problem solving social thinking

• INTERPERSONAL SKILLS
• Problem Solving and Decision Making
• Social Problem Solving

Search SkillsYouNeed:

Interpersonal Skills:

• A - Z List of Interpersonal Skills
• Interpersonal Skills Self-Assessment
• Communication Skills
• Emotional Intelligence
• Conflict Resolution and Mediation Skills
• Customer Service Skills
• Team-Working, Groups and Meetings
• Decision-Making and Problem-Solving
• Effective Decision Making
• Decision-Making Framework
• Introduction to Problem Solving
• Identifying and Structuring Problems
• Investigating Ideas and Solutions
• Implementing a Solution and Feedback
• Creative Problem-Solving

Social Problem-Solving

• Negotiation and Persuasion Skills
• Personal and Romantic Relationship Skills

Subscribe to our FREE newsletter and start improving your life in just 5 minutes a day.

You'll get our 5 free 'One Minute Life Skills' and our weekly newsletter.

We'll never share your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time.

The SkillsYouNeed Guide to Interpersonal Skills

Social problem-solving might also be called ‘ problem-solving in real life ’. In other words, it is a rather academic way of describing the systems and processes that we use to solve the problems that we encounter in our everyday lives.

The word ‘ social ’ does not mean that it only applies to problems that we solve with other people, or, indeed, those that we feel are caused by others. The word is simply used to indicate the ‘ real life ’ nature of the problems, and the way that we approach them.

Social problem-solving is generally considered to apply to four different types of problems:

• Impersonal problems, for example, shortage of money;
• Personal problems, for example, emotional or health problems;
• Interpersonal problems, such as disagreements with other people; and
• Community and wider societal problems, such as litter or crime rate.

A Model of Social Problem-Solving

One of the main models used in academic studies of social problem-solving was put forward by a group led by Thomas D’Zurilla.

This model includes three basic concepts or elements:

Problem-solving

This is defined as the process used by an individual, pair or group to find an effective solution for a particular problem. It is a self-directed process, meaning simply that the individual or group does not have anyone telling them what to do. Parts of this process include generating lots of possible solutions and selecting the best from among them.

A problem is defined as any situation or task that needs some kind of a response if it is to be managed effectively, but to which no obvious response is available. The demands may be external, from the environment, or internal.

A solution is a response or coping mechanism which is specific to the problem or situation. It is the outcome of the problem-solving process.

Once a solution has been identified, it must then be implemented. D’Zurilla’s model distinguishes between problem-solving (the process that identifies a solution) and solution implementation (the process of putting that solution into practice), and notes that the skills required for the two are not necessarily the same. It also distinguishes between two parts of the problem-solving process: problem orientation and actual problem-solving.

Problem Orientation

Problem orientation is the way that people approach problems, and how they set them into the context of their existing knowledge and ways of looking at the world.

Each of us will see problems in a different way, depending on our experience and skills, and this orientation is key to working out which skills we will need to use to solve the problem.

An Example of Orientation

Most people, on seeing a spout of water coming from a loose joint between a tap and a pipe, will probably reach first for a cloth to put round the joint to catch the water, and then a phone, employing their research skills to find a plumber.

A plumber, however, or someone with some experience of plumbing, is more likely to reach for tools to mend the joint and fix the leak. It’s all a question of orientation.

Problem-Solving

Problem-solving includes four key skills:

• Defining the problem,
• Coming up with alternative solutions,
• Making a decision about which solution to use, and
• Implementing that solution.

Based on this split between orientation and problem-solving, D’Zurilla and colleagues defined two scales to measure both abilities.

They defined two orientation dimensions, positive and negative, and three problem-solving styles, rational, impulsive/careless and avoidance.

They noted that people who were good at orientation were not necessarily good at problem-solving and vice versa, although the two might also go together.

It will probably be obvious from these descriptions that the researchers viewed positive orientation and rational problem-solving as functional behaviours, and defined all the others as dysfunctional, leading to psychological distress.

The skills required for positive problem orientation are:

Being able to see problems as ‘challenges’, or opportunities to gain something, rather than insurmountable difficulties at which it is only possible to fail.

For more about this, see our page on The Importance of Mindset ;

Believing that problems are solvable. While this, too, may be considered an aspect of mindset, it is also important to use techniques of Positive Thinking ;

Believing that you personally are able to solve problems successfully, which is at least in part an aspect of self-confidence.

See our page on Building Confidence for more;

Understanding that solving problems successfully will take time and effort, which may require a certain amount of resilience ; and

Motivating yourself to solve problems immediately, rather than putting them off.

See our pages on Self-Motivation and Time Management for more.

Those who find it harder to develop positive problem orientation tend to view problems as insurmountable obstacles, or a threat to their well-being, doubt their own abilities to solve problems, and become frustrated or upset when they encounter problems.

The skills required for rational problem-solving include:

The ability to gather information and facts, through research. There is more about this on our page on defining and identifying problems ;

The ability to set suitable problem-solving goals. You may find our page on personal goal-setting helpful;

The application of rational thinking to generate possible solutions. You may find some of the ideas on our Creative Thinking page helpful, as well as those on investigating ideas and solutions ;

Good decision-making skills to decide which solution is best. See our page on Decision-Making for more; and

Implementation skills, which include the ability to plan, organise and do. You may find our pages on Action Planning , Project Management and Solution Implementation helpful.

There is more about the rational problem-solving process on our page on Problem-Solving .

Potential Difficulties

Those who struggle to manage rational problem-solving tend to either:

• Rush things without thinking them through properly (the impulsive/careless approach), or
• Avoid them through procrastination, ignoring the problem, or trying to persuade someone else to solve the problem (the avoidance mode).

This ‘ avoidance ’ is not the same as actively and appropriately delegating to someone with the necessary skills (see our page on Delegation Skills for more).

Instead, it is simple ‘buck-passing’, usually characterised by a lack of selection of anyone with the appropriate skills, and/or an attempt to avoid responsibility for the problem.

An Academic Term for a Human Process?

You may be thinking that social problem-solving, and the model described here, sounds like an academic attempt to define very normal human processes. This is probably not an unreasonable summary.

However, breaking a complex process down in this way not only helps academics to study it, but also helps us to develop our skills in a more targeted way. By considering each element of the process separately, we can focus on those that we find most difficult: maximum ‘bang for your buck’, as it were.

Continue to: Decision Making Creative Problem-Solving

See also: What is Empathy? Social Skills

Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development pp 1399–1403 Cite as

Social Problem Solving

• Molly Adrian 3 ,
• Aaron Lyon 4 ,
• Rosalind Oti 5 &
• Jennifer Tininenko 6  
• Reference work entry

800 Accesses

4 Altmetric

Interpersonal cognitive problem solving ; Interpersonal problem solving ; Social decision making ; Social information processing

Social problem solving is the process by which individuals identify and enact solutions to social life situations in an effort to alter the problematic nature of the situation, their relation to the situation, or both [ 7 ].

Description

In D’Zurilla and Goldfried’s [ 6 ] seminal article, the authors conceptualized social problem solving as an individuals’ processing and action upon entering interpersonal situations in which no immediately effective response is available. One primary component of social problem solving is the cognitive-behavioral process of generating potential solutions to the social dilemma. The steps in this process were posited to be similar across individuals despite the wide variability of observed behaviors. The revised model [ 7 ] is comprised of two interrelated domains: problem orientation and problem solving style....

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol 1: Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Google Scholar  

Chen, X., & French, D. C. (2008). Children’s social competence in cultural context. Annual Review of Psychology, 59 , 591–616.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115 , 74–101.

Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 , 1146–1158.

Downey, G., & Coyne, J. C. (1990). Children of depressed parents: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 108 , 50–76.

D’Zurilla, T. J., & Goldfried, M. R. (1971). Problem solving and behavior modification. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 78 , 107–126.

D’Zurilla, T. J., & Nezu, A. M. (1999). Problem solving therapy: A social competence approach to clinical intervention (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.

Lochman, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). Social-cognitive processes of severely violent, moderately aggressive, and nonaggressive boys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62 , 366–374.

Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Brown, M. M. (1988). Early family experience, social problem solving patterns, and children’s social competence. Child Development, 59 , 107–120.

Quiggle, N. L., Garber, J., Panak, W. F., & Dodge, K. A. (1992). Social information processing in aggressive and depressed children. Child Development, 63 , 1305–1320.

Rubin, K. H., & Krasnor, L. R. (1986). Social-cognitive and social behavioral perspectives on problem solving. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Cognitive perspectives on children’s social and behavioral development. The Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 1–68). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rubin, K. H., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (1992). Interpersonal problem-solving and social competence in children. In V. B. van Hasselt & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of social development: A lifespace perspective . New York: Plenum.

Shure, M. B., & Spivack, G. (1980). Interpersonal problem solving as a mediator of behavioral adjustment in preschool and kindergarten children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 1 , 29–43.

Spivack, G., & Shure, M. B. (1974). Social adjustment of young children . San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Box 354920, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA

Molly Adrian

Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Health, Seattle Children's Hospital, 4800 Gand Point way NE, Seattle, WA, 98125, USA

Rosalind Oti

Evidence Based Treatment Center of Seattle, 1200 5th Avenue, Suite 800, Seattle, WA, 98101, USA

Jennifer Tininenko

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Neurology, Learning and Behavior Center, 230 South 500 East, Suite 100, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84102, USA

Sam Goldstein Ph.D.

Department of Psychology MS 2C6, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA

Jack A. Naglieri Ph.D. ( Professor of Psychology ) ( Professor of Psychology )

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Adrian, M., Lyon, A., Oti, R., Tininenko, J. (2011). Social Problem Solving. In: Goldstein, S., Naglieri, J.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_2703

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_2703

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-0-387-77579-1

Online ISBN : 978-0-387-79061-9

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

In the here and now: Future thinking and social problem-solving in depression

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected] (SN); [email protected] (BD)

Affiliation Department of Psychology, De Montfort University, Leicester, England

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland

• Saima Noreen, 
• Barbara Dritschel

• Published: June 30, 2022
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270661
• Reader Comments

This research investigates whether thinking about the consequences of a problem being resolved can improve social problem-solving in clinical depression. We also explore whether impaired social problem solving is related to inhibitory control. Thirty-six depressed and 43 non-depressed participants were presented with six social problems and were asked to generate consequences for the problems being resolved or remaining unresolved. Participants were then asked to solve the problems and recall all the consequences initially generated. Participants also completed the Emotional Stroop and Flanker tasks. We found that whilst depressed participants were impaired at social problem-solving after generating unresolved consequences, they were successful at generating solutions for problems for which they previously generated resolved consequences. Depressed participants were also impaired on the Stroop task, providing support for an impaired inhibitory control account of social problem-solving. These findings advance our understanding of the mechanisms underpinning social problem-solving in depression and may contribute to the development of new therapeutic interventions to improve social-problem solving in depression.

Citation: Noreen S, Dritschel B (2022) In the here and now: Future thinking and social problem-solving in depression. PLoS ONE 17(6): e0270661. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270661

Editor: Anna Manelis, University of Pittsburgh, UNITED STATES

Received: December 20, 2021; Accepted: June 14, 2022; Published: June 30, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Noreen, Dritschel. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the following URL DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/SDNH7 .

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: No authors have competing interests.

Introduction

Social problem-solving reflects the process through which people generate effective solutions to problems experienced in everyday life [ 1 , 2 ]. Given that we frequently encounter social or interpersonal problems in everyday life, such as disagreements with friends, workplace disputes and marital conflicts, the ability to solve these problems effectively is not only important for our relationships with others, but also our psychological health and mental well-being [ 3 , 4 ]. Furthermore, the ability to maintain good social relationships is also important for our psychological well-being.

Deficits in social problem-solving are a central feature of depression [ 1 , 3 , 5 , 6 ]. Priester and Chun [ 7 ] for example, found that depressed individuals exhibit a negative orientation towards a social problem compared to non-depressed healthy individuals. Furthermore, Watkins and Baracaia [ 8 ] and Goddard, Dritschel & Burton [ 3 ] found that depressed individuals generated fewer relevant steps during problem-solving and their proposed solutions were less effective than their non-depressed counterparts.

Research also suggests that rumination, which involves individuals focusing their thoughts and behaviour on their depressive symptoms and the consequences of these symptoms [ 9 ] may be a key mechanism underlying poor social problem-solving in depression. The importance of rumination in depressive disorders has been well established [ 10 ] with rumination linked to depression maintenance, negative cognitions and enhanced accessibility of negative memories [ 11 – 13 ].

Research has also found that rumination impairs social problem-solving, with ruminative thinking having a detrimental impact on both problem orientation and problem-solving skill. Lyubomirsky et al. [ 14 ] had dysphoric and non-dysphoric participants complete the Means-End Problem-solving Task (MEPS, [ 15 ]). In the MEPS, participants are presented with a hypothetical social problem and a positive resolution to the problem. Participants are asked to generate a number of steps to reach the proposed solution. Lyubomirsky et al. [ 14 ] found that dysphoric individuals induced to ruminate generated fewer steps and produced fewer effective solutions on the MEPS compared to dysphoric individuals who distracted themselves from their mood and their non-dysphoric counterparts. Furthermore, they also found that dysphoric individuals who ruminated appraised their problems as overwhelming and unresolvable, thus reflecting a negative problem orientation.

It is also possible, however, that poor problem-solving contributes to the maintenance of rumination in depression. As rumination involves recurrent thinking, it can be conceptualised as an attempt to problem solve and resolve unfulfilled goals [ 16 , 17 ]. Indeed, research has found that the content of rumination in depression often focuses on trying to solve personal problems [ 14 ]. Furthermore, ruminative thinking continues to persist until a goal is attained or discarded. These findings suggest that a vicious cycle can ensue. There is considerable evidence that rumination impairs effective problem-solving [ 12 , 14 ], increasing the likelihood of the problem being unresolved. In turn, the lack of resolution continues to trigger and maintain further rumination [ 18 ].

Another important feature of depressive thinking is hopelessness, which is defined as the extent to which an individual is pessimistic about the future [ 4 , 19 – 21 ]. Research has found that depressed individuals generate fewer positive future events [ 22 ] which may impair social problem-solving. Noreen, Whyte & Dritschel [ 23 ], for example, had participants engage in future thinking by presenting them with a hypothetical social problem and asking them to generate the consequences of the social problem being resolved or remaining unresolved. Participants were presented with some of the solutions and were asked to solve the problem in order to achieve the resolution described. Participants were also asked to recall all of the consequences generated. The study found that participants reporting higher levels of depression and rumination were less effective at generating solutions. Furthermore, they also found that those reporting higher levels of rumination produced fewer effective solutions for social problems that they had previously generated unresolved consequences for. Individuals scoring high in rumination also recalled more of the unresolved consequences in a subsequent memory test. Taken together, these findings suggest that negative future thinking impairs the generation of effective solutions for individuals with high rumination tendencies.

One explanation for these findings may relate to the type of thinking evoked when participants were asked to think of the consequences of the problem being resolved or unresolved. According to the concreteness theory [ 24 ], there are two types of thinking; abstract and concrete. Abstract thinking is operationalised as ‘indistinct, equivocal, unclear and aggregated’ and reflects broad overarching general memories, whilst concrete thinking is ‘distinct, situational, specific and clear’ and reflects more specific individualised memories. As rumination is characterised by increased abstract thinking and reduced concrete thinking, it is possible that encouraging high ruminating individuals to think about the consequences of a problem remaining unresolved leads to greater abstract thinking, which subsequently impairs problem-solving. This is consistent with research by Watkins & Moulds [ 25 ] who found that abstract thinking, typical of rumination, impaired social problem-solving in depression. Similarly, Goddard, Dritschel & Burton [ 3 ] found that reduced social problem-solving performance in a clinically depressed sample was associated with the retrieval of spontaneous abstract categoric memories during problem-solving.

It is also possible, however, that encouraging participants to think about the consequences of a problem being resolved would encourage more concrete thinking and improve social problem-solving. Indeed, Watkins & Moulds [ 25 ] found that by encouraging participants to self-focus more concretely (i.e., focusing on the self in more concrete terms, such as, focusing on your experience of the way you feel inside) improved social problem-solving in depression. Given that Noreen, Whyte & Dritschel [ 23 ], did not have a baseline measure of problem-solving (one where no consequences were generated) it is unclear whether generating the consequences of a problem being resolved in individuals high in rumination may actually improve social problem-solving.

This is an important issue given that ineffective problem-solving has been linked to both the aetiology and maintenance of depression, which has led to the development of depression treatments that target social problem-solving [ 26 , 27 ]. These treatments have demonstrated some clinical improvements in social problem-solving [ 28 , 29 ], and have been found to alleviate some of the symptoms of depression [ 30 – 32 ]. However, these strategies do not address ruminative thinking directly associated with information related to social problem-solving. Therefore, it is possible that the task developed by Noreen, Whyte & Dritschel [ 23 ] may be an effective tool to improve social problem-solving in high ruminating individuals.

It is also possible that Noreen, Whyte & Dritschel’s [ 23 ] findings may be due to impaired inhibitory control. For example, people scoring high in rumination may be unable to inhibit the negative consequences they generated earlier. Difficulties inhibiting previously generated negative consequences may subsequently affect their ability to think clearly about the steps needed to solve a problem, thus resulting in impaired social problem-solving. It has been well established that inhibition is necessary to prevent irrelevant information from entering memory and instead focusing on relevant material [ 33 ]. Indeed, research has found that individuals scoring high on measures of rumination and depression demonstrate greater difficulty in inhibiting irrelevant information [ 34 , 35 ]. Joormann [ 36 ], for example, found that dysphoric participants were impaired in their ability to inhibit negative material in comparison to non-depressed controls. There were no group differences, however, for positive material. Taken together, these findings suggest that both depression and rumination are associated with poor inhibitory control.

Whilst there have been a number of studies implicating the role of rumination in impairing social problem-solving, the role of inhibiting irrelevant information has not yet been examined. Thus, a key underlying process that could potentially contribute to the relationship between depression, rumination and impaired social problem-solving is currently unknown.

The aim of the present research is to provide further insight into the mechanisms that contribute to poor social problem-solving in depression. Specifically, we investigate whether thinking about the consequences of a problem being resolved can improve social problem-solving in a clinically depressed sample relative to non-depressed controls. We also examine whether thinking about the consequences of a problem being unresolved impairs social problem-solving in a clinically depressed sample significantly more than non-depressed controls. Furthermore, we also explore whether impaired social problem-solving is related to impaired inhibitory control.

To this end, participants took part in three sessions. In the first session, participants were screened for depression using the MINI-Plus. In the second session, depressed and non-depressed participants were presented with 8 vignettes that consisted of a series of interpersonal problems using a modified version [ 23 ] of the Means-End Problem-solving Task (MEPS; [ 15 ]). Participants were asked to generate four consequences of the problem being resolved for three of the vignettes and four consequences for the problem being unresolved for another three of the vignettes. Subsequently, participants were given six of the vignettes (including two that had not previously been presented, which acted as a baseline measure of problem-solving) with their resolutions and were asked to describe the steps they would take to solve the problem in order to achieve the resolution described. Following a ten-minute distraction task, participants were presented with all of the original six vignettes and were asked to recall all of the consequences that they had previously generated.

In the third session, participants were given the Flanker task [ 37 ] and the Emotional Stroop task (adapted from Strand, Oram & Hammar, [ 38 ]) to assess inhibitory control for both emotional and non-emotional stimuli. Comparing the performance on these two tasks would allow us to assess whether poor inhibitory control is greater for emotional stimuli. For social problem-solving we predicted that depressed individuals would perform poorer than non-depressed individuals in the baseline condition and also when they generate unresolved consequences. We also predicted that depressed individuals would recall more unresolved than resolved consequences, compared to non-depressed participants. For the Emotional Stroop and Flanker Tasks, we predicted that depressed participants would show inhibitory impairments on these tasks, compared to non-depressed participants. Finally, we also predicted that there would be a relationship between social-problem solving and inhibitory control, with poorer social problem-solving abilities related to impaired inhibitory control.

Participants

One hundred and thirteen participants (51M & 62F; age M = 23.41; SD = 3.46) took part in the initial screening session. Participants were university students that were recruited using posters advertising the study at Goldsmiths, University of London and were reimbursed for their participation (£5 per session). Participants completed the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview-Plus (MINI-Plus; [ 39 ]) and the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II; [ 40 ]) in order to identify the depressed and non-depressed control groups. To be included in the depressed group, participants had to meet the criteria for current depression according to the MINI-Plus and have a minimum BDI-II score of 15. Eligibility for the controls required having no current or past Axis One disorders (e.g., anxiety disorders, dissociative disorders, mood disorders, psychotic disorders and substance use disorders) based on the MINI-Plus criteria and having a BDI-II score of 5 or below. These inclusion criteria resulted in a sample of 86 participants (41 White British; 23 British Asian (Pakistani, Indian or Bengali) and 22 Black British (African or Caribbean). A further 7 participants had to be excluded as they failed to complete all three study sessions. This resulted in 43 non-depressed control participants (17M, 26F; Mean age = 21.95; SD = 3.80) and 36 depressed participants (12M, 24F; Mean age = 21.06; SD = 4.41) in the final sample. For the currently depressed participants nine also met the criteria for dysthymic disorder, 11 met the criteria for panic disorder, 9 for social phobia, 2 for anorexia, 1 bulimia and 9 had mixed depression and anxiety. Seventeen reported taking antidepressant medications in the past and 12 had a history of past depression. The MINI-Plus was administered by a trained researcher. A second trained rater scored 25% of the interviews and there was 100% agreement regarding diagnostic status. The study was approved by the Psychology Ethics Committee, Goldsmiths, University of London. All participants provided written consent before taking part in the study.

The Beck Depression Inventory-II [ 40 ]. The BDI-II consists of 21 items that assess both psychological and physiological symptoms of depression. Participants rate the degree to which they experience each symptom over the past two weeks on a 4- point scale. The BDI-II scale has excellent psychometric properties with good internal consistency, re-test reliability and concurrent validity with other measures of depression [ 41 ]. In the present study BDI-II was found to be highly reliable (21 items; α = .97).

The Rumination Response Scale (RRS; [ 42 ]). The RRS scale consists of 22 items that assess how participants typically respond to sad or dysphoric mood. Each item is rated on a 4- point scale (with 1 = Almost never to 4 = Almost always ). Scores range from 22–88, with higher scores indicating greater rumination. RRS has good construct validity and internal consistency [ 43 ]. In the present study RRS was found to be highly reliable (22 items; α = .95).

The Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; [ 44 ]). STAI is comprised of two questionnaires each containing 20-items that assess dispositional and situational anxiety, respectively. Each item is rated on a 4- point scale (with, 1 = not at all to 4 = very much ). Scores range from 20–80 on each questionnaire, with higher scores indicating increased anxiety. Research has found that STAI has good construct and concurrent validity [ 44 , 45 ]. The STAI also has good internal consistency with dispositional anxiety ranging from α = .92- α = .94 and situational anxiety ranging from α = .88 - α = .93 [ 44 , 46 ]. In the present study both state and trait measures were found to be highly reliable (20 items each scale; α = .96, α = .97, respectively).

Emotional Stroop task

The Emotional Stroop task (adapted from Strand, Oram & Hammar [ 38 ]) was used to investigate emotional inhibition and attention. The task consists of lexical and visual facial stimuli in the form of an emotional word (i.e., positive or negative) being superimposed on an emotional face (i.e., happy or sad). The task is to identify the emotional valence of the word and ignore the emotion displayed on the face. Half of the trials were congruent and the other half were incongruent. Congruent trials were defined as emotional words whose semantic meaning corresponded to the emotion of the face that it was superimposed on (i.e., the word ‘depressed’ superimposed on a sad face). Incongruent trials were defined as emotional words whose semantic meaning differed from the emotion expressed on the face that it was superimposed on (i.e., the word ‘elated’ superimposed on a sad face, or the word ‘miserable’ superimposed on a happy face).

The stimulus material consisted of 10 photographic colour images of faces (5 male & 5 female; Strand, Oram & Hammer, [ 38 ]) unknown to the participants. The images were developed at the University of St Andrews [ 47 ] with the emotional expressions and valence based on the Facial Acting Coding system developed by Ekman and colleagues [ 48 ]. Forty emotional (20 positive and 20 negative) words were superimposed in black font across the nose. All of the faces were used in the experimental session, with each face appearing with 2 positive and 2 negative words. Each word was presented twice, once with a happy face and once with a sad face. Thus, in a block of 80 trials, participants saw each of the 10 faces 8 times, and each of the 40 words twice, with half of the words superimposed on happy faces and the other half superimposed on the sad faces. The block of 80 stimuli was repeated in random order two times. The second block contained the same emotional words and faces as the first block but differed in terms of the word-face combinations. In total participants were given 160 trials.

In the task participants had to report the emotional valence of the word irrespective of the valence of the facial expression. Participants were asked to press the left arrow “<” when the word was positive and right arrow “>” when the word was negative. Prior to the experimental blocks, participants completed a practice block. This was similar to the main block but differed in terms of the faces and words that were presented. The practice block consisted of emotional words (20 positive and 20 negative) being superimposed on emotionally neutral faces. The practice block consisted of 40 trials with each emotional word-face combination presented once. To determine if there were any group differences, stroop responses were scored. In the task both correct and incorrect responses were recorded and error rates for incongruent trials were analysed. Furthermore, participant’s reaction times for correct responses were also analysed. Mean reaction times for congruent and incongruent trials were calculated. In the present study, the split half reliability for the Emotional Stroop task was found to be good (α = .42).

Flanker task [ 37 ]

In the flanker task, participants were presented with a string of 5 letters (e.g., CCHCC) and were asked to focus their attention solely on the middle letter. Participants were instructed to press the left arrow if the target letter was H or K (straight-lined stimulus) and the right arrow if the target letter was C or S (curvy-lined stimulus). The remaining letters were one of the remaining three possible letters (H, K, C or S) and were either the same type of stimuli (e.g., HHKHH; compatible) or were a different type (CCKCC; incompatible). For the task, participants must exercise inhibitory control by ignoring the irrelevant stimuli (i.e., the outlaying four letters) and instead focus on the central stimulus.

Each trial consisted of a 1000ms fixation cross followed by the presentation of the 5-letter string. Participants were given unlimited time to respond, but were told to respond as quickly and accurately as possible. Accuracy and response times were recorded. Participants were given 2 blocks of 48 experimental trials to complete. After one block, participants were given a short 2-min break. The order of the blocks was fully counterbalanced across participants. In order to learn the response keys, participants were initially given 12 practice trials to complete. The practice trials were similar to the experimental trials but participants were given accuracy feedback (i.e., correct or incorrect response) after each trial. In the present study, the split half reliability for the Flanker task was found to be adequate (α = .42).

Means End Problem-Solving (MEPS; [ 15 ]).

We constructed a modified version of the MEPS using eight hypothetical scenarios (adapted from Noreen, Whyte & Dritschel, [ 23 ]). The scenarios consisted of hypothetical interpersonal problems that could be encountered by a student population, such as, your supervisor finding fault with your work or your housemates not doing their chores etc. The scenarios were matched on word count, openness, difficulty in solving the hypothetical problem and the number of consequences generated (see Noreen, Whyte & Dritschel [ 23 ] for more information).

Each scenario consisted of a problem and a positive resolution. During the consequence generation phase, participants were only presented with the problem and asked to generate possible consequences for the problem either being resolved or remaining unresolved. During the problem-solving phase, participants were presented with both the problem and the positive resolution and were asked to describe the steps they would take to solve the problem and reach the proposed resolution.

The number of relevant means taken to reach the proposed solution and the effectiveness of the solutions was scored by an independent coder blind to the participant’s group status. The number of relevant means was defined as the number of relevant (and detailed) steps taken to reach the proposed solution. Effectiveness was rated using a 7- point scale with 1 being not at all effective and 7 being extremely effective. Solutions to problems were considered to be effective if they maximized positive and minimized negative consequences [ 49 ]. A second coder, also blind to participant’s group status was employed to validate findings. This coder rated 30% of the proposed solutions. Inter-rater reliability was calculated through a Pearson correlation coefficient (relevant means, r = . 92 , p < .001; effectiveness, r = . 95 , p < .001). In the present study, the split half reliability for MEPs was found to be good (α = .70).

The study consisted of three sessions. In the first session, participants completed the MINI-Plus, BDI II, RRS and STAI. In the second session, participants were presented with six of the eight hypothetical problems. For each problem they were given 4 minutes to generate 4 possible consequences of the problem either being resolved or remaining unresolved. Consequences were defined as “the possible long or short-term outcomes IF the scenario was [or was not] resolved” . Participants were asked to make sure they did not attempt to solve the scenario but only list the consequences of it being resolved or remaining unresolved. For half the hypothetical scenarios, participants generated consequences for the problem being resolved and for the remaining scenarios participants generated consequences for the problem remaining unresolved. The order of scenarios was counterbalanced so that no two ‘resolved’ or ‘not resolved’ scenarios appeared together.

Participants then completed the problem-solving task which consisted of solving six of the eight problem scenarios. These consisted of 4 scenarios that participants had generated consequences for (2 resolved and 2 unresolved) and the remaining two scenarios that participants did not generate any consequences for (a baseline measure of problem-solving).

The allocation of the scenarios to the consequence generation (resolved and unresolved) and the problem-solving phase were fully counterbalanced across participants.

For each problem-scenario, participants were presented with the problem and the positive resolution and were asked to complete the missing part of the story. Participants were given four minutes to generate a solution. Participants were subsequently given a 10-minute distraction task which involved completing some math problems. Finally, participants were given a recall test for the consequences generated earlier. Participants were presented with the 6 hypothetical scenarios presented in the recall generation phase. For each scenario, participants were given four minutes to recall all of the consequences that they had generated previously (prior to the problem-solving phase). Participants were asked to recall all of the consequences as accurately as possible. Participants were asked to recall the consequences for the baseline condition followed by the unresolved consequences and then the resolved consequences.

In a third session, participants completed the executive tasks (the Emotional Stroop task and the Flanker task). The order of the executive tasks was counterbalanced. Furthermore, the order of the administration of sessions 2 & 3 were fully counterbalanced across all participants.

Group characteristics

The depressed group scored significantly higher than the non-depressed group on the BDI, t(36.39) = 17.33, p < .001, RRS, t(70.02) = 9.13, p < .001, and state, t(73.20) = 9.86, p < .001 and trait anxiety scales t(60.34) = 12.90, p < .001. There were no differences, however, between the depressed and non-depressed groups in terms of age, t(69.62) = .96, p = .34. See Table 1 .

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270661.t001

Social problem-solving ability: Relevant means

The mean number of relevant means (i.e., steps) taken to reach the proposed solution was assessed using a 2 (group: depressed vs. non-depressed) x 3 (condition: resolved vs. not resolved consequences vs. baseline) ANOVA. We found significant main effects of group, F (1, 77) = 33.66, p < .001, η 2 p = .30, and condition, F (2, 77) = 50.27, p < .001, η 2 p = .40. These were qualified by a group by condition interaction, F (2, 77) = 22.68, p < .001, η 2 p = .23, with the depressed group taking fewer steps than the non-depressed group in the baseline condition, t (61.36) = 3.32, p = .002, d = .76 and in the unresolved condition, t (67.54) = 7.04, p < .001, d = 1.60. There were no differences, however, in the relevant means between the depressed and non-depressed groups in the resolved condition, t (58.19) = 2.03, p = .047, d = .47.

Interestingly, we also found that the non-depressed group did not differ in the relevant means between the baseline condition and the resolved, t (42) = 1.25, p = .22, d = .24, and unresolved conditions, t (42) = 1.63, p = .11, d = .24. The non-depressed group, did, however, take significantly more steps in the resolved than unresolved conditions, t (42) = 2.36, p = .02, d = .46. The depressed group took significantly more steps in the resolved than baseline, t (35) = 3.47, p = .001, d = .57, and unresolved conditions, t (35) = 10.50, p < .001, d = 1.76. Depressed participants, however, took fewer steps in the unresolved than the baseline condition, t (35) = 6.29, p < .001, d = 1.12. We also investigated the effects of gender on social problem-solving, memory accuracy and on the Emotional Stroop and Flanker tasks. We did not find any significant main or interaction effects of gender on any of these variables, all p>.05.

Effectiveness

The effectiveness of the proposed solutions was assessed using a 2 (group: depressed vs. non-depressed) x 3 (condition: resolved vs. not resolved consequences vs. baseline) ANOVA. Our analysis found main effects of group, F (1, 77) = 11.35, p < .001, η 2 p = .13, and condition, F (2, 77) = 13.72, p < .001, η 2 p = .15. A significant group by condition interaction was also found, F (2, 77) = 3.96, p = .02, η 2 p = .05, with the depressed group less effective at generating solutions than the non-depressed group in the baseline, t (72.05) = 2.53, p = .01, d = .58 and the unresolved conditions, t (76.73) = 4.01, p < .001, d = .90. There were no differences, however in the effectiveness of solutions generated by the depressed and non-depressed groups in the resolved condition, t (72.73) = 1.0, p = .31, d = .23.

Subsequent analysis also found that the non-depressed group showed no significant differences in the effectiveness of solutions generated between the baseline and resolved, t (42) = .11, p = .91, d = .02, and unresolved conditions, t (42) = 1.58, p = .12, d = .30. There were also no differences in the effectiveness of solutions generated between resolved and unresolved conditions, t (42) = 1.32, p = .20, d = .26. The depressed group, however, were more effective at generating solutions in the resolved than baseline, t (35) = 2.49, p = .02, d = .39 and unresolved conditions, t (35) = 6.47, p < .001, d = 1.18. The depressed group was also more effective at generating solutions in the baseline than the unresolved condition, t (35) = 4.35, p < .01, d = .65. See Table 2 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270661.t002

Memory accuracy for consequences

In order to assess recall accuracy for the consequences generated, a 2 (group: depressed vs. control) x 3 (condition: resolved vs. unresolved consequences vs. baseline) mixed design ANOVA was conducted. There were no main effects of either group, F (1, 77) = .94, p = .36, η 2 p = .01 or condition, F (1.84, 141.65) = 1.64, p = .20, η 2 p = .02. However, a significant group by condition interaction was found, F (1.84, 141.65) = 22.89, p < .001, η 2 p = .23, which revealed that whilst the depressed group recalled significantly fewer resolved consequences than the non-depressed group, t (65.55) = 5.12, p < .001, d = 1.17. they recalled significantly more unresolved consequences, t (76.28) = 3.66, p < .001, d = .82. There was no difference, however, between depressed and non-depressed groups in their recall of baseline consequences, t (76.19) = .17, p = .87, d = .04.

Subsequent analyses also revealed that the depressed group recalled significantly more unresolved than resolved consequences, t (35) = 6.79, p < .001, d = 1.25, and baseline consequences, t (35) = 2.41, p = .02, d = .54. The depressed group, however, recalled significantly fewer resolved than baseline consequences, t (35) = 4.22, p < .01, d = .76. Conversely, the non-depressed group recalled significantly fewer unresolved than baseline consequences, t (42) = 2.21, p = .03, d = .36, but recalled significantly more resolved than unresolved consequences, t (42) = 2.84, p = .007, d = .74. There was no difference, however, between the non-depressed groups recall of resolved and baseline consequences, t (42) = 1.70, p = .10, d = .40. See Table 2 .

A 2 (group: depressed vs. control) x 2 (valence: positive vs. negative) x 2 (distractor: happy vs. sad face) mixed design ANOVA on accuracy was conducted. The results revealed main effects of valence, F (1, 77) = 27.60, p < .001, η 2 p = .26, distractor, F (1, 77) = 5.07, p = .03, η 2 p = .06, and group, F (1, 77) = 11.08, p = .001, η 2 p = .13. These main effects were qualified by a 3-way valence by distractor by group interaction, F (1, 77) = 5.26, p = .03, η 2 p = .06, with the depressed group recalling significantly fewer positive words superimposed on negative faces than the non-depressed group, t (50.97) = 3.48, p = .001, d = .80. There were no differences, however, between depressed and non-depressed groups in their recall for positive words superimposed on positive faces, t (40.65) = 2.07, p = .045, d = .48, negative words superimposed on negative faces, t (72.38) = .36, p = .72, d = .08 or negative words superimposed on positive faces, t (58.12) = 1.07, p = .29, d = .25.

Reaction time

A 2 (group: depressed vs. control) x 2 (valence: positive vs. negative) x 2 (distractor: happy vs. sad face) mixed design ANOVA found a main effect of group, F (1, 77) = 24.0, p < .001, η 2 p = .24, with the non-depressed group significantly faster at responding than the depressed group. We also found a significant valence by distractor by group interaction, F (1, 77) = 5.18, p = .03, η 2 p = .06, with the non-depressed group significantly faster at responding to positive words superimposed on positive faces, t (61.43) = 3.44, p = .001, d = .79, positive words superimposed on negative faces, t (71.42) = 3.14, p < .01, d = .71, and for negative words superimposed on positive faces, t (68.64) = 4.65, p < .001, d = 1.06 than the depressed group. There were no significant differences in reaction times between depressed and non-depressed groups for negative words superimposed on negative faces, t (75.17) = 1.25, p = .21, d = .28. We also did not find a significant effect of valence, F (1, 77) = 3.43, p = .07, η 2 p = .04, and distractor, F (1,77) = .42, p = .52, η 2 p = .01. See Table 3 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270661.t003

Flanker task

A 2 (group: depressed vs. control) x 2 (congruency: congruent vs. incongruent) mixed design ANOVA found a main effect of congruency, F (1, 77) = 16.35, p < .001, η 2 p = .18, with participants, overall, more accurate on congruent than incongruent trials. However, we did not find a significant main effect of group, F (1, 77) = .13, p = .72, η 2 p = .002, nor a group by congruency interaction, F (1, 77) = .39, p = .53, η 2 p = .005.

Reaction time.

A 2 (group: depressed vs. control) x 2 (congruency: congruent vs. incongruent) mixed design ANOVA found a main effect of congruency, F (1, 77) = 4.47, p = .04, η 2 p = .06. Overall participants were faster at responding to congruent than incongruent trials. However, we did not find either a significant main effect of group, F (1, 77) = .32, p = .57, η 2 p = .004, or a group by congruency interaction, F (1, 77) = .007, p = .93, η 2 p = .0.

The relationship between depression, rumination and social problem-solving

In order to determine whether there was a relationship between depression, rumination and social problem-solving, we conducted Pearson correlations. Our analysis failed to find significant correlations between depression, rumination and problem-solving abilities for the non-depressed control group; all tests p > .05. However, the correlations between depression, rumination, and the social problem-solving measures of relevant means (i.e., steps) and effectiveness for the depressed group were significant. These are presented in Table 4 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270661.t004

Regression analyses for relevant-means

Given that we found significant correlations between depression, rumination and social problem-solving ability in the depressed group, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted in order to determine whether rumination and depression predicted performance on the problem-solving task.

The analysis found that in the baseline condition (i.e., when no consequences were generated) depression predicted the number of relevant means, Beta = .55, t(35) = 2.78, p = . 009, with a significant model explaining approx. 26% of the variance (F (2, 33) = 7.16, p = .003, R 2 = . 30, R 2 Adjusted = .26). Rumination, however, failed to predict the number of relevant means, Beta = .01, t(35) = .03, p = .98. In the resolved condition, depression was also found to predict the number of relevant means, Beta = .56, t(35) = 2.92, p = . 006, with a significant model explaining approx. 32% of the variance (F (2, 33) = 9.11, p = .001, R 2 = . 36, R 2 Adjusted = .32). Rumination, however, again failed to predict the number of relevant means, Beta = .05, t(35) = .27, p = .79. In the unresolved condition, we found that both depression and rumination predicted the number of relevant means, (depression, Beta = .49, t(35) = 4.08, p< . 001; rumination, Beta = .46, t(35) = 3.83, p = .001). A significant model found that both depression and rumination explained approx. 74% of the variance (F (2, 33) = 49.57, p< .001, R 2 = . 75, R 2 Adjusted = .74).

Regression analyses for effectiveness of solutions

Regression analysis revealed that for the baseline condition, depression predicted the effectiveness of the proposed solutions, Beta = .49, t(35) = 2.77, p = . 01, with a significant model explaining approx. 43% of the variance (F (2, 33) = 13.95, p< .001, R 2 = . 46, R 2 Adjusted = .43). Rumination, however, failed to predict the effectiveness of solutions, Beta = .24, t(35) = 1.38, p = .18. For the resolved condition, it was found that both depression and rumination predicted the effectiveness of solutions (depression, Beta = .44, t(35) = 2.67, p = . 01; rumination, Beta = .35, t(35) = 2.12, p = .04). A significant model found depression and rumination explained approx. 50% of the variance (F (2, 33) = 18.16, p< .001, R 2 = .52, R 2 Adjusted = .50). For the unresolved condition, it was found that both depression and rumination predicted the effectiveness of the proposed solutions (depression, Beta = .47, t(35) = 3.20, p< . 01; rumination, Beta = .38, t(35) = 2.59, p = .01). A significant model found that both depression and rumination explained approx. 59% of the variance (F (2, 33) = 26.58, p< .001, R 2 = . 62, R 2 Adjusted = .59). Taken together, these findings suggest whilst depression predicts the effectiveness of the proposed solutions in the baseline condition, both depression and rumination predict the effectiveness of solutions in the resolved and unresolved conditions.

Regression analyses for consequences generated

Regression analysis were also conducted for the consequences that were generated. It was found that for the baseline condition (e.g., when no problems were solved) depression predicted the number of consequences recalled, Beta = .60, t(35) = 3.11, p< . 01. A significant model was found to explaining approx. 32% of the variance (F (2, 33) = 9.16, p< .01, R 2 = . 36, R 2 Adjusted = .32). Rumination, however, failed to predict the recall of consequences, Beta = .004, t(35) = .02, p = .98. In the resolved condition, it was found that depression predicted the number of consequences recalled, Beta = .44, t(35) = 2.34, p = . 03, with a significant model explaining approx. 34% of the variance (F (2, 33) = 10.11, p< . 001, R 2 = . 38, R 2 Adjusted = .34). Rumination, however, failed to predict the recall of consequences, Beta = .23, t(35) = 1.20, p = .24. In the unresolved condition, however, we found that rumination predicted the number of consequences recalled, Beta = .510, t(35) = 2.46, p = . 02, with a significant model suggesting that rumination explained approx. 22% of the variance (F (2, 32) = 5.79, p< .01, R 2 = . 26, R 2 Adjusted = .22). Depression, however, failed to predict recall of consequences, Beta = .01, t(35) = .04, p = .97. Taken together, these findings suggest that whilst depression predicts the recall of baseline and resolved consequences, rumination predicts the recall of unresolved consequences.

Emotional Stroop performance & problem-solving abilities

As depressed and non-depressed groups showed significant differences in only one condition of the Stroop task (i.e., positive word/negative face condition), we correlated depressed participants positive word/negative face accuracy & reaction times with relevant means, effectiveness ratings and recall of consequences across all three conditions: baseline, resolved and unresolved. The analysis revealed that Emotional Stroop accuracy performance was significantly positively correlated with self-reported depression and rumination, as well as with the number of means and effectiveness scores on the problem-solving task and the recall of baseline and resolved consequences. Furthermore, a negative correlation was found for the reaction times to the positive word negative face condition and self-reported depression, self-reported rumination, number of steps generated in the resolved and unresolved conditions, as well as, the effectiveness in the resolved condition. See Table 5 . We also correlated non-depressed participants positive word/negative face accuracy & reaction times with relevant means, effectiveness ratings and recall of consequences across baseline, resolved and unresolved conditions. This analysis only found a significant relationship between positive word/negative face reaction times and recall of unresolved consequences, r (43) = -.31, p = .02; all other tests, p > .05.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270661.t005

The impact of thinking about the consequences being resolved versus unresolved on social problem-solving

The aim of the current study was to determine whether thinking about the consequences of social problems being resolved or remaining unresolved would have different effects on social problem-solving in a depressed versus non-depressed sample. To this end, we presented participants with a hypothetical problem and asked them to generate consequences of the problem being resolved and remaining unresolved. We also took a baseline measure of social problem solving (i.e., where no consequences were generated). Our study found that the depressed group, compared to the non-depressed group was less effective at generating solutions and produced fewer relevant means in the baseline and unresolved conditions. These findings are consistent with previous research demonstrating that depression has a detrimental impact on social problem-solving [ 3 , 50 ]. The findings are also consistent with Noreen, Whyte & Dritschel [ 23 ] who found that generating the consequences of a problem remaining unresolved impaired social problem-solving in individuals scoring high in depression.

Interestingly, however, we found that there were no significant differences in the effectiveness of generating solutions and the number of relevant means between the depressed and non-depressed group in the resolved condition. Furthermore, we also found that depressed participants generated more relevant means and proposed more effective solutions to the problems in the resolved than baseline conditions. These findings are of clinical importance as they suggest that encouraging depressed individuals to think about the consequences of a problem being resolved prior to problem-solving enhances their ability to solve the problem. Given that research has found that positive problem orientation is an important factor for successful problem-solving [ 26 ], it is possible that thinking about consequences being resolved may naturally induce a positive problem-focused approach. Thus, this style of positive thinking may represent an effective strategy to improve social problem-solving in depression. Furthermore, the fact that depressed individuals were as able as non-depressed participants at generating effective solutions in this condition, suggests that depressed individuals may have intact social skills but, other cognitive-behavioural factors, such as excessive rumination or a negative-problem orientation may render them unable to select and implement these skills effectively.

Examining the relative contributions of depression and rumination on social problem-solving as a function of thinking about the consequences being resolved versus unresolved

The regression analyses revealed that whilst depression predicted the number of relevant means in the baseline and resolved conditions, both depression and rumination predicted the number of relevant means in the unresolved condition. These findings are partially consistent with Noreen, Whyte & Dritschel [ 23 ] who found that depression predicted the number of relevant means in the resolved condition, but only rumination predicted the number of relevant means in the unresolved condition. One reason for the discrepancy in findings may relate to depression severity. The present study consisted of participants that met the diagnostic criteria for clinical depression, whilst Noreen, Whyte & Dritschel’s [ 23 ] study consisted of dysphoric participants scoring high on measures of self-reported depression and rumination. Thus, it may be that more severe levels of depressive symptomology result in impairing social problem-solving abilities. This is consistent with research which has found that depressed individuals are less skilful then nondepressed participants in solving interpersonal problems and report significantly more difficulties in making decisions concerning interpersonal problems [ 4 , 51 – 53 ].

The fact that rumination predicted the number of relevant means in the unresolved but not resolved condition suggests that rumination, when triggered by negative thoughts or consequences, may represent an unsuitable problem-solving strategy in individuals with high levels of depression [ 54 ] and impair social problem-solving. This is consistent with research which suggests that although individuals believe rumination can help solve problems, i.e., by replaying the problem over in one’s mind and appraising it [ 55 ], when rumination is focused on negative thoughts, it can have a debilitating effect on social problem-solving [ 8 ] with individuals perceiving the problem as being more difficult to solve [ 14 ] and being less confident with the solutions they generate [ 56 ]. Thus, in the present study, when participants were asked to generate unresolved consequences, this may have triggered negative ruminative thoughts in the depressed group which led them to believe the problem was more difficult to solve. As a result, they took less steps to attempt to solve the problem.

The regression analyses also found that whilst depression was the only predictor for the effectiveness of the solutions generated in the baseline condition, both depression and rumination predicted the effectiveness of the solutions generated in the resolved and unresolved conditions. These findings are partially consistent with Noreen, Whyte & Dritschel [ 23 ] who found that whilst rumination predicted the effectiveness of the proposed solutions in the unresolved condition, only depression predicted the effectiveness of the solutions in the resolved condition.

One reason why rumination predicted the effectiveness of the proposed solutions in the resolved condition in this study but not Noreen, Whyte & Dritschel’s [ 23 ] study may relate to depression severity and the relationship between rumination and depressive symptoms. Research has found that rumination is associated with more severe and longer episodes of depression [ 57 ] and also predicts the onset of depressive episodes as well as their severity and duration [ 58 – 60 ]. It is important to mention that in Noreen, Whyte & Dritschel’s [ 23 ] study participants had moderate levels of depressive symptoms whilst in this study participants met a diagnostic criterion for depression. Therefore, it is possible that when individuals have moderate levels of depression, ruminative thinking is only triggered when negative information is presented. However, with more severe depression it is possible that both positive and negative information may trigger ruminative thinking. This is consistent with research which suggests that when currently depressed individuals recall positive memories their mood worsens [ 61 ], but when the positive memories are consistent with current view of the self then their mood improves [ 62 ]. Thus, recalling positive memories that are discrepant with current views of the self, worsens mood. It is possible that when depressed individuals think about the resolved consequences they might begin to ruminate about how positive resolution is discrepant with their current situation where they may have interpersonal difficulties. Future research should examine the self-relevancy of the problems to provide further insight on this issue.

The finding that rumination predicts the effectiveness of the solutions is consistent with a large body of research which has found that rumination hampers depressed individual’s problem orientation and problem-solving skills [ 14 , 63 ]; see Nolen-Hoeksema, Wisco & Lyubomirsky [ 64 ] for a comprehensive review). Lyubomirsky & Nolen-Hoeksema [ 12 ], for example, found that by manipulating dysphoric participants response style by encouraging them to focus on their mood state impaired their ability to solve problems on the MEPS compared to dysphoric participants who were distracted from thinking about their mood state [ 14 ]. Taken together, these findings suggest that rumination may account for the deficits in social problem-solving in individuals high in depression.

The fact that our study found that depression, independent of rumination impaired social problem-solving in the unresolved condition may relate to the severity of depressive symptomology. Previous research has found that rumination, rather than depression impaired social problem-solving in individuals with high self-reported levels of depressive symptoms (Noreen, Whyte & Dritschel, [ 23 ]). Given that individuals who took part in the present study met the diagnostic criteria for clinical depression, it is possible that generating consequences for a problem remaining unresolved impairs social problem-solving in only those individuals that have more severe levels of depression. This is consistent with research which suggests that increased severity of depression is related to greater impairments in overall cognitive ability [ 65 ].

Impact of consequence instruction on recall of consequences

We also found that depressed participants recalled significantly more consequences in the unresolved than resolved and baseline conditions. In contrast the non-depressed controls retrieved more resolved than non-resolved consequences. One reason for these findings may relate to the valence of the consequences generated. Participants generated more positive consequences of the problem being resolved and more negative consequences of the problem remaining unresolved. These findings are consistent with research on mood congruency effects which suggests that depressed individuals exhibit enhanced memory for negative material whilst healthy individuals demonstrate the opposite pattern with a memory bias for positive material ([ 66 , 67 ]; see also Matt, Vazquez & Campbell, [ 68 ]) for a review of the early work in the area).

Alternatively, it is possible that depressed individuals may recall more unresolved consequences and be impaired at social problem-solving due to impaired inhibitory control. Indeed, it is possible that generating the consequences of a problem remaining unresolved encourages depressed individuals to ruminate on these consequences. As a result, they may mentally fixate on these items which subsequently impedes the generation of appropriate solutions. This is consistent with research finding that problem-solving relies on the ability to generate appropriate solutions whilst inhibiting inappropriate responses [ 69 , 70 ].

The role of inhibitory control in social problem-solving

The role of inhibitory control in impairing problem-solving is supported by the present findings. Our findings on the Emotional Stroop task revealed that depressed participants were significantly slower and less accurate at responding in the positive word/negative face condition compared to non-depressed participants. Furthermore, we also found that in the depressed group accuracy in this condition was positively correlated with the number of relevant means and the effectiveness of solutions generated on the problem-solving task, as well as self-reported rumination and depression. For response times, however, the opposite pattern of findings was observed with reaction times negatively correlated with the number of relevant means and the effectiveness of solutions generated on the problem-solving task, as well as self-reported rumination and depression. Given that the Stroop task is a measure of sustained attention and the depressed participants showed impairments in the incongruent (positive word/sad face) condition, suggests that depression is associated with an impaired ability to inhibit negative interfering information.

Interestingly, we found no effects of depression on the flanker test which was a measure of inhibitory control of non-valanced material. These findings are consistent with research which has found that both depression and rumination are associated with impairments in tasks that require inhibition of affective content [ 36 , 71 , 72 ]. Indeed, according to Koster, De Lissnyder, Derakshan & De Raedt [ 73 ], difficulty disengaging from negative material increases one’s susceptibility to rumination. Thus, it is possible that impaired cognitive control in depression leads to individuals ruminating on unresolved consequences which subsequently impairs problem-solving and leads to enhanced recall of the unresolved consequences.

Clinical implications

It is important to highlight that our findings have potentially useful clinical implications. The fact that depressed participants showed no deficits at solving social problems compared non-depressed participants when resolved consequences were generated suggests that this may be an effective strategy to improve social problem-solving. Indeed, it is possible that generating resolved consequences results in a more a positive problem orientation style, which is a belief that social problems can be solved with a positive outcome. As positive problem orientation is conceptualised as an adaptive problem-solving strategy (see D’Zurilla & Nezu [ 26 ] for a review), these findings suggest that generating resolved consequences may aid social problem-solving in depression. Furthermore, the fact that positive problem orientation is significantly related to good psychological health, such as adaptive behaviour, positive mood, life satisfaction, and a higher level of subjective well-being [ 25 ], generating resolved consequences prior to problem-solving may actually help to reduce or alleviate sad mood in depression. Future research may wish to investigate the impact of generating resolved consequences on depressed participants subsequent mood and well-being in a therapeutic context. It is important to mention that there may also be other benefits of thinking about the problem being resolved prior to problem-solving. One possibility is that having a more positive problem orientation may encourage greater motivation in thinking about strategies for solving problems. Increasing motivation has been identified as an important factor for increasing engagement with coping strategies that can reduce depression [ 74 ]. Thus, it may be that focusing on thinking about the consequences of a problem being resolved positively increases motivation to engage in more active problem- solving strategies. Future research should look at changes in motivation for solving problems as a function of thinking about the consequences in depression. Another benefit of thinking about the generation of positive consequences is that it might encourage more positive goal-directed imagination. There is evidence that positive goal-directed imagination predicts well-being even after controlling for baseline levels of mental health [ 75 ]. Given that therapists often ask their clients to describe current problems, encouraging them to think about positive resolutions before they think about how to solve the problem could be important to improve not only social problem-solving specifically, but well-being more generally.

Furthermore, given that our findings suggest that poorer inhibitory control on the Stroop task is related to less effective problem solutions in the depressed group, it suggests that interventions such as mindfulness -based interventions (MBI) which influence inhibitory control might be useful for improving problem solving performance in depression. Mindfulness is a form of meditation that involves sustaining attentional focus on a chosen object (e.g., part of your body, sounds, specific thoughts or your breathing) and returning it to this anchor every time your mind starts to wander [ 76 ]. Research has found that mindfulness meditation is effective at enhancing executive control ([ 77 – 79 ]; for a review see Casedas, Pirrucio, Vadillo, [ 80 ]) with inhibitory control being the most consistent executive function that is improved by mindfulness mediation training [ 78 ]. With improved inhibitory control, depressed individuals may more effective at ignoring inappropriate and negative interfering thoughts from memory when trying to generate effective solutions to social-problems Future research should examine the impact of mindfulness on inhibitory control and its subsequent impact on social problem-solving.

Limitations

It is important to mention however that the study does have some limitations. Firstly, although the study used participants that met the diagnostic criteria for clinical depression on the MINI Plus, participants were not clinically diagnosed with depression by a medical professional. Therefore, it is possible that the present findings may not be generalizable to clinically diagnosed depressed individuals. It is, however, important to mention that the MINI Plus is a structured diagnostic tool that is compatible with the diagnostic criteria of DSM-5 and is commonly used in clinical research. Furthermore, the fact that our findings of impaired social problem solving are consistent with previous studies [ 8 ] that have used clinically diagnosed depressed patients also supports the notion that our participants disorder related level of impairment is comparable to clinically depressed patients. It is also worth noting that our participants were also largely university students and therefore may not represent the general population. This is especially true of our depressed sample. By using university students, however, our depressed and non-depressed participants did not differ significantly in age or level of education, thus any differences across groups for social problem solving or inhibitory measures cannot be attributed to these factors. It is also worth noting that there are significantly higher rates of depression in university students compared to the general population [ 81 ], thus, making this population important to study.

An additional limitation concerns determining the impact of depression on social problem-solving relative to other mental disorders. There is evidence that social problem -solving is also impaired by other mental health disorders, such as, social anxiety disorder [ 82 ], eating disorders [ 83 ] and schizophrenia [ 84 ], which can co-occur with depression. In the present study we could not address this issue as we screened our participants for other psychological disorders. Therefore, the present findings cannot be attributed to the presence of any comorbid disorders. Nonetheless, future research may wish to use a larger and more clinically diverse sample size to explore the impact of comorbid disorders on social problem solving. Another limitation of the current study is that we did not ask participants whether they were currently on any psychopharmacological treatments for their depression. Indeed, it is possible that psychopharmacological treatments for depression may lead to individuals demonstrating a different pattern of findings on social problem solving and rumination. Thus, future research may wish to report whether participants are on any treatments and whether this impacts rumination and social problem solving. A final limitation is that the study was not preregistered, however it is important to note that the study predictions were based on robust previous research findings (Noreen, Whyte & Dritschel, [ 23 ]).

In conclusion, our study has found that depressed participants have intact social problem-solving skills when solving problems that they have previously generated resolved consequences for. We also found that depressed participants recalled significantly more consequences in the unresolved than resolved and baseline conditions. These findings suggest that encouraging depressed individuals to think about the consequences of a problem being resolved may be an effective strategy to improve social problem-solving skills in depression. Furthermore, we also found that depressed participants had difficulty disengaging from negative interfering material on an Emotional Stroop task, providing support for an impaired inhibitory control account of social problem-solving in depression. These findings advance our understanding of social problem-solving in depression by providing a more nuanced understanding of the mechanisms underpinning social problem-solving difficulties and have implications for therapeutic interventions.

• 1. D’Zurilla TN, Nezu AMProblem-solving therapy: A social competence approach to clinical intervention. 2 nd ed. New York: Springer; 1999.
• 2. D’Zurilla TJ, Nezu AM, Maydeu-Olivares A. Social problem solving: theory, research, and assessment. In Chang EC, D’Zurilla TJ, Sanna LJ, editors. Social Problem-Solving: Theory, Research, and Training. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2004. pp. 11–27.
• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 16. Pyszczynski T, Greenberg J Toward an integration of cognitive and motivational perspectives on social inference: A biased hypothesis-testing model. In Berkowitz Leditor Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 20. Academic Press; 1987. pp 297–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60417-7 .
• 17. Martin LL, Tesser A (Editors) Striving and feeling: Interactions among goals, affect, and self-regulation. Hove: Psychology Press;1996.
• 18. Harvey AG, Watkins E, Mansell W, Shafran RCognitive behavioral processes across psychological disorders: A transdiagnostic approach to research and treatment. New York. Oxford University Press Inc; 2004.
• 19. Beck AT. Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: International Universities Press; 1976.
• 20. Beck AT, Rush AJ, Shaw BFEmery G Cognitive therapy of depression. New York, NY: Guilford Press;1979.
• 26. D’Zurilla TJ Nezu AM Problem-solving therapy: A positive approach to clinical intervention (3rd ed). New York: Springer Publishing;2007.
• 33. Hasher L, Zacks RT Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view. In Bower GH (editor) The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 22, New York: Academic Press. 1988; pp.193–225.
• 40. Beck AT, Steer RA Brown GK (1996 Manual for the beck depression inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation; 1996.
• 44. Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene RE. Manual for the state-trait inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press: 1970.
• 45. Spielberger CD. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: Bibliography. 2 nd Edition, Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1989.
• 47. Young AW, Perrett D, Calder A, Sprengelmeyer R, Ekman P. Facial expressions of emotion: Stimuli and tests (FEEST). Bury St. Edmunds: Thames Valley Test Company; 2002.
• 48. Ekman P, Friesen WV, Hager JC. Facial action coding system: Manual and Investigator’s Guide. Salt Lake City, UT: Research Nexus; 2002.
• 69. Smith SM (The constraining effects of initial ideas. In: Paulus PB, Nijstad BA, editors. Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 2003; pp 15–31.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Overview of the Problem-Solving Mental Process

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Rachel Goldman, PhD FTOS, is a licensed psychologist, clinical assistant professor, speaker, wellness expert specializing in eating behaviors, stress management, and health behavior change.

• Identify the Problem
• Define the Problem
• Form a Strategy
• Organize Information
• Allocate Resources
• Monitor Progress
• Evaluate the Results

Frequently Asked Questions

Problem-solving is a mental process that involves discovering, analyzing, and solving problems. The ultimate goal of problem-solving is to overcome obstacles and find a solution that best resolves the issue.

The best strategy for solving a problem depends largely on the unique situation. In some cases, people are better off learning everything they can about the issue and then using factual knowledge to come up with a solution. In other instances, creativity and insight are the best options.

It is not necessary to follow problem-solving steps sequentially, It is common to skip steps or even go back through steps multiple times until the desired solution is reached.

In order to correctly solve a problem, it is often important to follow a series of steps. Researchers sometimes refer to this as the problem-solving cycle. While this cycle is portrayed sequentially, people rarely follow a rigid series of steps to find a solution.

The following steps include developing strategies and organizing knowledge.

1. Identifying the Problem

While it may seem like an obvious step, identifying the problem is not always as simple as it sounds. In some cases, people might mistakenly identify the wrong source of a problem, which will make attempts to solve it inefficient or even useless.

Some strategies that you might use to figure out the source of a problem include :

• Asking questions about the problem
• Breaking the problem down into smaller pieces
• Looking at the problem from different perspectives
• Conducting research to figure out what relationships exist between different variables

2. Defining the Problem

After the problem has been identified, it is important to fully define the problem so that it can be solved. You can define a problem by operationally defining each aspect of the problem and setting goals for what aspects of the problem you will address

At this point, you should focus on figuring out which aspects of the problems are facts and which are opinions. State the problem clearly and identify the scope of the solution.

3. Forming a Strategy

After the problem has been identified, it is time to start brainstorming potential solutions. This step usually involves generating as many ideas as possible without judging their quality. Once several possibilities have been generated, they can be evaluated and narrowed down.

The next step is to develop a strategy to solve the problem. The approach used will vary depending upon the situation and the individual's unique preferences. Common problem-solving strategies include heuristics and algorithms.

• Heuristics are mental shortcuts that are often based on solutions that have worked in the past. They can work well if the problem is similar to something you have encountered before and are often the best choice if you need a fast solution.
• Algorithms are step-by-step strategies that are guaranteed to produce a correct result. While this approach is great for accuracy, it can also consume time and resources.

Heuristics are often best used when time is of the essence, while algorithms are a better choice when a decision needs to be as accurate as possible.

4. Organizing Information

Before coming up with a solution, you need to first organize the available information. What do you know about the problem? What do you not know? The more information that is available the better prepared you will be to come up with an accurate solution.

When approaching a problem, it is important to make sure that you have all the data you need. Making a decision without adequate information can lead to biased or inaccurate results.

5. Allocating Resources

Of course, we don't always have unlimited money, time, and other resources to solve a problem. Before you begin to solve a problem, you need to determine how high priority it is.

If it is an important problem, it is probably worth allocating more resources to solving it. If, however, it is a fairly unimportant problem, then you do not want to spend too much of your available resources on coming up with a solution.

At this stage, it is important to consider all of the factors that might affect the problem at hand. This includes looking at the available resources, deadlines that need to be met, and any possible risks involved in each solution. After careful evaluation, a decision can be made about which solution to pursue.

6. Monitoring Progress

After selecting a problem-solving strategy, it is time to put the plan into action and see if it works. This step might involve trying out different solutions to see which one is the most effective.

It is also important to monitor the situation after implementing a solution to ensure that the problem has been solved and that no new problems have arisen as a result of the proposed solution.

Effective problem-solvers tend to monitor their progress as they work towards a solution. If they are not making good progress toward reaching their goal, they will reevaluate their approach or look for new strategies .

7. Evaluating the Results

After a solution has been reached, it is important to evaluate the results to determine if it is the best possible solution to the problem. This evaluation might be immediate, such as checking the results of a math problem to ensure the answer is correct, or it can be delayed, such as evaluating the success of a therapy program after several months of treatment.

Once a problem has been solved, it is important to take some time to reflect on the process that was used and evaluate the results. This will help you to improve your problem-solving skills and become more efficient at solving future problems.

A Word From Verywell​

It is important to remember that there are many different problem-solving processes with different steps, and this is just one example. Problem-solving in real-world situations requires a great deal of resourcefulness, flexibility, resilience, and continuous interaction with the environment.

Get Advice From The Verywell Mind Podcast

Hosted by therapist Amy Morin, LCSW, this episode of The Verywell Mind Podcast shares how you can stop dwelling in a negative mindset.

Follow Now : Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Google Podcasts

You can become a better problem solving by:

• Practicing brainstorming and coming up with multiple potential solutions to problems
• Being open-minded and considering all possible options before making a decision
• Breaking down problems into smaller, more manageable pieces
• Asking for help when needed
• Researching different problem-solving techniques and trying out new ones
• Learning from mistakes and using them as opportunities to grow

It's important to communicate openly and honestly with your partner about what's going on. Try to see things from their perspective as well as your own. Work together to find a resolution that works for both of you. Be willing to compromise and accept that there may not be a perfect solution.

Take breaks if things are getting too heated, and come back to the problem when you feel calm and collected. Don't try to fix every problem on your own—consider asking a therapist or counselor for help and insight.

If you've tried everything and there doesn't seem to be a way to fix the problem, you may have to learn to accept it. This can be difficult, but try to focus on the positive aspects of your life and remember that every situation is temporary. Don't dwell on what's going wrong—instead, think about what's going right. Find support by talking to friends or family. Seek professional help if you're having trouble coping.

Davidson JE, Sternberg RJ, editors.  The Psychology of Problem Solving .  Cambridge University Press; 2003. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511615771

Sarathy V. Real world problem-solving .  Front Hum Neurosci . 2018;12:261. Published 2018 Jun 26. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00261

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• Conferences
• Livestreams

Free Articles & Strategies

Click the filters below to refine the displayed results

Oops, we were unable to find a match based on your search.

Please feel free to browse our Products, Conferences and Free Articles below or try your search again.

Your Shopping Cart

Your Savings

Order Subtotal

Join Pilot Waitlist

Home » Blog » General » Effective Social Problem Solving: Free Worksheets and Resources

Effective Social Problem Solving: Free Worksheets and Resources

As a Speech Language Pathologist and Social Emotional Learning expert, I understand the importance of developing social problem solving skills in individuals of all ages. These skills not only help us navigate through various social situations, but also contribute to our overall emotional well-being. In this blog post, I will provide you with free worksheets and resources that can assist you in enhancing your social problem solving abilities.

Understanding Social Problem Solving

Social problem solving can be defined as the process of identifying, analyzing, and resolving social conflicts or challenges. It involves a set of cognitive and emotional skills that enable individuals to effectively navigate through social interactions and find appropriate solutions to problems. The key components of effective social problem solving include:

• Identifying the problem: Recognizing and understanding the social issue or conflict at hand.
• Generating possible solutions: Brainstorming and coming up with different options to address the problem.
• Evaluating and selecting the best solution: Assessing the pros and cons of each solution and choosing the most appropriate one.
• Implementing the chosen solution: Putting the selected solution into action.
• Reflecting on the outcome: Evaluating the effectiveness of the chosen solution and learning from the experience.

Developing social problem solving skills has numerous benefits. It enhances our ability to communicate effectively, resolve conflicts peacefully, and build positive relationships with others. It also promotes critical thinking, decision-making, and self-regulation skills.

Free Worksheets for Social Problem Solving

Worksheets are valuable tools in the development of social problem solving skills. They provide structured activities that guide individuals through the problem-solving process and encourage reflection and self-awareness. Here are some free social problem solving worksheets that you can utilize:

• Worksheet 1: Identifying the problem: This worksheet helps individuals identify and define the social problem they are facing. It prompts them to describe the situation, their feelings, and the impact of the problem on themselves and others.
• Worksheet 2: Generating possible solutions: This worksheet encourages individuals to brainstorm and list different solutions to the identified problem. It prompts them to think creatively and consider various perspectives.
• Worksheet 3: Evaluating and selecting the best solution: This worksheet guides individuals in evaluating the pros and cons of each solution generated in the previous step. It helps them weigh the potential outcomes and select the most suitable solution.
• Worksheet 4: Implementing the chosen solution: This worksheet assists individuals in planning and implementing the selected solution. It prompts them to outline the steps they need to take and consider any potential obstacles.
• Worksheet 5: Reflecting on the outcome: This worksheet encourages individuals to reflect on the effectiveness of the chosen solution. It prompts them to evaluate the outcome, identify any lessons learned, and consider alternative approaches for future situations.

Additional Resources for Social Problem Solving

In addition to worksheets, there are various other resources available to support the development of social problem solving skills. These include:

• Websites offering free social problem solving resources: There are several websites that provide free worksheets, activities, and games to enhance social problem solving skills. Some notable websites include EverydaySpeech, Social Thinking, and Teach Starter.
• Books and articles on social problem solving: Many books and articles have been written on the topic of social problem solving. These resources offer in-depth information, strategies, and real-life examples to help individuals improve their skills. Some recommended books include “Social Problem Solving: Theory, Research, and Training” by Norman A. Sprinthall and “The Social Skills Guidebook: Manage Shyness, Improve Your Conversations, and Make Friends, Without Giving Up Who You Are” by Chris MacLeod.
• Online courses and workshops: Online courses and workshops provide structured learning experiences that delve into the various aspects of social problem solving. These resources often include interactive activities, case studies, and expert guidance. EverydaySpeech offers a range of online courses and workshops on social emotional learning, including social problem solving.

Tips for Effective Use of Worksheets and Resources

To make the most of the worksheets and resources available, consider the following tips:

• Setting clear goals and objectives: Clearly define what you hope to achieve through the use of the worksheets and resources. Set specific goals and objectives that align with your needs and desired outcomes.
• Incorporating worksheets into daily routines: Integrate the worksheets into your daily routines and activities. This will help make social problem solving a regular practice and reinforce the skills learned.
• Providing guidance and support during worksheet activities: Offer guidance and support as individuals work through the worksheets. Encourage open discussions, provide feedback, and help individuals reflect on their experiences and learning.

Social problem solving skills are essential for navigating through various social situations and promoting positive relationships. By utilizing free worksheets and resources, you can enhance your social problem solving abilities and improve your overall emotional well-being. Start your EverydaySpeech free trial today to access a wide range of social emotional learning resources, including social problem solving worksheets and online courses. Remember, developing these skills is a lifelong journey, so keep exploring and learning!

Related Blog Posts:

Pragmatic language: enhancing social skills for meaningful interactions.

Pragmatic Language: Enhancing Social Skills for Meaningful Interactions Pragmatic Language: Enhancing Social Skills for Meaningful Interactions Introduction: Social skills play a crucial role in our daily interactions. They enable us to navigate social situations,...

Preparing for Success: Enhancing Social Communication in Grade 12

Preparing for Success: Enhancing Social Communication in Grade 12 Key Takeaways Strong social communication skills are crucial for academic success and building meaningful relationships in Grade 12. Social communication includes verbal and non-verbal communication,...

Preparing for Success: Enhancing Social Communication in Grade 12 Preparing for Success: Enhancing Social Communication in Grade 12 As students enter Grade 12, they are on the cusp of adulthood and preparing for the next chapter of their lives. While academic success...

FREE MATERIALS

Better doesn’t have to be harder, social skills lessons students actually enjoy.

Be the best educator you can be with no extra prep time needed. Sign up to get access to free samples from the best Social Skills and Social-Emotional educational platform.

Get Started Instantly for Free

Complete guided therapy.

The subscription associated with this email has been cancelled and is no longer active. To reactivate your subscription, please log in.

If you would like to make changes to your account, please log in using the button below and navigate to the settings page. If you’ve forgotten your password, you can reset it using the button below.

Unfortunately it looks like we’re not able to create your subscription at this time. Please contact support to have the issue resolved. We apologize for the inconvenience. Error: Web signup - customer email already exists

Welcome back! The subscription associated with this email was previously cancelled, but don’t fret! We make it easy to reactivate your subscription and pick up right where you left off. Note that subscription reactivations aren't eligible for free trials, but your purchase is protected by a 30 day money back guarantee. Let us know anytime within 30 days if you aren’t satisfied and we'll send you a full refund, no questions asked. Please press ‘Continue’ to enter your payment details and reactivate your subscription

Notice About Our SEL Curriculum

Our SEL Curriculum is currently in a soft product launch stage and is only available by Site License. A Site License is currently defined as a school-building minimum or a minimum cost of $3,000 for the first year of use. Individual SEL Curriculum licenses are not currently available based on the current version of this product.

By clicking continue below, you understand that access to our SEL curriculum is currently limited to the terms above.

Design Thinking for Social Innovation- Explained with Example

Are you tired of the same old approaches to solving social problems?

It’s time to shake things up and embrace a fresh perspective.

In a world where challenges seem to grow more complex by the day, design thinking offers a powerful tool for problem-solving that goes beyond traditional methods.

It’s a creative, human-centered approach that puts empathy and innovation at the forefront.

So, whether you’re passionate about tackling poverty, environmental issues, or inequality, join us on a journey as we explore the transformative potential of design thinking to solve social problems.

Get ready to break free from the ordinary and discover how design thinking is used for social innovation and solve social problems in a sustaiaable way.

Let’s start reading and learn more about this concept.

Understanding Design Thinking

Design thinking is a problem-solving methodology that stands apart from traditional approaches, offering a unique and innovative way to tackle complex issues.

At its core, design thinking revolves around five distinct stages:

• prototype and

Each stage plays a crucial role in the process, creating a dynamic and iterative framework that fosters creativity and human-centered solutions.

In the empathize stage, designers immerse themselves in the world of those affected by the problem, seeking a deep understanding of their needs, motivations, and challenges. By putting themselves in the shoes of others, they can develop genuine empathy and gain valuable insights that go beyond surface-level observations.

Moving on to the define stage , design thinkers take the insights gathered during empathy and distill them into a clear problem statement. This stage is critical for framing the challenge and ensuring a focused and meaningful direction for ideation and solution development.

Ideation, the next stage , is where creativity takes center stage. Designers unleash their imagination and generate a wide range of ideas, exploring various possibilities and perspectives. Brainstorming sessions, ideation exercises, and collaboration play a pivotal role in this stage, allowing for diverse and innovative solutions to emerge.

Once a pool of ideas is generated, the prototyping stage comes into play. Designers create tangible representations of their ideas, transforming concepts into physical or digital prototypes. Prototypes serve as a way to bring ideas to life, allowing for visualizing and experiencing potential solutions in a tangible form.

The final stage, test, involves gathering feedback and insights through user testing and observation. This iterative process helps refine and improve the prototypes based on real-world interaction and user feedback. By testing and learning from the outcomes, designers can make necessary adjustments and enhancements, leading to more effective and impactful solutions.

Importance of applying design thinking to solve social problems

Design thinking is not just a buzzword or a trendy concept—it holds significant importance when it comes to solving social problems. Here are some key reasons why applying design thinking to address social issues is crucial:

Human-Centered Solutions:

Design thinking puts people at the heart of the problem-solving process. By empathizing with the individuals affected by social problems, designers gain deep insights into their needs, aspirations, and challenges. This understanding allows for the development of solutions that are truly tailored to address the underlying causes and improve people’s lives. Design thinking ensures that the solutions created are not just band-aid fixes but transformative and sustainable changes.

Creative Problem-Solving

Social problems are often complex and multifaceted, requiring innovative approaches. Design thinking encourages thinking outside the box and fosters a culture of creativity. By approaching problems from new angles and combining diverse perspectives, design thinkers can generate novel and unconventional solutions. It breaks free from the constraints of traditional problem-solving methods and enables fresh ideas to emerge, leading to breakthrough innovations.

Iterative and Agile Approach

Design thinking is an iterative process that encourages continuous learning and improvement. By prototyping and testing solutions early on, designers can gather feedback and refine their ideas based on real-world insights. This agile approach allows for rapid experimentation and course correction, ensuring that solutions are adaptive and responsive to evolving needs. It minimizes the risks associated with implementing large-scale interventions without real-world validation.

Collaboration and Co-Creation

Social problems are often complex and require a multidisciplinary approach. Design thinking fosters collaboration among diverse stakeholders, including experts, community members, policymakers, and organizations. This collaborative environment promotes collective intelligence and leverages the expertise and perspectives of various stakeholders. By involving those affected by the problem in the design process, it empowers communities and ensures that solutions are inclusive, contextually relevant, and sustainable.

Scalability and Impact

Design thinking not only aims to solve immediate social problems but also focuses on scalability and long-term impact. By testing and refining solutions iteratively, designers can identify the most effective approaches and develop strategies for scaling them up. The emphasis on measuring impact and continuous evaluation ensures that solutions are evidence-based and outcomes-driven. Design thinking enables social interventions to have a broader reach and create lasting change in communities and societies.

Applying Design Thinking to Social Problems

Let’s apply all 5 stages of design thinking to solve social problems and see how these work:

Identifying and Understanding Social Problems

In order to effectively address social problems using design thinking, it is crucial to begin by identifying and understanding the issues at hand. This stage sets the foundation for the entire problem-solving process and ensures that solutions are rooted in a deep understanding of the problem’s context and complexity. Here are key steps involved in identifying and understanding social problems through a design thinking lens:

• Researching and Gathering Insights: Thorough research is essential to gain a comprehensive understanding of the social problem being addressed. This involves conducting literature reviews, analyzing data, and studying existing reports and studies related to the issue. By immersing themselves in existing knowledge and understanding the broader context, designers can uncover valuable insights that inform their problem-solving approach.
• Engaging with Stakeholders and Affected Communities: Effective problem-solving requires active engagement with stakeholders and the communities affected by the social problem. This includes individuals who directly experience the issue, as well as experts, policymakers, and organizations working in the field. By listening to diverse perspectives, designers can gain a more nuanced understanding of the problem’s causes, impacts, and potential solutions. Engaging with stakeholders also helps build trust, foster collaboration, and ensure that the proposed solutions are aligned with the needs and aspirations of the community.
• Empathizing with the Target Audience: Empathy lies at the core of design thinking. To truly understand a social problem, designers need to develop a deep sense of empathy towards the people impacted by it. This involves putting themselves in the shoes of the individuals experiencing the problem, listening to their stories, and observing their experiences firsthand. By empathizing with the target audience, designers can uncover hidden needs, emotions, and barriers that influence the problem and its potential solutions.
• Defining the Problem: Once a thorough understanding of the social problem has been established, designers need to define the problem statement clearly and concisely. This involves identifying the root causes, underlying factors, and systemic issues that contribute to the problem. The problem definition should be focused, actionable, and framed in a way that inspires creative ideation and solution development. A well-defined problem statement acts as a guiding beacon throughout the design thinking process.

Empathizing with the target audience

Empathy is a cornerstone of design thinking, and it plays a pivotal role in the process of solving social problems. To effectively address the needs and challenges faced by the target audience, designers must develop a deep sense of empathy. Here are key steps involved in empathizing with the target audience:

• Active Listening: The first step in developing empathy is to listen actively and attentively. Designers engage in conversations with individuals who directly experience the social problem, giving them a platform to share their stories, perspectives, and emotions. By truly hearing their voices and experiences, designers can gain a more profound understanding of the lived realities and unique circumstances of the target audience.
• Immersion and Observation: Empathy goes beyond just listening—it involves immersing oneself in the environment and context of the target audience. Designers spend time in the communities affected by the social problem, observing and experiencing firsthand the challenges, resources, and constraints faced by individuals. This immersive approach provides designers with rich insights and helps them uncover nuances that may not be evident through interviews alone.
• Building Trust and Relationships: Empathy flourishes within a trusting and respectful relationship. Designers aim to build rapport and trust with the target audience, ensuring that individuals feel comfortable sharing their experiences and perspectives openly. Trust allows for deeper conversations and a greater level of insight into the needs, motivations, and aspirations of the community members.
• Practicing Empathy Tools and Techniques: Designers employ various tools and techniques to foster empathy. These may include storytelling, role-playing, journey mapping, or creating empathy maps. Such methods help designers step into the shoes of the target audience, seeing the world through their eyes and understanding their feelings, thoughts, and challenges more profoundly.
• Avoiding Assumptions and Biases: Empathy requires designers to set aside preconceived notions and biases. It is essential to approach the target audience with an open mind and without judgment, recognizing that each person’s experience is unique. By avoiding assumptions, designers can genuinely understand the complexity and diversity within the target audience.

Defining the problem

Once designers have empathized with the target audience and gained insights into the social problem, the next step in the design thinking process is to define the problem. This stage involves distilling the gathered information and observations into a clear and actionable problem statement. Here’s how designers define the problem:

• Synthesizing Insights: Designers review and synthesize the data, information, and observations collected during the empathy stage. They look for patterns, themes, and commonalities among the experiences and needs of the target audience. By organizing and analyzing the data, designers gain a comprehensive overview of the problem landscape.
• Identifying Root Causes: In addition to understanding the surface-level symptoms of the social problem, designers delve deeper to identify the underlying root causes. They investigate the systemic factors, societal norms, and structural barriers that contribute to the persistence of the problem. This analysis helps designers uncover the core issues that need to be addressed for effective problem-solving.
• Framing the Problem Statement: Designers distill their findings into a clear problem statement that encapsulates the essence of the social problem. The problem statement should be focused, specific, and actionable. It should describe the problem in a way that inspires creative ideation and solution development. A well-defined problem statement acts as a guiding North Star throughout the design thinking process, ensuring that designers stay on track and aligned with the ultimate goal.
• Applying the “How Might We” Technique: To frame the problem statement in an open and solution-oriented manner, designers often use the “How Might We” (HMW) technique. By posing the problem as a question, such as “How might we address X challenge to achieve Y impact?” or “How might we improve Z to better serve the target audience?” designers encourage brainstorming and ideation around potential solutions.
• Refining and Iterating: Defining the problem is not a one-time activity. Designers continuously refine and iterate the problem statement as they gain more insights and progress through the design thinking process. They remain open to feedback, adjust their understanding of the problem, and refine the problem statement to ensure its accuracy and relevance.

Ideation and Prototyping 

After empathizing with the target audience and defining the problem, the design thinking process moves into the ideation and prototyping stage. This stage is all about generating a wide range of creative ideas and exploring different possibilities. Here are key aspects of ideation and prototyping in design thinking:

• Generating a Wide Range of Creative Ideas: Designers aim to generate as many ideas as possible during the ideation phase. The focus is on quantity and diversity, encouraging a free flow of creative thinking. By suspending judgment and embracing wild and unconventional ideas, designers open up new possibilities and break away from traditional solutions.
• Brainstorming Techniques and Ideation Exercises: Brainstorming is a popular technique used to generate ideas in design thinking. It involves a group of individuals coming together to generate ideas through a free-flowing and non-judgmental process. Brainstorming sessions can be facilitated using various methods, such as mind mapping, random word associations, or the SCAMPER technique (Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to another use, Eliminate, Reverse).
• Encouraging Diverse Perspectives and Collaboration: Design thinking recognizes the value of diverse perspectives and collaboration in ideation. By involving individuals with different backgrounds, expertise, and viewpoints, designers can tap into a collective intelligence that enriches the ideation process. Collaborative approaches such as co-creation workshops, interdisciplinary teams, and stakeholder engagement ensure that a wide range of insights and ideas are brought to the table.
• Rapid Prototyping: Prototyping is a crucial part of the design thinking process. It involves creating tangible representations of ideas to bring them to life. Prototypes can take various forms, ranging from simple sketches and diagrams to physical models or interactive digital mock-ups. The goal is to create a visual or interactive representation that allows designers and stakeholders to experience and interact with the potential solution.

Prioritizing and selecting the most promising ideas

Once a multitude of ideas has been generated through the ideation and prototyping stage, the next step in the design thinking process is to prioritize and select the most promising ideas to move forward with. Here’s how designers make informed decisions in selecting ideas:

• Evaluation Criteria: Designers establish evaluation criteria based on the problem definition and desired outcomes. These criteria help assess the feasibility, desirability, and viability of each idea. Common evaluation criteria may include alignment with user needs, potential impact, technical feasibility, resource requirements, and sustainability.
• User-Centered Approach: Designers put the target audience at the center of the decision-making process. They refer back to the insights gained during the empathy stage and evaluate ideas based on how well they address the needs and aspirations of the users. By prioritizing user-centered solutions, designers ensure that the selected ideas have a higher chance of resonating with the intended audience.
• Iterative Feedback: Designers seek feedback on the generated ideas from various stakeholders, including end-users, experts, and other relevant parties. This feedback helps refine and iterate the ideas, making them more robust and aligned with the identified problem. Regular feedback loops enable designers to gather valuable insights and perspectives that contribute to the selection process.
• Impact and Feasibility Analysis: Designers conduct impact and feasibility analysis to assess the potential impact of each idea and its practicality in implementation. They consider factors such as the scalability of the solution, resource requirements, technical feasibility, regulatory constraints, and potential risks. This analysis helps identify ideas that have the highest likelihood of creating meaningful impact while being implementable within the given constraints.
• Prioritization Techniques: Various prioritization techniques, such as the prioritization matrix or the impact-effort matrix, can be employed to rank and compare ideas systematically. These techniques assign weights or scores to different criteria and help designers objectively evaluate and compare ideas. The aim is to identify ideas that align well with the desired outcomes, have high potential impact, and are feasible to implement.
• Iterative Refinement: The selection process is not a final decision but an ongoing refinement of ideas. Designers iterate on the ideas, incorporating feedback and insights gained during the selection process. This iterative refinement helps enhance the selected ideas and ensures that they evolve and improve over time.

Creating prototypes to bring ideas to life

Once the most promising ideas have been selected, the design thinking process moves into the stage of creating prototypes. Prototyping is a crucial step that allows designers to bring their ideas to life and test them in a tangible form. Here’s how designers create prototypes and iterate on their development:

• Rapid Prototyping Techniques: Rapid prototyping techniques are employed to quickly create tangible representations of the selected ideas. These techniques focus on speed and efficiency, enabling designers to iterate rapidly and gather feedback early in the process. Some common rapid prototyping techniques include:
• Iterative Development and Refinement: Prototyping in design thinking is an iterative process that involves continuous development and refinement of the initial prototype. Through user testing and feedback, designers gather insights that inform subsequent iterations. Key aspects of iterative development and refinement include:

Testing and Iteration

The testing and iteration stage is a vital part of the design thinking process. It involves conducting user testing, collecting feedback, and using that feedback to improve prototypes. This iterative approach ensures that the final design is user-centered and meets the needs of the target audience. Here’s how designers test, incorporate feedback, and refine their designs:

• Define Testing Objectives: Designers establish clear objectives for the testing phase, identifying what aspects of the design they want to evaluate and gather feedback on. This helps focus the testing process and gather relevant insights.
• Create Testing Scenarios: Designers develop scenarios or tasks that users will perform with the prototype. These scenarios should be designed to test specific features, functionalities, or user interactions. The scenarios should resemble real-life situations as closely as possible.
• Facilitate User Testing Sessions: Designers guide users through the testing process, providing instructions and clarifications when necessary. They observe and take notes on users’ actions, behaviors, and feedback during the testing session.
• Collect Feedback: Designers gather feedback from users through various methods, such as surveys, interviews, or structured questionnaires. They encourage users to share their thoughts, impressions, likes, dislikes, and suggestions for improvement.

Case Studies and Examples 

Design thinking has been successfully applied to solve various social problems, resulting in significant outcomes and positive impact. Let’s explore some notable case studies that highlight the successful applications of design thinking in addressing social issues:

• Project H Design: Project H Design is a non-profit organization that applies design thinking to empower communities and address social challenges. They have implemented numerous projects, such as the Learning Landscape initiative, which transformed neglected public spaces into engaging learning environments for children. By involving local communities in the design process, Project H Design has created sustainable solutions that foster education, play, and community engagement.
• IDEO.org’s Human-Centered Design Approach: IDEO.org, a leading design and innovation firm, has utilized human-centered design approaches to tackle social problems. For example, they collaborated with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to redesign the sanitation experience for low-income communities in Kenya. By empathizing with users, they developed innovative toilet solutions that improved hygiene, reduced contamination, and positively impacted the health and well-being of individuals and communities.

Final Words 

In conclusion, design thinking offers a powerful framework for tackling social problems and creating impactful solutions. By emphasizing empathy, collaboration, and iteration, design thinking enables us to deeply understand the needs and aspirations of the people we seek to serve. It encourages us to challenge assumptions, think creatively, and approach problem-solving from a user-centered perspective.

About The Author

Tahir Abbas

Related posts.

Risks of Organizational Restructuring

Radical Change Vs Incremental Change: Which is better?

Change Management Competency – Explained with Examples

• Skip to main content

Teaching SEL

Social Emotional Learning Lessons for Teachers and Counselors

Social Decision Making and Problem Solving

Enhancing social-emotional skills and academic performance.

The approach known as Social Decision Making and Social Problem Solving (SDM/SPS) has been utilized since the late 1970s to promote the development of social-emotional skills in students, which is now also being applied in academic settings. This approach is rooted in the work of John Dewey (1933) and has been extensively studied and implemented by Rutgers University in collaboration with teachers, administrators, and parents in public schools in New Jersey over several decades.

SDM/SPS focuses on developing a set of skills related to social competence, peer acceptance, self-management, social awareness, group participation, and critical thinking.

The curriculum units are structured around systematic skill-building procedures, which include the following components:

• Introducing the skill concept and motivation for learning; presentation of the skill in concrete behavioral components
• Modeling behavioral components and clarifying the concept by descriptions and behavioral examples of not using the skill
• Offering opportunities for practice of the skill in “student-tested,” enjoyable activities, providing corrective feedback and reinforcement until skill mastery is approached
• Labeling the skill with a prompt or cue, to establish a “shared language” that can be used for future situations
• Assigning skill practice outside of structured lessons
• Providing follow-through activities and integrating prompts in academic content areas and everyday interpersonal situations

Connection to Academics

Integrating SDM/SPS into students’ academic work enhances their social-emotional skills while enriching their academic performance. Research consistently supports the benefits of social-emotional learning (SEL) instruction.

Readiness for Decision Making

This aspect of SDM/SPS targets the development of skills necessary for effective social decision making and interpersonal behavior across various contexts. It encompasses self-management and social awareness. A self-management unit focuses on skills such as listening, following directions, remembering, taking turns, and maintaining composure in the classroom. These skills help students regulate their emotions, control impulsivity, and develop social literacy. Students learn to recognize physical cues and situations that may trigger high-arousal, fight-or-flight reactions or dysregulated behavior. Skills taught in this domain should include strategies to regain control and engage clear thinking, such as breathing exercises, mindfulness, or techniques that activate the parasympathetic nervous system.

A social awareness unit emphasizes positive peer relationships and the skills necessary for building healthy connections. Students learn to respond positively to peers who offer praise, compliments, and express positive emotions and appreciation. Skills in this unit also include recognizing when peers need help, understanding when they should seek help from others, and learning how to ask for help themselves. Students should develop the ability to provide and receive constructive criticism and collaborate effectively with diverse peers in group settings.

Decision Making Framework – FIG TESPN

To equip students with a problem-solving framework, SDM/SPS introduces the acronym FIG TESPN. This framework guides students when faced with problems or decisions and aims to help them internalize responsible decision making. The goal is for students to apply this framework academically and personally, even in challenging and stressful situations. 

FIG TESPN stands for:

• (F)eelings are my cue to problem solve.    
• (I) have a problem.
• (G)oals guide my actions.
• (T)hink of many possible things to do.
• (E)nvision the outcomes of each solution.
• (S)elect your best solution, based on your goal.
• (P)lan, practice, anticipate pitfalls, and pursue your best solution.
• (N)ext time, what will you do – the same thing or something different?

Integration of FIG TESPN into academics

Once students have become familiar with the FIG TESPN framework, there are limitless opportunities for them to apply and practice these skills. Many of the texts students read involve characters who make decisions, face conflicts, deal with intense emotions, and navigate complex interpersonal situations. By applying the readiness skills and FIG TESPN framework to these assignments, students can meet both academic and social-emotional learning (SEL) state standards. 

Teachers and staff play a crucial role in modeling readiness skills and the use of FIG TESPN. They can incorporate these skills into their questioning techniques, encouraging individual students and groups to think critically when confronted with problems. This approach helps students internalize the problem-solving framework and develop their decision-making abilities.

By integrating social decision making and problem-solving skills into academic subjects such as social studies, social justice, ethics, and creative writing, students gain a deeper understanding of the FIG TESPN framework. The framework becomes an integral part of their learning experience and supports their growth in both academic and social-emotional domains.

SDM/SPS Applied to Literature Analysis

• Think of an event in the section of the book assigned. When and where did it happen? Put the event into words as a problem. 
• Who were the people that were involved in the problem? What were their different feelings and points of view about the problem? Why did they feel as they did? Try to put their goals into words. 
• For each person or group of people, what are some different decisions or solutions to the problem that he,she, or they thought of that might help in reaching their goals?
• For each of these ideas or options, what are all of the things that might happen next? Envision and write both short- and long-term consequences.
• What were the final decisions? How were they made? By whom? Why? Do you agree or disagree? Why?
• How was the solution carried out? What was the plan? What obstacles were met? How well was the problem solved? What did you read that supports your point of view?
• Notice what happened and rethink it. What would you have chosen to do? Why?
• What questions do you have, based on what you read? What questions would you like to be able to ask one or more of the characters? The author? Why are these questions important to you?

a simplified version…

• I will write about this character…
• My character’s problem is…
• How did your character get into this problem?
• How does the character feel?
• What does the character want to happen?
• What questions would you like to be able to ask the character you picked, one of the other characters, or the author?

SDM/SPS Applied to Social Studies 

• What is the event that you are thinking about? When and where is it happening? Put the event into words as a problem, choice, or decision.
• What people or groups were involved in the problem? What are their different feelings? What are their points of view about the problem?
• What do each of these people or groups want to have happen? Try to put their goals into words.
• For each person or group, name some different options or solutions to the problem that they think might help them reach their goals. Add any ideas that you think might help them that they might not have thought of. 
• For each option or solution you listed, picture all the things that might happen next. Envision long- and short-term consequences. 
• What do you think the final decision should be? How should it be made? By whom? Why?
• Imagine a plan to help you carry out your solution. What could you do or think of to make your solution work? What obstacles or roadblocks might keep your solution from working? Who might disagree with your ideas? Why? What else could you do?
• Rethink it. Is there another way of looking at the problem that might be better? Are there other groups, goals, or plans that come to mind?

Applying FIG TESPN to Emigration

• What countries were they leaving?
• How did they feel about leaving their countries?
• What problems were going on that made them want to leave?
• What problems would leaving the country bring about?
• What would have been their goals in leaving or staying?
• What were their options and how did they envision the results of each possibility?
• What plans did they have to make? What kinds of things got in their way at the last minute? How did they overcome the roadblocks? 
• Once they arrived in a new country, how did they feel? What problems did they encounter at the beginning? What were their first goals?

Adapted from: Fostering Social-Emotional Learning in the Classroom

• Conferences
• Livestreams

Getting Started with the Social Thinking Methodology

Strategies to Build Social Competencies

For more than 25 years, professionals and parents around the world have been using our expansive collection of resources to teach social competencies. With the Social Thinking Methodology, you gain evidence-based strategies to help people age 4 through adult improve their social competencies, including:

• Self-regulation
• Social-emotional learning
• Executive functioning
• Perspective taking
• Social problem solving

Recommended Products to Get Started

Core products for professionals & parents.

Browse all Core Products

Getting Started for Ages 4-7

Browse all Products for Ages 4-7

Getting Started for Ages 8-10

Browse all Products for Ages 8-10

Getting Started for Ages 11-13

Browse all Products for Ages 11-13

Getting Started for Ages 14-18

Browse all Products for Ages 14-18

Getting Started for Young Adult - Adult

Browse all Products for Young Adult & Adult

To use at home & school

Our free stuff portal is filled to the brim with teaching ideas, downloadable thinksheets & video lessons to foster the development of social competencies across all ages.

Developmental resources to foster social emotional learning across all ages.

Get the Resources You Need

Social Thinking provides a deeper way to teach social emotional learning (SEL) and connects the dots between developing students’ social competencies to academic achievement and relationship building across developmental ages.

Our products, free webinars and articles, and online training equip educators, clinicians, parents, and caregivers with strategies to unpack how we learn social competencies, helping make the implicit social emotional knowledge and strategies (that students are expected to learn intuitively) explicit through use of practical concepts and strategies.

What People Are Saying About Social Thinking

Parents & Families

Elementary School

Mental Health & Clinicians

Speech Language Pathologists

Adult Clients

Your Shopping Cart

Your Savings

Order Subtotal

• Creating Environments Conducive to Social Interaction
• Thinking Ethically: A Framework for Moral Decision Making
• Developing a Positive Climate with Trust and Respect
• Developing Self-Esteem, Confidence, Resiliency, and Mindset
• Developing Ability to Consider Different Perspectives
• Developing Tools and Techniques Useful in Social Problem-Solving
• Leadership Problem-Solving Model
• A Problem-Solving Model for Improving Student Achievement
• Six-Step Problem-Solving Model
• Hurson’s Productive Thinking Model: Solving Problems Creatively
• The Power of Storytelling and Play
• Creative Documentation & Assessment
• Materials for Use in Creating “Third Party” Solution Scenarios
• Resources for Connecting Schools to Communities
• Resources for Enabling Students

This is the home page for socialproblemsolving.com!

The Wellness Report

Stay connected, problem solving styles and skills, sharpen your problem solving skills.

There are, in general, four problem-solving styles:

• Social sensitive thinking
• Logical thinking
• Intuitive thinking
• Practical thinking

A social sensitive thinking problem solving style is one in which you want to find the best answer for all people involved (focusing primarily on their emotions and values, and you are most comfortable when they add emotion to the problem situation.) You depend on what has been successful for you in the past, rather than focusing on the facts of this new issue. You try to put yourself in the other person’s place so that you can identify with the person. You will solve problems based on your value system that respects other people in a situation. You are caring and want to support everyone involved in the problem. This indicates a high level of interpersonal skills.

Here are some indicators that you use the social sensitive thinking style:

• You are considerate to others in the situation.
• You are guided by your own personal issues.
• You are compassionate.
• You assess the impact of the problem on other people.
• You want everyone to be satisfied in the situation.
• Others call you caring and/or compassionate.
• You always try to treat others fairly.
• You believe that positive interactions are important in solving problems.

A logical thinking problem solving style involves the exploration of the problem and the effects of your environment. Using this style, you identify the problem that has occurred, explore alternatives in solving the problem, and develop a plan for solving the problem based on information. You carefully weigh the costs and benefits of the various ways to solve the problem. You gather and consider additional information about alternatives and the possible consequences of each alternative. The ultimate solution you find to the problem is based on a logical problem-solving approach.

Here are some indicators that you use the logical thinking style:

• You are analytical.
• You look for possible solutions to problems.
• You rely on your good judgment.
• You are reasonable.
• You have good common sense.
• You want everyone to be treated equally.
• You develop solutions and then choose the best options.
• You remove yourself emotionally from the situation.

An intuitive thinking problem solving style is one in which you solve problems based on gut-level reactions. You tend to rely on your internal signals. You identify and choose a solution based on what you feel is the best possible solution for everyone involved. You do not spend a lot of time collecting facts and gathering information before you decide on a solution. This style can be useful when factual data is not available. It is important not to substitute intuition for gathering needed information to solve the problem. You often solve problems based on hunches or your sixth-sense about the problem situation.

Here are some indicators that you use the intuitive thinking style:

• You consider the future.
• You communicate creatively.
• You develop imaginative solutions to problems.
• You reach solutions quickly, based on your hunches.
• You look for similarities in other problems you have needed to solve.
• You need the problem to make sense to you.
• You are able to see new possibilities.
• You see the big picture.

A practical thinking problem solving style is one in which you take in information that is clear and real. You want to know what is happening in the situation. You notice what is going on around you, especially the practical realities and facts. You may overlook recurring themes, focusing instead on the concrete issues involved in the situation. You rely on and trust your previous experience in dealing with similar problems.

Here are some indicators that you use the practical thinking style:

• You stick with it until you find a solution to a problem.
• You focus on what is really happening.
• You trust your experience from previous problem situations.
• You trust facts rather than other people.
• You are perceptive.
• You are able to remember specific facts about the problem.
• You understand ideas through practical applications.
• You carefully work toward conclusions.

The Problem-Solving Process

There is no simple step-by-step process that will guarantee you a solution to every problem you encounter in your life. The problem-solving process is a search for, and implementation of, the best possible solution for a specific problem. As a problem solver, you will develop your own method for solving problems. One of the best ways of doing this is to try to use the most effective aspects of the four different styles. The following is an outline of how to integrate the four styles in the problem-solving process. Before you begin, write down a problem you are currently struggling with.______________________________________________________. Use this issue when working through the following steps:

Step 1 – Define the problem by using practical thinking characteristics to see the problem situation as it really is. You can do so by answering some of the following questions:

• What or who caused the problem?
• Where did it happen?
• What happened?
• When did it happen?
• With whom did it happen?
• Why did it happen?
• What was your part in the situation?
• What was resolved?

Step 2 – Consider the possibilities using intuitive thinking characteristics to brainstorm all possible solutions to the problem. You can do so by answering some of the following questions:

• What other ways did you look at the problem?
• What did you learn by information you gathered?
• What were the connections to the bigger picture?
• How did the other people fit into this picture?
• What did you think caused the problem?
• What were some possible ways to approach the problem?

Step 3 – Weigh the consequences of courses of action to resolve the problem using logical thinking characteristics. You can do so by answering some of the following questions:

• What were the pros of each option?
• What were the cons of each option?
• What do you think would have been the outcomes of each option?
• What was the result for each person involved?

Step 4 – Weigh the alternatives to each course of action using social sensitive thinking characteristics. You can do so by answering some of the following questions:

• How did each alternative fit with your values?
• How were the other people involved in the situation affected?
• How did each alternative help everyone involved?
• How did each alternative enhance positive interactions?

Step 5 – Decide which aspects of Steps 1 – 4 will be most effective in solving this problem.

Step 6 – Act on your decision.

Step 7 – Evaluate whether the problem was resolved successfully.

Click here for printable versions of the problem solving activities above, more worksheets, and educational handouts.

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

3 thoughts on “ Problem Solving Styles and Skills ”

This is very informative and useful

Great info. Thanks for sharing

I think i regularly use all these except social but especially lean to intuitive and logical.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

71+ Free Social Problem-Solving Scenarios

Do you have kiddos who struggle with their social problem-solving skills? Teach your students the simple process of how to solve a problem along with having them review how well their solution worked or didn’t work.

Why Teach Problem Solving Skills?

Learning to problem solve is an essential skill that is used not only throughout childhood but also into adulthood. Social problem solving is the ability to change or adapt to undesirable situations that arise throughout our day.

On a daily basis, a child will encounter social problems that they will need to solve.

Anything from:

• arguing with another student
• to hurting a friend’s feelings
• to having a difficult conversation
• working with others

Start with Small Problems

Many of the “problems” children encounter are often small problems which the child may be over-reacting to, such as wanting a different coloring crayon or wanting to be first in line, however, these small problems are still very real to the child.

Practicing problem-solving with these small problems can be a great learning opportunity. Children can practice problem-solving with a small problem which can help them learn how to handle bigger problems in the future.

Problem Solving Importance

Social problem-solving skills are critical to a child’s social interactions, personal and professional relationships. A child’s ability to handle change, cope with stress, and handle challenges improves with a child’s ability to successfully solve social problems.

The ultimate goal is that the child will be able to solve social problems all on their own, but until they can independently solve a problem they will need to learn how to communicate and self-advocate to positively solve their problems.  

Steps to Problem Solving

Children can be taught how to problem solve through a guided process of breaking down the problem and using simple steps to solve the problem.

Learning specific steps to problem-solving can allow children to remember how to solve a problem when they become overwhelmed or stressed.

Although learning to solve a problem independently can take some time and practice it is well worth the investment to have a child who can eventually solve most social situations in a positive manner on their own.

What we learnt about solving problems is don't freak out, if one thing doesn't work , try something else out. And work together as a team. #melthammathsweek #MELTHAMPUPILVOICE @problemsolveit pic.twitter.com/iVm1Im4Aue — yr6melthamce (@yr6melthamce) February 4, 2019

Problem Solving Form

Teach your students the 4 steps to becoming a social problem-solver.

• Identify the problem. For instance, start by having your student identify the social problem.
• Create three solutions. Also, have your student come up with three different solutions that they could use to solve the problem that they identified.
• Identify the consequences. Then, identify the consequence for each individual solution.
• Pick the best solution.  Lastly, have your student identify which of their three solutions is the best choice Then have your student put into words why they think that solution is the best solution.

Problem Solving Review Form

After your students go through the social problem-solver have them use the social problem-solving review form.

• What happened.  For instance, after your student tried their solution have them explain what happened next.
• Review the results. Also, have your student identify whether or not their solution got them the results they wanted.
• Use this solution again. Furthermore, have your student identify whether or not they would use this solution again in the future to solve the same or similar problem.
• What would you do differently? Finally, have your student explain what they would do differently if they didn’t get the results they wanted or if they wouldn’t use that solution again in the future.

71+ Social Problem Scenarios + 6 Blank Scenarios

Use the 71 social problem-solving scenarios to have your students get great experience practicing how to solve a social problem.

Also, included are 6 blank scenarios. Then laminate them so you can use them over and over again. Therefore, create social problems that the student experiences and needs help solving.

Wordless Video teaching Problem Solving

Watch this super cute wordless animation with your students and have them discuss the problem they see and how to best solve the problem.

Use this as a fun practice example to get your students started towards learning how to problem-solve.

Demonstrate Through Modeling

Model and discuss empathy.

First and foremost, children need to understand how another person might be feeling in a given situation in order to become a good social problem solver. The student needs to learn how to “stand in someone else’s shoes” for a little bit.

One way you can work on this skill is during the reading time you can focus on how a particular character in the story might be feeling.

Ask questions, such as:

• “How do they feel right now?”
• “How would you feel in that same situation?”
• “Why do you think they feel that way?”

Model Problem-Solving Skills as the Teacher

When you are faced with a problem you can solve the problem by thinking aloud for the students to hear how you solve a problem.

You can state the problem, then come up with possible solutions, then identify the possible consequences to each solution, then pick and explain why a solution is the best option.

For example, you could say, “I was hoping to take the class outside for a stress walk around the track before the reading test, but the problem is that it is raining outside. I could still take you outside, but then you will get wet, or we could walk the halls, but then we’d have to be really quiet because there are other classes learning, or we could just skip the walk and take the reading test, but then you might not do as well on the test. I think based on all of those solutions the best solution will be to walk the hallway, but you guys will have to promise to be quiet so that we don’t disrupt other classes.

Modeling the problem-solving process can be very helpful for the students to watch, observe, and later implement themselves.

Teach Communication

Have students communicate how they are feeling.

Teaching your students to share their emotions in a respectful way can improve their ability to problem-solve.

Have students use an “I” sentence frame, such as, “I feel _____ (insert feeling word) when _____ (identify what made you feel that way).”

For example, “I felt sad when Jackson broke my favorite pencil” or “I was mad when I wasn’t picked to be first in line.”

This way students can communicate how they are feeling using honest and open communication. Teaching students to appropriately communicate their emotions can help solve some social problems from the beginning.

Encourage Independency

Encourage your student to problem solve.

If your student is struggling to problem solve independently encourage them to do so using open-ended questions.

• “How could you fix this problem?”
• “What would be a fair solution?”
• “What would happen if you used that solution?”

Let the Student try to Problem Solve Independently

Give your students the space to try and solve their own problems using the guided strategies. Try not to come running to their rescue for every little problem.

Some problems are small and a great opportunity for the student to learn and practice. If an adult does all of the problem solving for a student then what are they really learning?

Give your students the time and space they need to practice solving small problems on their own. Of course, if it is a bigger or more serious problem then have an adult help guide the problem-solving process.

Tell an Adult

Remind your students that there are still some problems that are too big for them to solve on their own and that it is okay to get help from an adult to solve big problems.

For example, if the student doesn’t feel safe, someone is being hurt physically or emotionally, or if they tried to solve a problem independently but it didn’t work and they need help. Let them know that it’s okay to tell an adult.

Teach How to Disagree and How to Make Up

Discuss how to disagree respectfully.

Remind your student that they won’t always agree with their teacher, friends, classmate, or parents and that’s okay. Even the people we like might have different opinions, interests, and likes than we do.

However, even if we disagree with someone we should still treat them with respect. Treating someone with respect means to not call them names, ignore them, yell or hit them. It means that you do try to create solutions that both parties can agree with and to apologize when we hurt others’ feelings.

Role-Play How to Make Up

Practice in everyday life how to make up after a social problem .

Students are really having to stretch their brains today. It's @NSPCC #NumberDay and @problemsolveit are challenging Y9 and 10 to solve the escape room boxes. It's not as easy as it looks! The promise of a few sweet treats for the winners seems to be helping though! pic.twitter.com/AxRRJnJIv2 — CongletonHS (@CongletonHS) February 2, 2018

Be sure to get your free social problem solver today below! I hope you and your students love this freebie.

Have your students use task card scenarios to help them identify how they and others might feel in different social scenarios. Be sure to discuss the problem, identify possible solutions, identify the consequences of those possible solutions, and then based on those consequences pick the best solution.

Make social problem-solving a game by telling the students that they are social detectives and that it is their job to use what they know about social rules to help them identify the possible and best solutions.

Start practicing today with 71+ free social problem social task cards! Do your students need more practice?

Be sure to check out my other freebie for 31 wordless animated videos to teach problem-solving and so much more.

Make Problem Solving Easier with this Freebie!

Download yours today to get started.

Get More Problem Solving Time Saving Materials

Next, be sure to check out the following time-saving materials to continue to teach your students how to solve their social problems in addition to this freebie.

Weekly Social Pragmatics Homework

• Weekly problem-solving.   Send home a  weekly homework page  that includes a problem-solving scenario plus an idiom and a conversational practice scenario.

Restorative Justice Problem Solving Flip Book

• Restorative justice graphic visual.  Use this graphic visual to help your student  restore a social relationship  after a social problem.

Self-Advocating Role-Play Scenarios

• Self-advocating in high school.  Teach your high schoolers the process to  self-advocate  for what they need.

5th-12th Grade Life Skills Problem Solving

• Life skills problem-solving.  In addition, this  life skills differentiated bundle  includes a problem-solving lesson plan.

I recommend you read Problem Solving Wheel: Help Kids Solve Their Own Problems , 61+ Free Fillable SLP Planner Pages 2020-2021 , 430+ Free Multisyllabic Words List Activity Bundle , or 432+ Free IEP Goal Bank to Save You Time posts because they include freebies as well and who doesn’t want more freebies!

Got questions? Leave a comment. Let’s chat!

Monday 30th of January 2023

Hello! I have entered my name and email twice (yesterday & today) to receive to 71+ Free Social Problem-Solving Senarios, but I have not received anything yet. Not even an email back to mine in order to subcribe. Thanks for your help! Tracy

Melissa Berg

Tuesday 31st of January 2023

Hi Tracy, Thanks so much for reaching out! Sorry about that. We went ahead and sent you an email with the PDF attached. Wishing you all my best, Melissa

Problem Solving Skills

Tuesday 30th of August 2022

I truly love your site. Excellent colors, theme and writing. Thanks for sharing.

Laura Ricca

Monday 11th of April 2022

Tuesday 12th of April 2022

Hi Laura, I'm glad you found this resource helpful. Melissa

Modified Mental Health and Suicide Prevention - Speech Therapy Store

Monday 11th of May 2020

[…] 71+ FREE SOCIAL PROBLEM-SOLVING SCENARIOS […]

Problem Solving Wheel: Help Kids Solve Their Own Problems - Speech Therapy Store

Monday 4th of May 2020

[…] 71+ Free Social Problem Solving Task Cards Scenarios […]

• Community and Engagement
• Honors and Awards
• Give Now 

This is How Students Can Learn Problem-Solving Skills in Social Studies

A new  study  led by a researcher from North Carolina State University offers lessons on how social studies teachers could use computational thinking and computer-based resources to analyze primary source data, such as economic information, maps or historical documents. The findings suggest that these approaches advance not only computational thinking, but also student understanding of social studies concepts.

In the journal  Theory & Research in Social Education , researchers reported findings from a case study of a high school social studies class called “Measuring the Past” that was offered in a private school. In the project-centered class, students used statistical software to analyze historical and economic data and identify trends. Researchers found students were able to learn problem-solving skills through the series of structured computer analysis projects.

“The purpose of social studies is to enhance student’s ability to participate in a democratic society,” said  Meghan Manfra , associate professor of education at NC State. “Our research indicates computational thinking is a fruitful way to engage students in interdisciplinary investigation and develop the skills and habits they need to be successful.”

There is a growing effort to incorporate computational thinking across subjects in K-12 education, Manfra said, to help prepare students for a technology-driven world. Computers have made new techniques possible for historians and social scientists to analyze and interpret digital data, maps and images. Teachers face a potential “firehose” of primary source data they could bring into the classroom, such as the National Archives’ collection of historical letters, speeches, and maps  important to American history .

“There are more efforts to integrate computer science across grade levels and subject areas,” Manfra said. “We take the definition of ‘computational thinking’ to be less computer science specific, and much more about a habit of mind. We see it as a structured problem-solving approach.”

In the high school class under study, researchers offered a phrase for the class to use as a guide for how to think about and structure the class projects: analyze the data, look for patterns, and then develop rules or models based on their analysis to solve a problem. They shortened that phrase to “data-patterns-rules.” The projects were also structured as a series, with each students gaining more independence with each project.

“The teacher had a lot of autonomy to develop a curriculum, and the projects were unique,” Manfra said. “Another important aspect of the structure was the students did three rounds of analyzing data, presenting their findings, and developing a model based on what they found. Each time, the teacher got more general in what he was giving the students so they had to flex more of their own thinking.”

In the first project, students analyzed  Dollar Street , a website by GapMinder that has a database of photographs of items in homes around the world. Students posed and answered their own questions about the data. For example, one group analyzed whether the number of books in a home related to a family’s income.

In the second project, students tracked prices of labor or products like wool, grain and livestock in England to understand the bubonic plague’s impact on the economy during the Middle Ages.

In the last project, students found their own data to compare social or economic trends during two American wars, such as the War of 1812 and World War I. For example, one group of students compared numbers of draftees and volunteers in two conflicts and related that to the outcome of the war.

From the students’ work, the researchers saw that students were able to learn problem-solving and apply data analysis skills while looking at differences across cultures, the economic effects of historical events and to how political trends can help shape conflicts.

“Based on what we found, this approach not only enhances students’ computational thinking for STEM fields, but it also improves their social studies understanding and knowledge,” Manfra said. “It’s a fruitful approach to teaching and learning.”

From student essays about computational thinking, the researchers saw many students came away with a stronger understanding of the concept. Some students defined it as thinking “based on computer-generated statistics,” while others defined it as analyzing data so a computer can display it, and others said it meant analyzing information in a “computer-like” logical way. In addition, they also saw that students learned skills important in an age of misinformation – they were able to think deeply about potential limitations of the data and the source it came from.

“We found that students were developing data literacy,” Manfra said “They understood databases as a construction, designed to tell a story. We thought that was pretty sophisticated, and that thinking emerged because of what they were experiencing through this project.”

This story originally appeared on the NC State News site.

• Research and Impact
• faculty publications
• Meghan Manfra
• social studies education

More From College of Education News

Doctoral Student Jayla Moody Marshall Wins Chancellor’s Creating Community Outstanding Student Award 

Assistant Professor of Learning, Design, and Technology Ela Castellanos-Reyes Wins May Kay Sommers Dissertation Award from Purdue University  

Wake County Middle and High School Students Combine Math, Entrepreneurship During First Annual Design & Pitch Competition