Need for Cognition and Problem Solving Styles in Divorce Applicant

8/10/2019 Need for Cognition and Problem Solving Styles in Divorce Applicant

1/5

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 30 (2011) 894 898

1877-0428 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the 2nd World Conference on Psychology,

Counselling and Guidance.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.173

WCPCG-2011

Need for cognition and problem solving styles in divorce applicant

couples and normal couplesRahele Mohammadi

a, Khalil Alizadeh

a, Maryam Sedaghat

b

aKooshyar research center, Atieh Hospital, Farahzadi Ave., Tehran, IranbACECR, Jalal Al e Ahmad Ave., Nassim St., Tehran 14155-6456 Iran

Abstract

The increasing rate of divorce in Iran has prompted concern amongst professionals in various fields. In present study, some

probable causes of getting divorce, and the differences the need for cognition and problem solving styles between applicator

couples of divorce and normal couples was examined. 200 participants including 100 couples of applicator divorce and 100 non-

applicator couples. Participants responded to a questionnaire consisting of two sections: need for cognition and problem solving

styles. The results indicated that the two groups had significant differences in helplessness, problem solving control, and problem

solving confidence but in creativity style, avoidance style, and approach style. It was also shown that there was not significant

difference between the two groups in need for cognition. Furthermore, the results revealed that most common problem solving

styles among the participants were avoidance, approach and creativity respectively. With regard to the result, it cannot be claimed

that that applicator couples of divorce use unproductive problem solving styles more than normal couples did.

Keywords: divorce, need for cognition, Problem solving style.

1.Introduction

Marriage is a fundamental human relationship and has basic functions such as production, regular coitus,

socialization, physical, and financial support of the growing children (Bilton et al, 1981). There is a positive

correlation between duration and satisfaction of marriages, and mental and physical health and life time (Waite,

1995). These positive results just appear in those families that the amount of conflicts is not high (Amato & Booth;

1997) and family is not involved in problems due to couples mental health ( Sanders, 1995; Halford & Markham,1997). In fact, marriage is a pleasant relationship but research has shown marital satisfaction is not achieved easily

(Rosen-Grandon, et al 2004). So it will be useful to detect factors that lead marriage to divorce or improve and

confirm it. Various factors may be effective in the decision to divorce. Many Studies investigate the risk factors

associated with the collapse of marriages (Stevenson, & Wolfers, 2007; Clarke & Berrington, 1999; Wolcott &Hoghes, 1999; Ono, 1998). Various intrapersonal and interpersonal mechanisms lead to marital satisfaction; these

mechanisms are overt communicational behavior, emotions, physiology and personality (Gatman, 1994). Jacobson

Rahele Mohammadi. Tel.: +98-21-88367182; fax: +98-21-88243710.E-mail address: [email protected]

This paper has been supported financially by Kooshyar Research Center, Atieh Hospital


2/5

895Rahele Mohammadi et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 30 (2011) 894 898

and Margolin (1979) observed that disturbed couples are facing more difficulties to resolve problems satisfactorily.

When a problem is appearing, satisfied couples discuss about it and pay attention to each others view point and

trying to neutrally solve the problems (Gatman, 1994), but unhappy couples fight (Ledere & Jacobson, 1968) or

apparently ignored the problem and do not talk about it. In complex world which people are experiencing new

phenomenon and conflicts, thinking and problem solving skills seem to be very useful in processing and coping with

a new event and resolve it correctly. Those with sufficient skills for problem solving can manage life full of concern

and conflict management and avoid the various crises and the collapse of the life.

The need for cognition and information processing during problems is important (Day et al, 2007). Need for

cognition refers to the tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activities (Cacciopo, and petty, 1982).

Individuals high in need for cognition are more likely to exert the cognitive effort necessary to process the

substantive merits of the information to which they are exposed than individuals who are low in need for cognition

(Cacciopo et al, 1996).. Those who obtain high score on this scale tend to think more and develop and interpret data,

while individuals with low scores wish to avoid cognitive activities (Culhane et al, 2004). Ghorbani et al (2003)

reported the relationship between self knowledge and the need for cognition which suggests the important role of

this variable in the personality integrity and mental health. Perkins and Tishman (1998) suggest the thinking

dispositions which include need for cognition, are not neuronal structures in the brain, but they are cultural

phenomena. Dispositions are the results of interactions between beliefs, values and norms. If the result confirms the

hypothesis that divorce applicant individual lack these thinking dispositions, they can be taught to individuals toprevent the incidence of divorce. This study aims to answer this question that what is the role of need for cognition

and problem solving methods in sustainability marriage.

2.Method

2.1. Subjects:170 people which are composed of 79 people of couples that agreed to apply for divorce were

referred to a psychologist for divorce process, and 91 normal couples who never think about divorce.

2. 2. Measures

2.2.1.The need for cognition scale:NCS, with 18 items was published in 1984 by Cacciopo, Petty, Cave. This

questionnaire is designed based on a six degrees Likert scale is scoring and only have one factor and half of the

items are scoring reversely. This scale is without gender bias, and women and men are not different from each other.

Cacciopo, Petty and Cave (1982) reported the Cronbach's alpha 0.9.

2.2.2. Problem solving style inventory: This scale designed by Cassidy, & Long (1996) during two phases

containing 24 questions which measures six factors and each factor includes 4 items. The factors include

helplessness, control, creative style, confidence, avoidance styles, and finally approach style. All sub-scale alpha

coefficients are higher than 0.50, indicating this scale is a reliable and valid measure for assessing problem solving.

2.3. Procedure: 100 people who were referred by the Family Court to a psychologist for counseling before the

divorce filled out questionnaires. The psychologist asks them to fill questionnaires and if they were illiterate,

questions were asked and their responses were recorded. Finally, 79 participants filled the questionnaires. Throughavailable sampling, 100 couples, not thinking of divorce, were chosen. In this way, 91 questionnaires were gathered

from the participants.


3/5

896 Rahele Mohammadi et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 30 (2011) 894 898

3.

Results

51.9 % of divorce group were women and 46.8% were men. The mean age of the divorce applicant group was 28

years. Concerning education status, 41% of the participants had degrees below diploma, 33% of them had diploma

and 26% had college education. Average age of marriage was three years in this group. 51.6% of normal group were

women and 48.4% were men. The mean age of this group was 33.5. Concerning education status, 23% of theparticipants had degrees below diploma, 38.5% had high school diploma and 38.5% had college education. Averageage of marriage was eight years in this group. As Table 1 shows there is a significant difference between age and

education among individuals applied for divorce and couples who had no intention to divorce. In other words,

divorce applicant couples have lower education and age mean.Table 1. t-test results for age and education level in groups

variable group index mean Standard deviation T Df P

age Divorce applicant couples

Normal couples

27.56

33.54

6.17

7.32

-5.68 167 0.000***

education Divorce applicant couples

Normal couples

2.79

3.11

0.89

0.86

-2.34 165 0.021*

Main causes of divorce are: lack of moral, cultural and family understanding 68%, lack of maturity and lack of

life skills 38%, forced marriage and lack of interest in spouse 24%, infidelity 20%, addiction, 14%, sexual problems

9% and financial problems 8%. Because of the relationship between the need for cognition and education (r= 0.59,

p< 0.001), the analysis of variance was used to compare two groups in the need for cognition by controlling the

education effect. As the table 2 shows by controlling the education effect, there is no significant difference in theneed for cognition in the two groups.Table 2. ANOVA results is to compare two groups in the need for cognition by controlling the education effect

Source of variance SS Df MS F P

Group 265.116 1 265.116 2.371 0.125

Error 18557.797 166 111.794

There is a significant correlation between various subscales of problem solving and also between various ways ofproblem solving and education. So, multivariate analysis of variance was used to consider the second hypothesis and

control the education and the results in Tables 3 and 4 are shown.

Table 3. Descriptive data in different ways of problem solving in groups

Problem solving strategies group Mean Standard deviation N

Helplessness divorce 2.75 2.24 77

Normal 1.20 1.49 90

Control divorce 3.49 1.91 77

Normal 2.58 1.93 90

Creativity divorce 5.40 2.48 77

normal 5.50 2.13 90


4/5

897Rahele Mohammadi et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 30 (2011) 894 898

Confidence Divorce 4.17 1.21 77

normal 3.76 1.77 90

Avoidance Divorce 4.57 2.02 77

normal 3.98 2.00 90

Approach divorce 6.03 1.77 77

normal 6.62 1.67 90

MANOVA test results showed that all multivariate tests are significant (F= 6.24 , p< 0.001). So the underlying

assumptions for the analysis of variance test exist.

Table 4. results of analysis of variance of different ways of problem solving in general population and divorce applicant couples with

controlling education

Source of variance Dependent variable SS Df MS F P

GroupError

helplessness 72.83537.48

1163

72.833.30

22.09 0.000***

Group

ErrorControl 21.7

576.431

16321.7

3.546.14 0.014*

Group

Error

creativity 5.03

663.72

1

163

5.03

4.07

1.24 0.268

Group

Error

Confidence 14.89

346.02

1

163

14.89

2.12

7.01 0.009**

GroupError

avoidance 12.07662.11

1163

12.074.06

2.97 0.087

Group

ErrorApproach 9/78

465.271

1639/78

2.853.43 0.066

As table4 shows ways of helplessness, control and confidence in problem solving are significantly different

between two groups. All the above three ways are used more in divorce applicant group. The ways of helplessnessand control are non-constructive problem-solving ways and confidence is constructive.

4.Discussion

The results of the study showed that the age and educational level of divorce applicant is lower compared to

couples whose are not prone to divorce. However, it is noticed that people who get married in low ages are less

educated and skilled regarding personal and inter-personal resources. The result also reveals that people in low ages

are not financially independent. These underlying issues can bring conflicts into the marital life of the couple and

they are less capable to find effective solution for the potential coming problems of their life (Kurdek, 1993, Waite,

1990). These groups of people are not enough mature and experienced to identify and detect their emotional needsand dominant changing values of the society to prevent maladjustment (Kurdek, 1993; Gottman, 1994; Wallerstein,

1996). The data also reported that divorce applicants with academic education (M=75, Sd=7) have higher needs for

cognition compared to normal couples and it is statistically significant (M=69, Sd=11,). Also two groups are

significantly different regarding their problem-solving strategies in helplessness, control, and confidence. These

three strategies are more applied among divorce applicants. Helplessness and control are non-constructive ways of

problem solving and confidence is a constructive strategy. The two non-constructive strategies often make the

problems more complex and may lead to the collapse of relationship. But confidence and need for cognition in

divorce group is a notable point. Social issues, difficult condition and limitations resulting from family ties and

marriage among some educated couples may lead to lack of tolerance among couples who have more need for


5/5

898 Rahele Mohammadi et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 30 (2011) 894 898

cognition and confidence. Some experts believe that despite emotional divorce between couples, they prefer not to

separate. One reason could be lack of confidence and fear of divorce and its consequences. Several studies

suggested the reasons of marital dissatisfaction in general categories of lack of understanding, lack of interest in

spouse and sexual problems. The category of understanding has included cultural, religion, communicational, value

differences. Iranian society is passing from tradition to modernity and behavioral values systems of some individuals

and families have been changed but some are still committed to social values and old customs. Thus, conflict

between two people from two different families or even from one family is inevitable and resolving such con flictsrequires skill, maturity and patience. In such societies, couples have different views on gender roles of spouse,

expenditure of money, nurturing children, care of elderly parents, etc. As noted 43% of the participants of this study

seem to lack sufficient maturity and skill and could not solve problems and conflicts and 68% of divorces have

occurred due to lack of understanding. These findings are Consistent with findings of some researchers, such as

McDonald (1988). Since the results of this study dont confirm the use of unconstructive methods of divorce or lack

of the need to cognition and thinking avoidance is not related to divorce, future research should focus on other

internal variables such as motives, needs satisfaction, beliefs and characteristics and personality traits.

References

Amato, P. & Booth, A. (1997). A generation at risk: growing up in an era of family dishevel. Harvard University press, Cambridge.Bilton, T., Bounett, K., Jones, P., Sheard, J., Stanworth, M.K.& Webster, A.(1981). Introductory sociology, London: Macmillan.

Cacioppo, J. T., and Petty, R.E. (1982). The need for cognition.J. Person. Soc. Psych. 42(1): 116-161.Cacioppo.J. T., Petty, R. E, Feinstein, J. A., and Jarvis, W.B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: the life and times of

individuals varying in need for cognition.Psych. Bull. 119: 197-253.Cacippo, J. T., & Petty, R.E.& Morris, K.J.(1983).Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of

personality and social psychology,45, no 4, 805-818.

Cacippo, J. T., Petty, R.E.& Kao, C.F.(1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition . Journal of personality assessment, 48, 306-307.Cassidy, T., Long, C.(1996). Problem solving style, stress and psychology illness: development of multifactorial measure. Br Journal clinical

psychology. 35, 263-277.Clarke, L. & Berrington, A. (1999). Socio-demographic predictors of divorce, in Simson, J. (ed). High divorce rates: the state of the evidence on

reasons and remidies: reviews of evidence on the causes of marital breakdown and the effectiveness of policies and services intended toreduce its incidence, research series, Vol.1, pp.1-38.

Culhane, S. E, Morera, O. F., & Hosch, H.M.(2004). The factor structure of the need for cognition short form in a Hispanic sample . The journal

of psychology. 138(1), 77-88.Day, E. A., Espejo, J., Kowollik, V., Boatman, P. R., & McEntire, L. E. (2007). Modelling the links between need for cognition and the

acquisition of a complex skill.Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 201-212.

Ghorbani. N .Watson, P. J., Bing, M. N., Davison, H K.,& Lebreton, D. L.(2003). Two Facets of self-knowledge: Cross-cultheral Development ofMeasures in Iran and the United States. Genetic, social, and General psychology monographs, 129, 238-268.

Gottman, J. (1994), What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship Between Marital Process and Marital Outcomes, Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey.Halford, K. & Markham, H. (eds) (1997). Clinical Handbook of Marriage and Couples Interventions,John Wiley and Sons, Chichester UK.Jacobson, N. S. & Margolin, G. (1979). Marital therapy: Strategies based on social learning and behavior exchange principles. New York

BrunnerlMazel.Kurdek, L. (1993), 'Predicting marital dissolution: a five-year prospective longitudinal study of newlywed couples', Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, vol.64, no. 2, pp. 221-242.

McDonald, P. (1988). Families in the future: the pursuit of personal autonomy, Family Matters, 22: 40-47.Nye, I. & Berardo, F. (1973). The Family: Its Structure and Interaction,Macmillan, New York.

Ono, H. (1998). 'Husbands' and wives' resources and marital dissolution',Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 60, pp. 674-689.

Perkins, D. N., Tishman, S. (1998). Dispositional aspect of intelligence. Retrieved January 20, 2007, from http:// learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/docs/Plymouth.htm

Rosen-Grandon,J. , Myers, J., & Hattie, J. ( 2004). The Relationship Between Marital Characteristics, Marital Interaction Processes, and MaritalSatisfaction, Journal of Counselling & Development.

Sanders, M. (1995). Healthy Families, Healthy Nation: Strategies for Promoting Family Mental Health in Australia, Australian Academic Press,Queensland.

Stevenson, B. & Wolfers, J. (2007). Marriage and divorce: changes and their driving forces. IZA Discussion paper No. 2602.Waite, L. (1995). 'Does marriage matter?',Demography,vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 483 507.

Wallerstein, J. (1996). 'The psychological tasks of marriage: part 2,AmericanJournal of Orthopsychyciatry, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 217-227.Wolcott, I. & Hughes, J(1999). Towards understanding the reasons for divorce, Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Documents

Need for Cognition and Problem Solving Styles in Divorce Applicant