Depression, Problem-Solving Ability, and Problem-Solving Appraisals

DEPRESSION, PROBLEM-SOLVING ABILITY, AND PROBLEM-SOLVING APPRAlSALS

KIRK R. BLANKSTEIN

Erindale College University of Toronto

GORDON L. FLETT MARY ELLEN JOHNSTON

York University Erindale College University of Toronto

Behavioral analytic methods were used to create a college student version of the Means Ends Problem Solving Procedure (MEPS). This instrument then was administered with measures of perceived problem-solving ability to depressed and nondepressed students to determine whether differences exist in both problem-solving ability and problem-solving appraisal. Analyses revealed that depressed subjects had more negative expectations and lower appraisals of their problem-solving ability. However, the groups did not differ in terms of the actual quality of their behavioral solutions to interpersonal, intrapersonal, and emotional problem situations. The results are interpreted as support for the role of cognitive factors in depression and problem-solving across a range of problem-solving situations.

Recently there has been considerable interest in studying possible individual differences in the ability to solve personal problems. This interest stems in part from a number of studies that have found that the ability to solve one’s problems is an important correlate of positive mental health (Heppner, 1978; Nezu, 1987; Richard & Dodge, 1982; Spivack, Platt, & Shure, 1976; Urbain & Kendall, 1983). Overall, it is important to investigate individual differences in problem-solving ability because most individuals frequently are faced with a number of environmental circumstances that re- quire an effective response (D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971; Spivack et al., 1976). Ineffec- tive problem-solving responses in these situations may seriously impair one’s ability to cope with the environment and, ultimately, may lead to severe emotional disturbance (Butler & Meichenbaum, 1980; D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971).

The study of individual differences in problem-solving abilities among first-year college students is particularly appropriate. These students often suffer from subclinical levels of dysfunction and, in addition, are in a period of transition and, therefore, likely to be faced with a large number of unfamiliar and difficult situations (Fisher & Hood, 1987; Goldfried & D’Zurilla, 1969; Goldfried & Goldfried, 1975; Shaver, Furman, 8t Buhrmester, 1985). Thus, several researchers have begun to focus on the ability of depressed students to cope with interpersonal problems in living (Cane & Gotlib, 1985; D’Zurilla & Sheedy, 1991; Gotlib & Asarnow, 1979; Heppner & Anderson, 1985; Hepp- ner, Baumgardner, & Jackson, 1985; Heppner, Reeder, & Larson, 1983; Nezu, 1985, 1986; Nezu, Nezu, Saraydarian, Kalmar, & Ronan, 1986; Nezu & Ronan, 1985, 1988). This research is important in at least two respects. First, it provides a great deal of practical information that may be of some use in helping depressed students with adjustment difficulties. Second, research on problem-solving ability provides a useful means of testing various predictions derived from cognitive and behavioral models of depression. Overall, the available evidence suggests that depressed college students, relative to nondepressed college students, do have more negative views of their ability to solve problems (Cane & Gotlib, 1985; Gotlib & Asarnow, 1979; Heppner & Anderson, 1985;

Requests for reprints or a copy of the CMEPS should be addressed to Kirk R. Blankstein, Department of Psychology, Erindale College, University of Toronto, Mississauga, Ontario, LSL 1C6, Canada.

749

750 Journal of Clinical Psychology, November 1992, Vol. 48, No. 6

Heppner et al., 1983, 1985; Heppner, Kampa, & Brunning, 1987; Nezu, 1985, 1986). For instance, recent studies that employed the Problem Solving Inventory, a self-report measure of problem-solving ability, consistently have shown that depression is associated with a lower self-perceived ability to solve problems (Heppner et al., 1983, 1985, 1987; Nezu, 1985, 1986; Nezu, Kalmar, Ronan, & Clavijo, 1986; Nezu & Nezu, 1987; Nezu & Ronan, 1988).

It is less certain, however, whether depressed and nondepressed college students differ in their actual problem-solving abilities. Gotlib and Asarnow (1979) and Schotte and Clum (1982) both addressed this issue by using the Means-End Problem-Solving Procedure (MEPS), a paper-and-pencil measure of interpersonal problem-solving ability developed by Platt and Spivak (1975). This instrument supplies subjects with descriptions of a series of interpersonal conflict situations and asks them to list the steps they would take to achieve the positive outcomes also described on the test. Gotlib and Asarnow (1979) used this procedure to detect a negative association between depression and problem-solving ability as measured by the number of relevant means, irrelevant means, and enumeration of means generated in response to problems that comprise the MEPS. Similarly, Schotte and Clum (1982) used the MEPS to examine the relations among problem-solving skills, negative life stress, and suicide ideation in college students. They found that subjects who received poor scores on the MEPS also reported higher stress and suicide intent, which suggests the presence of an association between depression and problem-solving skills. These findings have been corroborated by the results of other studies (e.g., Fisher-Beckwith & McFall, 1982; Nezu & Ronan, 1988; Wierz- bicki, 1984) that show that depressed and nondepressed students differ in their problem- solving abilities.

In contrast, a growing number of studies have found no evidence that concurrent measures of depression and problem-solving ability are related in college students (Cane & Gotlib, 1985; Doerfler, Mullins, Griffin, Siegel, & Richards, 1984; Shaw & Dobson, 1981; Zemore & Dell, 1983). Alternatively, some studies have found that the strength of the association depends on the type of conflict situation that requires a solution. For example, in the Gotlib and Asarnow (1979) study described above, differences between depressed and nondepressed groups were found on the MEPS measures of interpersonal problem-solving ability, but there were no differences on measures of intrapersonal problem-solving ability. In light of these equivocal findings, it is not certain at present whether depressed college students are characterized by relatively poorer problem-solving abilities. It is important to resolve this issue, however, because of its clear theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, for instance, if it can be demonstrated that differences in the cognitive appraisal of problem-solving exist in the absence of actual behavioral deficits, this can be interpreted as support for Beck’s (1967) well-known cognitive theory of depression, which holds that depression is the presence of negative thinking patterns with regard to the self. Conversely, i f it can be shown that depressed subjects do have less ability to solve problems, due in part to the absence of required social skills, then this may be interpreted as evidence for Lewinsohn’s (1974) behavioral reinforcement model. This model suggests that depressed subjects received less reinforcement from their environment, in part due to social skills deficits.

One possible explanation for the inconsistent findings in this area is the use of measures with low reliability and validity. Although the MEPS is the most widely used measure and is regarded favorably by most researchers, its use can be questioned on several grounds. First, the MEPS has been criticized because it is based on an “open- middle” format that involves providing outcomes to the subject, who must then state the steps used to reach these outcomes. Because an individual’s decisions are likely to be influenced by the perception of a problem’s outcome (D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971; Heppner, 1978), providing the outcome to the subject may result in an inaccurate assessment of true problem-solving ability (Butler & Meichenbaum, 1980; Meichenbaum &

Appraised Problem-solving Ability 75 1

Cameron, 1981). This problem may be exacerbated when the MEPS is administered to depressed subjects because outcomes on the MEPS are positive in valence, yet depressed individuals typically expect negative outcomes (e.g., Beck, 1967; Strack, Blaney, Ganellen, & Coyne, 1985).

Second, certain authors have expressed their concern that the situations on the MEPS are not suitable for college students (Butler & Meichenbaum, 1980; Tisdelle & St. Lawrence, 1986). This concern reflects the recent emphasis on the importance of develop- ing assessment instruments comprised of situations that are specific and meaningful for the subject population under consideration (Blankstein & Flett, 1992; Blankstein, Flett, & Koledin, 1991; Fisher-Beckwith & McFall, 1982; Funabiki & Calhoun, 1979; Goldfried & D’Zurilla, 1969). As stated by Tisdelle and St. Lawrence (1986), “If assessment is to reflect situationally relevant changes in behavior, the social situations which are difficult for the particular group to handle should be identified” (p. 342). Because the MEPS was not designed specifically for administration to college students, it is conceivable that the problem situations that comprise the MEPS are low in validity.’

A final limitation of the MEPS is that the instrument only assesses subjective reactions to interpersonal problems. Therefore, it provides no information about one’s ability to solve intrapersonal and emotional problems. Intrapersonal problems that involve academic and financial matters (Gong-Guy & Hammen, 1980; Hammen, Krantz, & Cochran, 1981) and emotional problems that involve feelings of sadness, worthlessness, loneliness, and anxiety are among the most frequent problems reported by college students. Therefore, it is important to assess possible individual differences in the ability to solve these types of problems, particularly given evidence that indicates that differences in the type of personal problem that an individual faces may affect the problem-solving process (Heppner, Hibel, Neal, Weinstein, & Rabinowitz, 1982).

In the present research, a college student version of the MEPS was developed ac- cording to the behavioral-analytic model of test construction (Goldfried & D’Zurilla, 1969; Goldfried & Linehan, 1977). Interpersonal, intrapersonal, and emotional problem situations were included. This new measure then was administered to a sample of depressed and nondepressed college students. These subjects also reported their expected performance on each segment of the MEPS. Subsequently, subjects also provided ratings of their problem-solving performance. In addition, subjects were asked to provide ratings of performance expectancy and performance evaluation not only for themselves, but for other students as well. Taken together, these measures enabled us to examine whether the link between depression and problem-solving ability involves differences in both cognitive appraisals and actual problem-solving performance.

METHOD

Subjects A sample of college students were asked to report the types of problems they had

experienced recently. The six most frequently mentioned problems of each type (interpersonal, intrapersonal, and emotional) then were selected for further use. A second sample of subjects rated these problems in terms of their severity and realism to ensure that the problem types did not differ in these qualities. These ratings were used to make certain that there were no differences among the three problems of each type in the final version of the College MEPS (i.e., CMEPS). The CMEPS then was administered to a third sample of depressed and nondepressed college students.

‘In this regard, Nezu and Ronan (1988) recently completed a study with college students as subjects in which they did not utilize some of the situations included on the existing MEPS because of their inappropriateness (e.g., killing a former S S trooper, stealing a diamond).


The subjects in this third phase were 18 depressed (14 females, 4 males) and 18 nondepressed (13 females, 5 males) students identified on the basis of a group administration of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Er- baugh, 1961) to 361 students. The BDl has been shown to be valid for assessing levels of depression in college students (Bumberry, Oliver, & McClure, 1978). Several studies have demonstrated the measure’s reliability (Beck, Steer, & Garbin, 1988). A randomly selected sample of students who had scored higher than 10 or less than 4 on the BDI were contacted for participation in the study. Consistent with recent recommendations (Kendall, Hollon, Beck, Hammen, & Ingram, 1987; Sacco, 1981), subjects were re- administered the BDI upon their arrival in order to verify that their depression status had not changed since the previous administration. In total, it was necessary to exclude the data from 20 subjects with BDI scores who no longer met the cut-off criteria. The respective mean BDI scores for the depressed and nondepressed groups were 15.6 and 1.3. The subjects’ mean age was 19.2 years.

Scale Development A total of 184 undergraduates from an introductory psychology class participated

in the first phase of test construction. The students were asked to describe in writing any problems they had encountered during the past month. Specifically, the questionnaire, referred to as the Survey of Problematic Situations, informed students that:

We are interested in obtaining samples of the kinds of problems students typically encounter during their daily lives. We would like examples of all types of problems: (1) interpersonal problems - situations that involve relationships with other people; (2) intrapersonal problems - situations that do not directly involve other people, such as car trouble late at night; and (3) emotional problems- situations such as feeling worthless because you are not doing well in a particular course. In describing problems, we would like you to be specific and detailed. An example of a problem description follows: I have a problem getting my roommate to do her share of work around the apartment. At the beginning of term, we both agreed to take turns clean- ing each week, but now she’s too busy and the apartment is a mess.

The questionnaire included spaces for describing three problems. A total of 388 problem situations were generated by the initial sample of subjects.

These problems were subdivided into 180 interpersonal problems, 188 emotional problems, and 20 intrapersonal problems. Because all three problem types were mentioned in the instructions, these results suggest that interpersonal and emotional problems are more important sources of distress for college students.

The six most frequently mentioned problems in each category were selected for possible inclusion on the CMEPS and were included in the second phase of test construction. The problems were developed into one-paragraph descriptions of relevant situations, which were distributed to a sample of 60 introductory psychology students. These students provided 7-point ratings of each problem’s severity and realism.

The means and standard deviations for students’ ratings of severity and realism for the problems are shown in Table 1. Problems included on the final version of the CMEPS were selected such that there were no significant differences among the three categories (interpersonal, intrapersonal, and emotional) or the individual problems in terms of their perceived severity or realism.

Procedure Each subject in the third phase was tested individually by a female experimenter.

Each subject read the instructions after signing a consent form in the presence of the experimenter.

Appraised Problem-solving Ability 753

Table 1 Mean Ratings of Realism and Difficulty of Problem Siruations

Problem type Problem Difficulty Realism M SD M SD

Interpersonal

2. Arguments with boy/girl friend" 4.69 I .4 5.72 1.3

5. Friends are avoiding you' 4.75 I .3 4.47 I . 5

8. Arguments with roommate 3.49 I .6 5 .21 I .5

1 I . Trouble with job supervisor 4.59 I .4 4.95 I .5

4. Poor relationship with parents" 4.24

17. Want to meet member of opposite sex 4.61

lntrapersonal 1 . Trouble finding summer job 4.52

4. Trouble deciding on course major 4.50

7. Running out of money' 4.61

10. Stranded in Toronto late at night 4.34

13. Difficulty adjusting to University' 16. Lost essay materials"

Emotional 3 . Severe abdominal pains 6. Depressed feelings' 9. Death of father

12. Problems sleeping 15. Loneliness' 18. Losing self-confidence"

4.77

4.90

3.25

4.93

6.02

4.41

4.75

4.70

.6 5.10

. 5 5.10

.4 6.38

.5 5.72

.7 5.87

.9 4.23

I .4

1.6

I .6

1.5

1 . 1

I .I

I .5

I .4

5 . 1 5

4.59

4.61

5.18

5.52

5.20

5.10

4.74

.6

.6

. I .4

.4

.8 1.5

1.8

1.6

1.3

I .4

I .8 I .5

I .3

Note. - Higher scores indicate extremely difficult or realistic on a seven point scale. "Problems included on CMEPS.

Before subjects began each set of three problems, they were asked to read a description of the type of problem they would encounter in the set of problems to follow and then to estimate on 7-point scales how well they would solve the particular type of problem and how well other students would solve the particular type of problem. In addition to this pre-task evaluation, subjects also were asked to provide post-task evaluations of how well they had solved each type of problem and how well other students had solved each type of problem. The post-task evaluations were obtained after the subject had responded to each set of CMEPS problems.

The actual instructions for the CMEPS were the following: During our day-to-day lives, we are faced with a variety of problems which we must solve in order to cope successfully with our environment. There is some evidence that changes in moods are related to different problem-solving strategies, and in our study we hope to find out if these differences apply to various types of problems. We also want to investigate people's thoughts and feelings as they attempt to discover how these are related to mood and type of problem. The study in which you are participating has been designed to assess how people resolve three kinds of problems: (a) interpersonal problems -situations which involve other people, such as asking the boss for a raise; (2) intrapersonal problems -situations


which do directly involve other people, such as car trouble late at night; and (3) emotional problems - problems related to emotional states, such as boredom. The task is similar to a story-telling task in which you are given the beginning of the story and must supply the middle and ending. As you read each problem, t ry to imagine yourself in the situation and think about what you would do to bring the story to a resolution. Be sure to state what the final outcome of the story is as well as the steps you might take to achieve this outcome. Please notify the experimenter when you have finished the three problems in the first set.

Three practice problems were completed to ensure that subjects understood the procedure. The experimenter then returned to the room with the first set of three problems. When the subjects signalled that they had finished the first set and had provided the post-task ratings of performance, the experimenter collected the completed problems and gave the subjects the next problem set. The procedure was continued until all the problem sets had been administered. It is important to note that the problem sets and subproblems within each set were arranged in a Graeco-Latin square to control for possible order effects.

Dependent Measures In addition to the pre-task and post-task ratings supplied by the subject, the follow-

ing dependent measures of problem-solving ability were derived from the CMEPS responses: (1) the number of relevant means-each discrete step that would enable the subject to solve the problem satisfactorily and that would likely result in a positive outcome (e.g., “I would call him on the phone”); (2) the number of irrelevant means- steps that would not enable the subject to solve the problem satisfactorily and would not lead to a positive outcome (e.g., “I would panic”); (3) no means-the number of steps that failed to include any steps to a solution of the problem; (4) enumeration of means - additional description of a step that would lead to a successful solution (e.g., “If I got a job, it would have to be part-time”); (5) negative emotional referents-any statement that referred to negative emotions on the part of the subject (e.g., “I would feel sad”); (6 ) positive emotional referents - any statement that referred to positive emotions on the part of the subject (e.g., “I would feel confident”); (7) total number of outcomes; (8) number of negative outcomes; (9) number of positive outcomes; (10) number of probable outcomes (as reflected by words such as probably, might, perhaps, etc.); ( 1 1) number of certain outcomes (e.g., ‘‘I would definitely pass the exam”); (12) number of instances in which no outcome was provided; and (13) overall effectiveness of the solution. An effective solution was defined as one that was realistic, detailed, and likely to lead to a positive outcome. An unrealistic outcome was defined as unrealistic and sketchy with few relevant means and little likelihood of a positive outcome.

RESULTS

Analyses of Pre-task Expectancy Ratings of Self and Others Separate MANOVAs with depression as the between-subjects factor and pre-task rat-

ings of the various problem types (interpersonal, intrapersonal, emotional) as the dependent measures were performed. The MANOVA on the pre-task self-rating of problem- solving ability found the expected multivariate main effect for depression, Wilks’ F(3,32) = 15.20, p < .01. Subsequent univariate ANOVAs found significant main effects of depression on interpersonal self-expectancy, F(1,34) = 9.20, p < .01, and emotional self-expectancy, F(1,34) = 7.20, p < .05, but not on intrapersonal self-expectancy, F( 1,34) = 1.8 1, ns. Depressed subjects had lower ratings of their expected ability to solve interpersonal problems (M = 3.8, SD = 1.3) than did their nondepressed counterparts (A4 = 2.6, SD = 1.1). Depressed subjects also had lower ratings of their expected


ability to solve emotional problems ( M = 4.2, SD = 1.3) than did the nondepressed subjects (M = 2.9, SD = 1.4).

In contrast, the MANOVA conducted on the estimates of the expected performance of other students failed to obtain a significant multivariate effect, Wilks F(3,32) = .16, ns. Thus, there were no significant group differences in the estimates of other students’ performance.

Performance as Assessed by the CMEPS Measures Separate ANOVAs with depression as the between-subjects factor and problem type

and the problems within each type as the within-subject factors were conducted on the measures derived from the responses to the CMEPS.* Surprisingly, all but one of these analyses failed to obtain significant main effects or interaction effects. The only exception was a main effect for depression on the number of negative outcomes, F(1,34) = 5.00, p < .05; the depressed subjects had more negative outcomes. (See Table 2.) The general lack of significant group differences suggests that depressed and nondepressed subjects do not differ in their actual ability to solve problems.

Table 2 Measures of Actual Problem-solving Ability as a Function of Depression

Dependent measure

~~

Depressed M SD

Nondepressed M SD

Relevant means lrrelevant means Enumeration o f means Negative emotional reference Positive emotional reference Number of outcomes

Positive outcomes Negative outcomes Probable outcomes Certain outcomes No outcome

Overall effectiveness Total number of words

2.27 1.43

.90 1.34

.84 1.17

.62 1 . 1 3

.I4 .32

2.10 1.12

1.30 .71

.80 .97

.80 1 .15

1.30 1.04 .02 .23

3.54 1.61

71.26 55.39

2.27 1.34

.69 .99

.78 I .07

.38 .72

.06 .I9

1.90 .88

1.40 .75

.47 .61*

.51 .79

1.34 .95 .02 .23

3.91 1.49

71.86 29.40

Note. -Effective ratings are scored in a positive direction such that higher scores reflect greater effec-

*p c .05. tiveness. CMEPS measures are averaged across the nine problems.

Analyses of Post-task Performance Evaluations Separate MANOVAs were conducted on the self and other post-task measures of

performance evaluation. The MANOVA conducted on the ratings of one’s own performance obtained a significant multivariate effect of depression, Wilks’ F(3,32) = 3.00, p < .05. Significant univariate effects of depression were obtained for perceived performance on interpersonal problems, F(1,34) = 7.10, p < .05, and on intrapersonal

’A MANOVA was not performed initially on the performance measures because of the larger number of dependent measures and the relatively small number of subjects that would be included in such an analysis.


problems, F( 1,34) = 5.90, p < .05. The depressed subjects had lower self-ratings of their performance on interpersonal problems (M = 3.7, SD = 1.2) when compared to the self-ratings of the nondepressives’ performance (M = 2.5, SD = 1.3). Similarly, the depressives gave lower self-evaluations to their performance on the intrapersonal problems. The respective means for the depressed and nondepressed groups were 3.7 (SD = 1.2) and 2.7 (SD = 1.3). The ANOVA conducted on self-evaluations of performance on emotional problems yielded a marginally significant effect, F(1,34) = 4.10, p < .06. Once again, depressed subjects’ self-evaluations were more negative.

As was the case with the expectancy measures, the MANOVA conducted on the measures that assessed perceptions of the performance of others did not obtain a significant multivariate effect of depression, F(3,32) = 2.20, p < .12, which suggests the absence of group differences in the evaluation of other students’ performance.

DISCUSSION

The present study examined problem-solving appraisals and performance in a sample of depressed and nondepressed college students. Problem-solving performance was assessed with a college-student version of the MEPS that was developed with behavioral- analytic methods. The results quite strikingly demonstrated that depressed and nondepressed students did not differ in their actual ability t o solve personal problems. Analyses revealed that a group difference was evident on only one of the performance measures - negative outcomes. Moreover, the pervasiveness of this lack of differences is shown by the fact that there were no differences across the types of problems assessed in the present study (i.e., interpersonal, intrapersonal, or emotional). Thus, it appears that depressed and nondepressed students are equally capable of providing effective solutions to their interpersonal, intrapersonal, and emotional problems.

The lack of group differences in actual performance is particularly important given that the same groups did differ in their cognitive self-appraisals of problem-solving performance; analyses of pre-task ratings revealed that depressed subjects, relative to nondepressed subjects, were more negative in their perceptions of their own expected performance. Similarly, analyses of post-task ratings revealed that depressed students manifested more negative self-appraisals of their performance on the CMEPS. These differences were apparent in all three problem-solving domains, but the largest group differences were attained for the performance expectancies and appraisals of interpersonal problems. Overall, these differences in self-appraisal are consistent with a number of studies cited earlier that show that perceived ineffective problem-solving is associated with greater depression. Thus, taken together, the obtained differences in self-evaluation and lack of actual differences in performance provide support for Beck’s (1967) cognitive model of depression with its emphasis on negative thoughts that involve the self. More generally, the pattern of findings provides empirical support for recent models that em- phasize the need to distinguish an individual’s cognitive orientation toward problem- solving and the actual behaviors and strategies used by that individual. (See D’Zurilla & Nezu, 1990.)

It is interesting to note that the depressed and nondepressed subjects did not differ in their overall perceptions of the ability of other students to solve problems. This finding is consistent with certain studies that have shown that the cognitive biases exhibited by depressed individuals are specific to the self and do not extend to the perception of others (Pietromonaco & Markus, 1985; Sweeney, Shaeffer, & Golin, 1982). However, it is clearly inconsistent with other research that shows that depressed subjects, relative to nondepressed subjects, rate the attributes of others in a more positive manner (Crocker, Alloy, & Kayne, 1988). In fact, when the data from the present research are analyzed in a within-subject design that directly compares ratings of self and others, the results suggest that the nondepressed subjects view their performance and the performance of


others as relatively equivalent, but the depressed subjects view their performance as somewhat worse than others. Overall, however, it is the individual differences in self- evaluation that are most important.

Although the current results suggest that the problem-solving differences between depressed and nondepressed subjects are primarily cognitive in nature, it is undoubtedly the case that these cognitive factors contribute to behavioral differences as well. This point was demonstrated effectively in a recent study by Neal and Heppner (1986), which found that ineffective self-appraised problem-solvers were less likely than effective problem-solvers to use campus helping resources, despite the fact that the former group had much more to gain by seeking help. The results of the Neal and Heppner (1986) study, in conjunction with the results of the current study, suggest that an approach that takes cognitive, behavioral, and motivational factors into account may be the most effective means of ameliorating deficits in self-perceived problem-solving ability.

Overall, the present findings have important implications for clinicians who are seeking to ameliorate problem-solving deficits in depressed students. Although depressed college students have a negative expectancy with respect to their problem-solving efforts and typically predict negative outcomes, the present results suggest that they may be just as capable as their nondepressed counterparts when it comes to resolving interpersonal, intrapersonal, and emotional problems. Thus, treatment should focus on chang- ing the dysfunctional thoughts or irrational beliefs that are specific to the depressed individual’s perceptions of problem-solving ability and performance. I t is not so much that depressed college students are not able to solve problems and to perform capably. Rather, they have a perception of incompetence.

Finally, some caveats about the current study are in order. First, the findings must be replicated because we used a new problem-solving measure that requires further validation. The measure of problem-solving ability developed for this study was designed specifically for college students and, therefore, should be more valid than the original MEPS when administered to this type of sample. Thus, although the current results must be replicated, it is unlikely that the absence of group differences in problem-solving ability can be attributed entirely to methodological factors.

Second, it is especially important that future research in this area addresses the causality issue. At present, it is not known whether self-perceived problem-solving ability causes depression, depression causes self-perceived problem-solving ability, or some unknown third variable influences both measures. Finally, the generalizability of the current results must be determined. It is particularly important that additional research be conducted with students and patients with more severe levels of depression so that we can obtain a more complete understanding of the relation between problem-solving ability and depression.

In summary, the present study used a measure of problem-solving behaviors in college students to investigate whether depressed and nondepressed students differ in their ability to solve personal problems as well as their problem-solving appraisals. It was shown that differences in problem-solving self-appraisals were evident despite an absence of differences in actual problem-solving behaviors. The sample of depressed college students had more negative expectancies and more negative evaluations of their problem-solving performance across the interpersonal, intrapersonal, and emotional problem domains. These findings underscore the need for interventions that focus on the cognitive aspects of the problem-solving process.

REFERENCES

BECK, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects. New York: Harper & Row. BECK, A. T., STEER, R . A., 81 GARBIN, M. G . (1988). Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression In-

ventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 77-100.


BECK, A. T., WARD, C. H., MENDELSON, M., MOCK, J., & ERBAUGH, J . (1961). An inventory for measur- ing depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561-571.

BLANKSTEIN, K. R., & FLETT, G. L. (1992). Specificity in the assessment of daily hassles: Hassles, locus of control, and adjustment in college students. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 24, 382-398.

BLANKSTEIN, K . R., FLETT, G. L., & KOLEDIN, S. (1991). The Brief College Student Hassles Scale: Develop- ment, validation, and relation with pessimism. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 258-264.

BUMBERRY, W., OLIVER, J . M., & MCCLURE, J. N. (1978). Validation of the Beck Depression lnventory in a university population using psychiatric estimate as the criterion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

BUTLER, L., & MEICHENBAUM, D. (1980). The assessment of interpersonal problem-solving skills. In P. C. Kendall & S. D. Hollon (Eds.), Cognitive-behavioral interventions: Assessment methods (pp. 197-226). New York: Academic Press.

CANE, D. B., & GOTLIB, 1. H. (1985). Depression and the effects of positive and negative feedback on expectations, evaluations, and performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 145-160.

CROCKER, J . , ALLOY, L. B., & KAYNE, L. B. (1988). Attributional style, depression, and perception of con- sensus for events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 840-846.

DOERFLER, L. A., MULLINS, L. M., GRIFFIN, N. J., SIEGEL, L L., & RICHARDS, C. S. (1984). Problem-solving deficits in depressed children, adolescents, and adults. Cognirive Therapy and Research, 8, 489-499.

DZURILLA, T. J . , & GOLDFRIED, M. R. (1971). Problem-solving and behavior modification. Journalof Ab- normal Psychology, 78, 107-126.

D’ZURILLA, T. J . , & NEZU, A. M. (1990). Development and preliminary evaluation of the Social Problem- Solving Inventory (SPSI). Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,

DZURILLA, T . J . , & SHEEDY, C. F. (1991). Relation between social problem-solving ability and subsequent level of psychological stress in college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 841-846.

FISHER, S., & HOOD, B. (1987). The stress of the transition to university: A longitudinal study of psychological disturbance, absentmindedness and vulnerability to depression. British Journal of Psychologv. 78, 425-441.

FISHER-BECKWITH, D., & MCFALL, R. (1982). Development of a competence inventory for college men and evaluation of relationships between competence and depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Use of a behavioral-analytic procedure in evaluating two models of depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 183-185.

A behavioral-analytic method for assessing competence. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Current topicsin clinicalandcommunitypsychology (Vol. I . pp. 151-196). New York: Academic Press.

GOLDFRIED, M. R., BL GOLDFRIED, A. P. (1975). Cognitive change methods. In F. H. Kanfer & A. P. Goldstein (Eds.), Helping people change (pp. 89-1 16). New York: Pergamon Press.

GOLDFRIED, M. R., & LINEHAN, M. M. (1977). Basic issues in behavioral assessment. In A . R. Ciminero, K. S., Calhoun, & H. E. Adams (Eds.), Handbook of behavioral assessment (pp. 15-46). New York: John Wiley.

GONG-GUY, E., 81 HAMMEN, C. (1980). Causal perceptions of stressful events in depressed and nondepressed outpatients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89. 662-669.

GOTLIB, I . H.. & ASARNOW, R. F. (1979). Interpersonal and impersonal problem-solving skills in mildly and clinically depressed college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 86-95.

HAMMEN, C., KRANTZ, S. E., & COCHRAN, S. D. (1981). Relationships between depression and causal attributions about stressful life events. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 5, 351-358.

HEPPNER, P. P . (1978). A review of the problem-solving literature and its relationship to the counseling process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25, 366-375.

HEPPNER, P. P., & ANDERSON, W. P. (1985). The relationship between problem-solving self-appraisal and psychological adjustment. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 415-427.

HEPPNER, P. P.. BAUMGARDNER, A., & JACKSON, J . (1985). Problem-solving self-appraisal, depression, and attributional style: Are they related? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 105-1 13.

HEPPNER, P. P. , HIBEL, J., NEAL, G. W., WEINSTEIN, C. L., & RABINOWITZ, F. E. (1982). Personal problem solving: A descriptive study of individual differences. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 580-590.

HEPPNER, P. P., KAMPA, M.. & BRUNNING. L. (1987). The relationship between problem-solving self-appraisal and indices of physical and psychological health. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11, 155-168.

HEPPNER, P . P., REEDER, B. L., & LARSON, L. M. (1983). Cognitive variables associated with personal problem-solving appraisal: Implications for counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 537-545.

Psychology, 46, 150- 155.

2, 156-163.

PSychology, 80, 677-705. FUNABIKI, D., & CALHOUN, J. F. (1979).

GOLDFRIED, M. R., & D’ZURILLA, T. J . (1969).


KENDALL, P. C., HOLLON. S. D., BECK, A. T., HAMMEN, C. L., & INGRAM, R. E. (1987). Issues and recommendations regarding the use of the Beck Depression Inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11,

LEWINSOHN, P. M. (1974). A behavioral approach to depression. In R. J . Friedman & M. M. Katz (Eds.), Thepsychology of depression: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 157-185). Washington: Winston.

MEICHENBAUM, D., & CAMERON, R. (1981). Issues in cognitive assessment: An overview. In T. V. Merluzzi, C. R. Glass, & M. Genest (Eds.), Cognitive assessment (pp. 3-15). New York: Guilford Press.

NEAL, G. W., & HEPPNER, P. P. (1986). Problem-solving self-appraisal, awareness, and utilization of campus helping resources. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 39-44.

NEZU, A. M. (1985). Differences in psychological distress between effective and ineffective problem solvers. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 135-138.

NEZU, A. M. (1986). Cognitive appraisal of problem-solving effectiveness: Relation to depression and depressive symptoms. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 42-48.

NEZU, A. M. (1987). Social problem solving and depression: A literature review and proposal of a pluralistic model. Clinical Psychology Review, 7, 121-144.

NEZU, A. M . , KALMAR, K., RONAN, G. F., & CLAVIIO, A. (1986). Attributional correlates of depression: An interactional model including problem solving. Behavior Therapy, 17, 50-56.

NEZU, A. M., B NEZU, C. M. (1987). Psychological distress, problem solving, and coping reactions: Sex role differences. Sex Roles, 16, 205-214.

NEZU, A. M., NEZU, C. M., SARAYDARIAN, L., KALMAR, K., RONAN, G. F. (1986). Social problem solving as a moderating variable between negative life stress and depressive symptoms. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 10, 489-498.

NEZU, A. M., a RONAN, G. F. (1985). Life stress, current problems, problem solving, and depressive symptoms: An integrative model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 693-697.

NEZU, A. M., & RONAN, G. F. (1988). Social problem solving as a moderator of stress-related depressive symptoms: A prospective analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 134-138.

PIETROMONACO, P . R., & MARKUS, H. (1985). The nature of negative thoughts in depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 799-801.

PLATT, J . J . , & SPIVACK, G. (1975). ManuaIJor the Means-Ends Problem-Solving Procedure (MEPS): A measure of interpersonal cognitive problem-solving skill. Philadelphia: Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital.

RICHARD, B. A., & DODOE, K. A. (1982). Social maladjustment and problem-solving in school-aged children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, SO, 226-233.

SACCO, W. P . (1981). Invalid use of the Beck Depression Inventory to identify depressed college students: A methodological comment. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 5, 143-147.

SCHOTTE, D. E., & CLUM, G. A. (1982). Suicide ideation in a college population: A test of a model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, SO, 690-696.

SHAVER, P., FURMAN, W., & BUHRMESTER, D. (1985). Transition to college: Network changes, social skills, and loneliness. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Understanding personal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 193-219). London: Sage.

Cognitive assessment of depression. In T. V. Merluzzi, C. R. Glass, & M. Genest (Eds.), Cognitive assessment (pp. 361-387). New York: Guilford Press.

The problem-solving approach to adjustment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pessimistic self-preoccupation, performance deficits, and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1076-1085.

Attributions about self and others in depression. Per- sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 8, 37-42.

Interpersonal problem-solving competency: Review and critique of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 6, 337-356.

Review of social-cognitive problem-solving interventions with children. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 109- 143.

Social skills deficits and subsequent depressed mood in students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 605-6 10.

Interpersonal problem-solving skills and depression-proneness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 23 1-235.

289-299.

SHAW, B. F., & DOBSON. K. S. (1981).

SPIVACK, G., PLAIT, J . J . , & SHURE, M. B. (1976).

STRACK, S., BLANEY, P. H., GANELLEN, R. J., & COYNE, J . C. (1985).

SWEENEY, P. D., SHAEFFER, D., & COLIN, S. (1982).

TISDELLE, D. A., & ST. LAWRENCE, J . S. (1986).

URBAIN, E. S., & KENDALL, P. C. (1983).

WIERZBICKI, M. (1984).

ZEMORE, R., & DELL, L. W. (1983).

Documents

Depression, Problem-Solving Ability, and Problem-Solving Appraisals