Within counselling psychology, solving problems that occur in day-to-day living

Within counselling psychology, solving problems that occur in day-to-day living has been referred to as “social problem solving” (D’Zurilla & Nezu, 1982; Nezu, Nezu, & D’Zurilla, 2013). The concept of social problem-solving, like the problem-solving process in social work, was a critical development in the literature. Until the 1960s, problem-solving was investigated only in relation to the physical and physiological aspects of the problem-solving act, and, as a result, was an area of investigation primarily for the discipline of neuropsychology. Some writers began to ask: What purpose does problem-solving have for human functioning? From that question developed a trajectory of research that has investigated the implications of problem-solving for psychological and social functioning (Nezu, Nezu, & D’Zurilla, 2013).
The term “social problem-solving” highlights the social context of problem-solving. Many writers of problem-solving methods of interaction and intervention have stressed the importance of the social environment on human problems (D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971; Haley, 1987; Perlman, 1957). The “social context” refers to the place where the real-life problems take place and considers the impact of factors within the social realm (i.e., beyond the individual) on these problems. Nezu, Nezu, and Perri (1989) have defined social problem-solving as “the process by which people both understand and react to problems in living” (p. 27).
The process of problem-solving involves both cognitive and behavioral aspects. D’Zurilla and Nezu (2007) suggest three aspects in particular. The first is the metacognitive level, where a particular orientation to problems exists (the cognitive-emotional responses a person has when faced with a particular problem or problems in general), which they refer to as the motivating function. The second level is the performance level, where there is a set of problem-solving skills. Underlying this performance level is the third level, which comprises the cognitive abilities that determine an individual’s ability to solve any given problem.
In this framework, a solution to a problem is any coping response a person has to alter the problematic experience (D’Zurilla, 1986; Nezu, 1987). Such a response may be positive or negative; that is, it may or may not create the desired change or outcome. Thus, as noted in earlier work of D’Zurilla and Goldfried (1971), an effective problem-solving intervention must consider the adequacy and effectiveness of people in resolving problems. Problem-solving is considered an important aspect of social competence (D’Zurilla, 1986), and it calls for the establishment of specific problem-solving skills. A process for effective problem-solving, known as problem-solving therapy, has been developed by clinical psychologists over the past several decades (Nezu, Nezu, & D’Zurilla, 2013). Problem-solving therapy includes: (1) problem orientation (how people perceive problems); (2) problem definition and formulation (clarifying and understanding the specific nature of the problem); (3) generation of alternatives (identifying as many solutions as possible); (4) decision making (evaluating the available solutions); and (5) solution implementation and verification (self-monitoring and evaluation of outcome), along with specific abilities required of a person to solve problems (D’Zurilla, 1986; D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971; D’Zurilla & Nezu, 1982, 1999, 2007). Problem orientation is the motivational component, which refers directly to people’s perception of problems in general and their own ability to find an effective solution to a specific problem, while points 2 through 5 refer to the specific skills that a person needs to be taught to solve a problem effectively (Nezu, Nezu, & Perri, 1989).
When taken together, the skills necessary to help solve problems resemble the process of problem-solving identified by Perlman (1957) and others for social work practice. For example, Compton and Galaway (1994) suggest that “problem-solving is a rational process including actions to define the problem, actions to collect information on which to base decisions, actions to engage the client in goal setting and decision making, actions to produce change, and actions to produce progress” (p. 10). A difference between the two streams of literature, however, is the emphasis placed on the problem orientation of the client and its subsequent implications for the process of problem-solving.
Problem-Solving Theory in Social Work
The problem-solving process in social work was founded on principles associated with functionalist theory. According to Perlman (1986), the process assumes, as the functionalist theorists argue, that:
1. clients seek help at a point when they are in crisis (or facing a particular problem that they are unable to resolve on their own with their present abilities),
2. the agency in which a client seeks services can affect both the help-seeking process and the client’s problem itself,
3. the impact of the relationship between the social worker and client needs to be considered in order to help with the problems being presented,
4. the length of time of the therapeutic process impacts outcomes with clients (i.e., the therapeutic process must have a beginning, middle, and end), and
5. it is often possible to break down a problem into manageable parts (partialization).
Together with Perlman’s years of experience in social casework, these principles formed the basis of her theory of the problem-solving process.
As a caseworker, Perlman began to recognize that the process itself was primarily about the social caseworker helping individual clients cope more effectively with their problems. This realization contrasted with the primary focus of social work education at the time, which was on diagnosis and treatment. In her initial work on the subject, Perlman (1957) described social casework as follows: “A person with a problem comes to a place where a professional representative helps him [or her] by a given process” (p. 4). In other words, a person who experiences some challenges or barriers in personal functioning (whether individually or socially based) seeks help from a professional who works in an agency that specializes in a particular type of help. While at this place, the person forms a helping relationship with the professional, who then helps the person develop coping responses to the problems he or she is facing. Compton and Galaway (1994) describe this problem-solving process as the underlying framework for generalist social work practice. They also argue that the problem-solving process itself is not a method of treatment; instead, the method of treatment is to be determined on the basis of client goals and presenting problems while engaged in this process. As a result of this distinction, emphasis within the social work literature has been placed primarily on highlighting the process of problem-solving, rather than the psychosocial intervention of social problem-solving therapy.
Following Perlman (1957), others have attempted to define the stages or steps of problem-solving in social work (Compton & Galaway, 1994; Sheafor, Horejsi, & Horejsi, 1988). Perlman (1957) initially postulated three primary components of the problem-solving process: collecting information about the problem, explaining the problem and setting a particular goal, and implementing a plan of action to resolve the problem. The relationship between the therapist and the client was the defining feature that made this process significantly different from the process of diagnosis (Woehle, 1994). Compton and Galaway (1994) similarly describe a contact phase, a contract phase, and an action phase. Likewise, Turner and Jaco (1996) in the fourth edition of this chapter provided a succinct overview of these phases. For each phase, Compton and Galaway (1994) suggest how social workers can proceed with clients and monitor their own reflection and desires in the helping process. This process includes an assessment of the client’s motivation, capacities, and opportunities to work through the problem (Compton & Galaway, 1994; Perlman, 1986). Compton and Galaway (1994) describe motivation as the level of hope for or discomfort with achieving the desired goal (i.e., the solution to the problem); capacity as the skills and knowledge needed to work on the problem; and opportunity as the resources and supports required to engage in the problem-solving process.
These steps and stages are important and have already been largely incorporated into generalist social work practice and the values and ethics of the profession (Heinonen & Spearman, 2006; Turner & Jaco, 1996). However, this framework does not provide enough empirical evidence on why solving problems is important, how some people can solve problems effectively and others cannot, what the long-term psychosocial implications are for people to be able to effectively solve problems, and how coping abilities differ for each person or based on the nature of the problem. Also, this literature focuses primarily on the process of problem-solving and the stages to move through to resolve a particular problem (or set of problems). Instead, if one were using problem-solving as an intervention in practice (as is the case with problem-solving therapy), greater emphasis would likely be placed on the motivational aspects that both Perlman (1957) and Compton and Galaway (1994) describe as instrumental in the assessment phase. While these authors view motivation in terms of hope or discomfort about solving the problem, in most cases motivation is more complicated. It might include the social environment or cultural, psychological, and emotional factors, as shown in the counseling psychology literature on problem-solving therapy. In particular, the description of problem orientation in problem-solving therapy suggests an alternative understanding of motivation, and one that can lead to more structured interventions of problem-solving in social work.