The effects of contextual factors on dyadic everyday problem solving in adulthood

Abstract

The present study examined individual and dyadic everyday problem solving in 45 younger, middle-aged, and older adult married couples. The goal of the study was to investigate the effects of age, gender, collaboration, marital characteristics, and basic cognition on everyday problemsolving. Two research questions were addressed. First, were there group differences across three phases of problem solving? Second, what was the frequency of individual change, and which factors predicted improvement, stability, or decline? When addressing the first question, there was a significant four-way interaction, F (4, 78) = 2.83, p < .05, η = .12, between participant age, gender, problem-solving condition, and problem-solving phase, emphasizing the multidimensionality of everyday cognition. When addressing the second question, a larger percentage of individuals who collaborated reliably improved compared to individuals who worked alone. Furthermore, basic cognitive abilities, education, and marital factors significantly accounted for individual reliable change in everyday problem solving.

The effects of age, instructions, and problem content on everyday problem -solving outcome using two scoring procedures

“…There is support from previous research that methodological factors such as problem content (Thornton & Dumke, 2005), scoring criteria (Neely, 2005;Thornton & Dumke), and instruction (Denney, Tozier, & Schlotthauer, 1992) may affect problem-solving outcome.…”

“…The interaction between age, instruction, and problem content on fluency outcome was also exploratory. Congruent with prior findings (Neely, 2005), it was acknowledged that everyday problem-solving outcome could result in a three-way interaction between Age, Instruction, and Problem Content.…”

“…In terms of the type of solutions expected, some participants have been told to "generate as many safe and effective solutions for each item" on an everyday problem-solving task (e.g., Margrett & Marsiske, 2002;Marsiske & Willis, 1995;Neely, 2005). These instructions emphasize fluency but also stress quality solutions that are both safe and effective.…”

“…The Everyday Problem Solving Inventory (EPSI; Cornelius & Caspi, 1987) is widely used in the developmental and cognitive literatures (e.g., Blanchard-Fields, et al, 1995Cornelius & Caspi, 1987;Dimitrov, Grafman, & Hollnagel, 1996;Margrett & Marsiske, 2002;Neely, 2005;Willis & Marsiske, 1995). The items on this measure assess aspects of social and instrumental endeavors that individuals face in their daily lives, and thus it is relevant for an everyday problem-solving study.…”

“…Individual factors may also affect everyday cognitive performance. These factors include past and current experience with a problem (Berg, Meegan, Klaczynski, 1999), perceived ability to complete a problem (Artistico, Cervone, & Pezzuti, 2003;Haught, Hill, Nardi, & Walls, 2000), fundamental cognitive abilities (Allaire & Marsiske, 1999, Kimbler, 2006Margrett, 1999), education (Thornton & Dumke), sex (Margrett & Marsiske, 2002;Neely), and age (Blanchard-Fields, Chen, & Norris, 1997;Crawford & Channon, 2002;Denney & Pearce, 1989). The majority of these cited studies place an emphasis on how these individual characteristics affect problem solving in older adulthood.…”