them, puts off problem solving for as long as possible, waits for problems to resolve themselves, and attempts to shift the responsibility for solving their problems to other people.

These five problem-solving dimensions are measured by the Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised (SPSI-R; D’Zurilla et al., 2002). Good social problem-solving ability is indicative of high scores on PPO and RPS and low scores on NPO, ICS, and AS. In contrast, poor social problem-ability is indicative of low scores on PPO and RPS and high scores on NPO, ICS and AS.

As stated above, one aspect of social problem solving involves rational problem solving. D’Zurilla and Goldfried (1971) note that persons with social problems should systematically generate a number of strategies for the problem at hand, which would be followed by a decision-making process to select the best strategy. The decision making process within the SPS paradigm (D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971) has been heavily influenced by Edwards’ (1961) subjective expected-utility (SEU) framework. Research by Nezu and D’Zurilla, 1979, Nezu and D’Zurilla, 1981 demonstrate that instructions to improve decision making based on SEU theory can improve social problem solving skills.

Decompositional decision making and holistic decision making has been compared in the behavioral decision making literature (Morera & Budescu, 2001; Ravinder, 1992). Decompositional decision making requires that a decision maker systematically breaks a complex decision into smaller parts, evaluates each part, and aggregates the smaller parts to derive an overall value for the stimulus under consideration. Decision decomposition is the basis behind SEU theory. Holistic decision making requires that the decision maker make mental tradeoffs among various stimuli under consideration and may be related to carelessness. Evidence suggests that decompositional judgments are more temporally stable (Ravinder, 1992), contain less random error (Morera & Budescu, 2001) and have higher external validity (Eils & John, 1980).

Recently, the Decision Making Styles Inventory1 (DMI; Nygren, 2000) was developed to measure individual differences in decision making styles. The DMI assesses “analytical” decision making, “intuitive” decision making, and “regret-based” emotional decision making. According to Nygren (2000), analytical decision making requires the careful and systematic examination of decision options and it parallels the RPS construct from the SPSI-R. Intuitive decision making relies heavily on human intuition and following one’s “gut feeling”. Intuitive decision making may be related to impulsivity from the ICS dimension of the SPSI-R. Finally, regret-based decision making occurs when doubt in one’s decision-making begin to emerge and is consistent with aspects of the NPO construct of the SPSI-R. The DMI has been shown to possess desirable psychometric properties and has been shown to predict performance in complex multiattribute tasks (Nygren & White, 2001).

Based on the conceptual similarities between the D’Zurilla SPS paradigm and decision making styles, we make the following predictions.

  • 1.

    Analytical decision making. Analytical decision making should be positively associated with positive problem orientation and rational problem solving. In addition, analytical decision making should be negatively associated with negative problem orientation, impulsivity/carelessness and avoidance style. Individuals who score high on the analytical decision making composite are hypothesized to be “good” social problem solvers.

  • 2.

    Intuitive decision making. Intuitive decision making should be positively related to impulsivity/carelessness. As Nygren (2000) has argued that decision makers use both intuitive and analytical decision making strategies in complex multiattribute tasks, we expect that intuitive decision making should also be positively related to PPO. This relationship should not be as strong as the association between PPO and analytical decision making. Conversely, NPO should be negatively related to intuitive decision making. Finally, it is hypothesized that there would be no relation between AS and intuitive decision making.

  • 3.

    Regret based decision making. Negative problem orientation, avoidance style decision making and impulsivity/carelessness was hypothesized to be positively related to regret based decision making, while positive problem orientation and rational problem solving are assumed to be negatively related to regret based decision making.

US Hispanics are one of the more underrepresented samples in psychological research in the United States (Hall, Bansal, & Lopez, 1999) and the largest ethnic minority in the United States (US Bureau of the Census, 2000). Cross-cultural research provides some insight into the need to study social problem solving among this population. Among Hispanics, simpatía is described as a cultural script, where higher frequencies of positive social behavior and a lower frequency of negative social behavior are expected to occur (Triandis, Marín, Lisansky, & Betancourt, 1984). Simpatía influences how an individual engages in social problems and situations (Triandis et al., 1984).

Moreover, the simpatía cultural script is related to the notion of collectivism, where individuals adhering to collectivistic values place more emphasis on goals of the group rather than individual goals. Hofstede (1980) found that Spain and many Latin American countries could be considered as collectivist, while the US was described as the most individualistic country in the world. Marín and Triandis (1985) have also found that US Hispanics have collectivistic tendencies.

To date, the only research that has investigated cultural differences on the SPSI-R is a study by Maydeu-Olivares, Rodríguez-Fornells, Gómez-Benito, and D’Zurilla (2000), where these authors found impulsivity and carelessness (ICS) was partially measurement invariant when Spaniards and North Americans were compared. These authors also found differential correlations between ICS and the other social problem solving variables across the two groups. In sum, impulsivity was conceptualized differently between Spaniards and Americans. Given the possible shared cultural traits between US Hispanics and Spaniards, US Hispanics may have different conceptualizations of social problem solving variables.

In addition to the cross-cultural literature, research has shown that social problem solving deficits are related to depression and hopelessness among college students (D’Zurilla, Chang, Nottingham, & Faccini, 1998a). Recent research has also shown that Hispanic college students had statistically higher observed scores on the Beck Depression Inventory than did Anglo students (Contreras, Fernandez, Malcarne, Ingram, & Vaccarino, 2004). Given these results, one may question whether the magnitude of the relationship between social problem solving deficits and depression is the same for US Anglos and US Hispanic students. While the current research does not examine these relationships, an important first step in assessing relationships between SPS and important outcome variables would involve the establishing of the psychometric properties of the SPSI-R among US Hispanic students.

The general aim of the present research was three-fold. First, we wanted to explore the internal consistency of the SPSI-R in a North American sample of Hispanic respondents. In addition, we wanted to determine whether gender differences on each of these subscales were present. Prior research with predominantly Caucasian samples in the United States has shown that men typically have higher PPO scores and lower NPO scores than their female counterparts (D’Zurilla, Maydeu-Olivares, & Kant, 1998b; Maydeu-Olivares, Morera, & D’Zurilla, 1999). Finally, we wanted to determine the extent to which social problem solving was related to decision making styles.

Section snippets

Participants

The participants in this study were 958 North American undergraduate college students (387 men, 565 women and six missing responses) enrolled in an introductory psychology course at the University of Texas at El Paso. The mean age for this group was 19.94 years (SD = 3.34 years). All participants signed consent forms indicating that all measures would be kept strictly confidential. Eight hundred and forty of the respondents identified themselves as Hispanic, 77 identified themselves as Mexican

Interrelationships among the SPSI-R subscales

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, coefficient alphas, and intercorrelations among the SPSI-R scales. As Table 1 shows, the internal reliability estimates for the different scales are acceptable and most are quite good. The PPO is the shortest scale in terms of number of items and has the lowest reliability estimate. As expected, RPS and PPO are positively related to one another, while NPO, ICS and AS are positively related to one another. Correlations between these two sets of

Discussion

While prior studies have focused on forms of psychological maladjustment (D’Zurilla & Nezu, 1999; Chang et al., 2004), the present study assessed the relationship between the SPSI-R and decision making styles. We saw that PPO and RPS was positively related with analytical decision making, while NPO, ICS and AS were negatively related to analytical decision making.

When the DMI was submitted to a path analysis, we saw that RPS and ICS were predictive of all three DMI dimensions. In Table 4, we

Acknowledgements

The manuscript was supported by Grant 2 R24 MH47167-11 from the National Institutes of Mental Health (PI: Michael Zárate) and a University Research Initiative grant (PI: Osvaldo F. Morera). The authors would like to acknowledge Paola Espinoza, Miriam Maciel, Priscilla Macias, Marisol Portillo, Edward Ruiz, Ida Cadena, Liliana Perez, Vanessa Garcia and Dirk de Heer, for data collection efforts.

References (27)

  • T.J. D’Zurilla et al.

    Social problem solving in adults

  • T.J. D’Zurilla et al.

    Problem-solving therapy: A social competence approach to clinical intervention

    (1999)
  • T.J. D’Zurilla et al.

    The social problem-solving inventory-revised (SPSI-R): technical manual

    (2002)
  • Cited by (26)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text