http://tcp.sagepub.com/The Counseling Psychologist

http://tcp.sagepub.com/content/32/3/466The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0011000003262794

2004 32: 466The Counseling PsychologistP. Paul Heppner, Thomas E. Witty and Wayne A. Dixon

Problem-Solving Appraisal: Helping Normal People Lead Better Lives  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

Division of Counseling Psychology of the American Psychological Association

can be found at:The Counseling PsychologistAdditional services and information for    

  http://tcp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://tcp.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://tcp.sagepub.com/content/32/3/466.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- May 1, 2004Version of Record >>

at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 13, 2014tcp.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 13, 2014tcp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

10.1177/0011000003262794ARTICLETHE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / May 2004Heppner et al. / CLOSING COMMENTS• Rejoinder

Problem-Solving AppraisalHelping Normal People Lead Better Lives

P. Paul HeppnerUniversity of Missouri–Columbia

Thomas E. WittyNorth Mississippi Medical Center

Wayne A. DixonSoutheastern Oklahoma State University

We are very grateful for the thoughtful, scholarly, and insightful com-ments of the reactants and appreciate the kind words about our Major Contri-bution. One of the goals of the Major Contribution was to review the existingliterature on problem-solving appraisal as measured by the Problem SolvingInventory (PSI) (Heppner, 1988) and, subsequently, to identify promisingresearch directions that might stimulate future research and theory develop-ment. In addition to the ideas we presented in the Major Contribution, thereactants provided a wealth of observations and suggestions that will likelystimulate research directions on problem-solving appraisal. Moreover, thereactants’ suggestions extend the work to a wide range of preventive andremedial interventions that could make a significant difference in people’slives. In short, reactants all made a number of excellent points and provide arich discussion. We welcome the opportunity to respond to some of the reac-tants’comments; we regret that space limitations prevent us from respondingto all of them. We organize our initial responses into three general categoriespertaining to (a) broad conceptualizations of the problem-solving appraisalliterature, (b) future research directions, and (c) practice implications. Wethen conclude by discussing some broader reflections on developing andmeasuring psychological constructs.

BROAD CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF THEPROBLEM-SOLVING APPRAISAL LITERATURE

Several of the reactants aptly depicted the review of the PSI literaturewithin a broader context of the field of counseling psychology, Positive Psy-chology, and the overarching goal of making a difference in people’s lives.

466

THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST, Vol. 32 No. 3, May 2004 466-472DOI: 10.1177/0011000003262794© 2004 by the Society of Counseling Psychology.

at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 13, 2014tcp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

For example, Lopez and Janowski (2004 [this issue]) nicely conceptualizedthe PSI literature within the traditional historical themes that define counsel-ing psychology, namely, focusing on people’s strengths and helping “normalpeople lead better lives” (p. 462). Indeed, problem solving is a common andnormal activity of living and can be an important strength in coping with allkinds of demands, from daily hassles to major traumatic life events. More-over, they noted the consistency of this construct with the profession’s focuson the important role of personal resources, environmental influences, andcultural contexts in people’s lives. The problem-solving appraisal literaturedoes indeed reflect these perspectives; over the years, counseling psychologyhas been repeatedly conceptualized as helping people solve problems thatthey have been unable to resolve on their own (e.g., Dixon & Glover, 1984;Fretz, 1982; Krumboltz, 1965). In essence, several of the reactants placed thePSI literature in a broader context to help readers make philosophicalconnections to the field of counseling psychology and psychology in general.

O’Neil (2004 [this issue]) reflected on his initial reactions as a graduatestudent to the construct of problem solving as “bland and ordinary” and saidit “seemed inconsistent with my mistaken perspective on what ‘real therapy’was.” O’Neil’s comments fit our experience exactly. The label of appliedproblem solving often does not accurately convey for many readers the com-plexities inherent in how people cope with their personal problems. O’Neilproceeded to reflect on the early work of Tom Magoon, his graduate mentor,and statements he made about applied problem solving. “Effective problemsolving is where the action is when helping people help themselves,” and“problem solving . . . can make a difference in people’s lives!” O’Neil as wellas Lopez and Janowski clearly conceptualized problem solving broadly andunderstood the tremendous utility of applied problem solving, and problem-solving appraisal in particular, in making a difference in people’s lives. Thereis a great deal of utility in applied problem solving, especially given the workand philosophical orientation of counseling psychologists.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

The reactants provided a wealth of suggestions for future research direc-tions. For example, they offered several excellent methodological sugges-tions. Of particular importance was the suggestion of conducting meta-analyses on the PSI literature (e.g., O’Neil, 2004; Suzuki & Ahluwalia, 2004[this issue]), which could provide more specific information about the mag-nitude of the strength of the relationship between the PSI and other variables;this needs to be done. For example, meta-analyses could assess the strengthof the relationships between the PSI and variables such as depressive symp-

Heppner et al. / CLOSING COMMENTS 467

at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 13, 2014tcp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

toms and suicidal ideation; moreover, because there is a much more powerfulrelationship between the PSI and these variables in clinical samples, it mightbe especially useful to conduct separate analyses for studies by type or kindof sample. Another important methodological suggestion was to conductstudies assessing the incremental validity of the PSI and to create moreencompassing latent variables with the PSI factors and other variables(Lopez & Janowski, 2004); this line of inquiry could provide additional con-ceptual clarity between and among related constructs. Such research couldstimulate integration across distinctly separate literatures (e.g., social psy-chology, developmental psychology), promote greater predictability of morefully developed latent constructs, and lead to a greater understanding ofproblem-solving appraisal and applied problem solving in general.

In addition, the reactants also offered a number of excellent conceptualsuggestions. For example, using a positive psychology perspective, Lopezand Janowski suggested an additional focus on clarifying relationships be-tween problem-solving appraisal and a broader range of psychologicaladjustment indices, such as life satisfaction, personal well-being, and suchmeaningful life outcomes as achieving educational goals, maintaining rela-tionships, and finding meaning and purpose. We strongly agree that such aline of research could not only broaden the existing PSI literature but alsoappropriately focus on the major life outcomes central to people’s lives. Atthis point, such research examining the PSI within a Positive Psychologyframework might be fruitful using a wide range of research designs and sta-tistical analyses, from zero-order correlations to multiple regressions andstructural equation modeling. If such a line of research proves useful, itwould be exciting to use a longitudinal design to examine the predictivevalidity of the PSI for later outcomes of life.

Many of the reactants’comments about future research pertained to diver-sity issues. O’Neil (2004) and Lucas (2004 [this issue]) both noted thereported lack of sex differences in the PSI literature. O’Neil would have likedmore discourse on this topic. As we indicated earlier, we suspect “meanscores and linear, zero-order relationships may not tell the whole story”(Heppner, Witty, & Dixon, 2004 [this issue], p. 405). Although there do notseem to be PSI differences based on biological sex, we would expect differ-ences based on the social construction of sex, particularly gender socializa-tion differences. It may be that the PSI means are similar as a whole betweenmen and women in many instances, but the cognitions, affect, and behaviorsunderlying those appraisals as a result of gender socialization may be differ-ent across different types of problems (see Heppner & Krauskopf, 1987).This implies that the PSI may significantly interact with these variables. Per-haps more complex models including gender role socialization variablesalong with other variables (e.g., perfectionism, procrastination) are also

468 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / May 2004

at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 13, 2014tcp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

needed to more fully understand the complex relations between sex differ-ences and coping. Nonetheless, the conclusion by Ptacek, Smith, and Zanas(1992) still stands; little is know about sex differences across various copingactivities. Clearly, this issue needs further examination.

Lucas (2004), Suzuki and Ahluwalia (2004), and O’Neil (2004) all ad-dressed issues related to race, ethnicity, and cultural issues. Suzuki andAhluwalia correctly noted that we expressed caution in applying the PSI todiverse populations. They made excellent observations about problem solv-ing within collectivist cultures, pervasive environmental demands such asracism, and certain religious and spiritual perspectives related to worldviewsinvolving fatalism in particular. These suggestions strongly resonate; there isa tremendous need to learn more about problem-solving appraisal in theseand other cultural contexts. We did not suggest nor do we believe as Lucasimplies that the “Caucasian worldview is (assumed to be the) standard”(p. 457) as it pertains to problem-solving appraisal. Rather, we explicitly callattention to the need for more research with diverse samples to more clearlyunderstand the extent of the applicability of the PSI with American racial/ethnic minorities and cross-national samples. Although several cross-national studies have indeed found patterns similar to studies conducted onprimarily White U.S. samples (e.g., Cheng & Lam, 1997; Heppner,Pretorius, Wei, Lee, & Wang, 2002), we expect additional research willreveal considerable complexity in applied problem solving across diversesamples. For example, some of our recent research with Taiwanese samplessuggests that self-efficacy, problem-focused coping, and fatalism items allload together as the primary factor to cope with traumatic events in Taiwan; inaddition, factors such as spirituality and maintaining interpersonal harmonyalso seemed to be important constructs to understand coping in our Taiwan-ese samples (Heppner, Heppner, et al., 2002).

Suzuki and Ahluwalia (2004) and O’Neil (2004) noted that it is importantto examine whether problem-solving appraisal is interpreted or operation-alized in equivalent ways across diverse cultural groups. We strongly agree.This topic relates to broader issues about universal psychological constructs(i.e., the etic approach; Lonner, 1980) and culture-specific constructs (i.e.,the emic approach; Lonner, 1980) in applied problem solving. A great dealmore cross-national research is needed not only to provide useful psycho-metric information about the generalizability of problem-solving appraisaland the PSI but also to provide information about the universal or culture-specific nature of the link between problem-solving appraisal, psychologicalhealth, and psychological factors in general. For example, descriptiveresearch examining the relationship between the PSI and various psychologi-cal constructs, such as the Big Five personality factors, may also be war-ranted. It is important to note that the question of generalizability of the PSI to

Heppner et al. / CLOSING COMMENTS 469

at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 13, 2014tcp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

diverse cultural groups may or may not be an “all or none” scenario; somePSI factors could be applicable to some cultural groups but not others. Like-wise, some PSI factors may be relevant to some cultural groups but insuffi-cient to fully account for the majority of the variance of applied problemsolving. In short, as researchers continue to examine applied problem solving(including, but not limited to, the PSI) in diverse cultures, a great deal moreinformation will be learned about etic and emic factors in applied problemsolving.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Three of the reactants raised issues related to practice (Lopez & Janowski,2004; Lucas, 2004; O’Neil, 2004). Lucas perceived the PSI as “particularlywell suited for career counseling, with its concrete and explicitly stated prob-lem-solving task of making a career decision” (p. 458). In contrast, the lattertwo reactions reflected a broader conceptualization, which is more in linewith our view, and indicated a desire for more information about integratingthe PSI into counseling, more generally into teaching and prevention, includ-ing the development of a training manual. All three of the authors of theMajor Contribution have been involved in a wide range of problem-solvinginterventions, such as within individual counseling, group counseling, clini-cal supervision, formal academic courses, and workshops. We provide someinformation in other sources (e.g., Heppner & Baker, 1997; Heppner &Wang, 2003). However, we agree that much more information is needed toexplicate the practice implications, which may be at least another major arti-cle, if not a book. We also agree that the PSI holds a great deal of potentialwithin prevention interventions, as well as an outcome tool. Lucas (2004)agreed that the PSI could have an important function in counseling as a targetgoal or outcome but expressed concern about reducing “personality andbehavior to report of overt beliefs and actions” (p. 451). We did not conceptu-alize the PSI as a sole target goal or outcome of counseling but rather as oneof a broad range of counseling outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We strongly appreciate the thoughtful consideration of the reactants andall the issues they raised about our Major Contribution (Heppner et al., 2004).Addressing these issues as well as those identified in Heppner et al. repre-sents a very full agenda and will take years. This raises the question, Howlong does it take to develop a psychometrically strong inventory? Heppner

470 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / May 2004

at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 13, 2014tcp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

remembers many years ago Tony Tinsley commenting that it takes at least 10years of research to develop a psychometrically sound inventory. The litera-ture review for Heppner et al. spanned 20 years of research and more than 120empirical studies using a wide range of samples across seven countries. Yetmany questions remain, as reflected in the reactants as well as our MajorContribution. Although the basic psychometric properties of the PSI (e.g.,estimates of reliability and validity) are well established, many questionsremain, such as generalizability issues to diverse samples. In short, it seemsthat as the basic psychometric estimates are established for a particularinstrument, many other psychometric issues merit additional research, whichcan span 20 to 30 years or more.

Finally, we were also very appreciative of O’Neil’s’ reflections of thechallenging process of conducting an “empirically focused literaturereview . . . that summarizes 120 studies on a single construct over a 20-yearperiod.” Indeed, the magnitude of the task was much larger than we antici-pated when we started the review 10 years ago! Moreover, O’Neil acknowl-edged there are “few if any” empirically based reviews summarizing a singleconstruct. On one hand, this body of research provides a great deal of infor-mation about problem-solving appraisal. On the other hand, our Major Con-tributions and four reactants combined identify many unanswered questionsand numerous future directions for inquiry. We hope that our Major Contri-bution and the thoughtful scholarship of the reactants will serve to stimulateresearch and theory development as well as promote creative and effectiveinterventions that will truly make a difference in the lives of a broad, diversegroup of people.

REFERENCES

Cheng, S. K., & Lam, D. J. (1997). Relationships among life stress, problem solving, self-esteem, and dysphoria in Hong Kong adolescents: Test of a model. Journal of Social andClinical Psychology, 16, 343-355.

Dixon, D. N., & Glover, J. A. (1984). Counseling: A problem solving approach. New York:Wiley.

Fretz, B. R. (1982). Perspectives and definitions. The Counseling Psychologist, 10, 15-19.Heppner, P. P. (1988). The Problem Solving Inventory: Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psy-

chologists Press.Heppner, P. P., & Baker, C. E. (1997). Applications of the Problem Solving Inventory. Measure-

ment and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 29, 229-241.Heppner, P. P., Heppner, M. J., Lee, D.-G., Wang, Y.-W., Park, H.-J., & Wang, L.-F. (2002,

August). Development of the East Asian Coping and Resolution of Trauma (E-ACART)Scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association,Chicago, Illinois.

Heppner et al. / CLOSING COMMENTS 471

at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 13, 2014tcp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Heppner, P. P., & Krauskopf, C. J. (1987). An information-processingapproach to personal prob-lem solving. The Counseling Psychologist, 15, 371-447.

Heppner, P. P., Pretorius, T. B., Wei, M., Lee, D., & Wang, Y. (2002). Examining the generaliz-ability of problem-solving appraisal in Black South Africans. Journal of Counseling Psy-chology, 49, 484-498.

Heppner, P. P., & Wang, Y. (2003). Problem-solving appraisal. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder(Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 127-138). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Heppner, P. P., Witty, T. E., & Dixon, W. A. (2004). Problem-solving appraisal and human adjust-ment: A review of 20 years of research using the Problem Solving Inventory. The CounselingPsychologist, 32(3), 344-428.

Krumboltz, J. D. (1965). Behavioral counseling: Rationale and research. Personnel and Guid-ance Journal, 44, 383-387.

Lonner, W. J. (1980). The search for psychological universals. In H. C. Triandis & W.W. Lambert(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 143-204). Boston: Allyn &Bacon.

Lopez, S. J., & Janowski, K. M. (2004). The power of positive problem-solving appraisal: Com-ments on incremental validity, relationships with adjustment, and clinical utility. The Coun-seling Psychologist, 32(3), 460-465.

Lucas, M. S. (2004). Problem-solving appraisal in counseling and with different populations.The Counseling Psychologist, 32(3), 450-459.

O’Neil. J. M. (2004) Response to Heppner, Witty, and Dixon: Inspiring and high-level scholar-ship that can change people’s lives. The Counseling Psychologist, 32(3), 439-449.

Ptacek, J., Smith, R. E., & Zanas, J. (1992). Gender, appraisal, and coping: A longitudinal analy-sis. Journal of Personality, 60, 747-770.

Suzuki, L. A., & Ahluwalia, M. K. (2004). Two decades of research on the Problem SolvingInventory: A call for empirical clarity. The Counseling Psychologist, 32(3), 429-438.

472 THE COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST / May 2004

at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 13, 2014tcp.sagepub.comDownloaded from