This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut] On: 09 October 2014, At: 14:09 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition: A Journal on Normal and Dysfunctional Development Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nanc20

Thinking with Your Head and Your Heart: Age Differences in Everyday Problem-Solving Strategy Preferences Tonya L. Watson & Fredda Blanchard-Fields Published online: 09 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Tonya L. Watson & Fredda Blanchard-Fields (1998) Thinking with Your Head and Your Heart: Age Differences in Everyday Problem-Solving Strategy Preferences, Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition: A Journal on Normal and Dysfunctional Development, 5:3, 225-240, DOI: 10.1076/anec.5.3.225.613 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/anec.5.3.225.613

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition 1998, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 225-240

1382-5585/98/0503-225$12.00 © Swets & Zeitlinger

Thinking with Your Head and Your Heart: Age Differences in Everyday Problem-Solving Strategy Preferences* Tonya L. Watson and Fredda Blanchard-Fields

Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:09 09 October 2014

Georgia Institute of Technology

ABSTRACT Age and gender differences in perceived effectiveness of problem-focused and emotion-regulatory problem-solving strategies were examined. Using the Q-sort methodology, young, middle-aged, and older participants were asked to rank order, on a continuum from least to most effective, a wide range of possible strategies for dealing with 4 hypothetical, interpersonal problem situations. In addition to global problemfocused and emotion-focused strategies, analyses were conducted on an expanded 10-category system, including 3 problem-focused and 7 emotion-focused categories. In general, participants preferred problemfocused over emotion-focused strategies. However, older adults preferred a combination of problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies, whereas middle-aged and younger age groups preferred problemfocused strategies only, as their top choices. Qualitative age and gender differences were also found in the types of strategies endorsed, particularly for the emotion-focused strategies.

Does our approach to solving everyday problems change as we get older? There is some compelling research suggesting there is an adaptive function in the way older individuals address problems in their daily lives, rather than the age-related deficiencies often cited in other cognitive domains (Berg, Klaczynski, Calderone, & Strough, 1994; Puckett, Reese, Cohen, & Pollina, 1991). The primary purpose of this investigation was to extend research on age and gender differences in everyday problem solving by examining perceived effectiveness of a wide representation of emotion-focused and problemfocused strategies. In particular, to what degree does strategy focus (i.e., dealing more with emotions experienced or the problem solution itself) influence what young, middle-aged, and

older adults perceive as the most effective strategies?

FOCUS OF STRATEGY: PROBLEMFOCUSED VERSUS EMOTION-FOCUSED As Berg et al. (1994) report, distinct life-stage and developmental contexts are experienced by individuals in different age groups. As a result, they may solve everyday problems using qualitatively different strategies. While the specific content of the problem at hand is certainly germane, the role of emotion cannot be overlooked in approaching everyday situations. Growing evidence suggests that emotion is a key factor in how individuals construct their social reality

* This study was in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the first author’s Master of Science degree in Psychology at Georgia Institute of Technology under the supervision of Fredda Blanchard-Fields. The study was supported by a seed grant received from The Center of Applied Cognitive Research on Aging, one of the Edward R. Roybal Centers for research on applied gerontology funded by the National Institute on Aging, Grant No. 5 PSO AG11715-03. Address correspondence to: Fredda Blanchard-Fields, School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0170, USA. E-mail: [email protected]. Accepted for publication: August 31, 1998.

Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:09 09 October 2014

226

T.L. WATSON AND F. BLANCHARD-FIELDS

(Blanchard-Fields, 1986; Blanchard-Fields, Jahnke, & Camp, 1995; Carstensen & TurkCharles, 1994; Labouvie-Vief, DeVoe, & Bulka, 1989; Lawton, Kleban, & Dean, 1993). A number of studies on emotion regulation have shown that, in general, older adults use more emotionfocused styles of coping than do younger adults (e.g., Folkman, Lazarus, Pimley, & Novacek, 1987); this is particularly apparent when the problem situation is appraised as uncontrollable (Blanchard-Fields & Irion, 1987; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). Lawton and his colleagues found that older adults appear to be more proficient with cognitive coping skills for negative emotions, and report fewer negative emotions (Lawton et al., 1993). Indeed, a number of researchers have proposed that, with respect to affect regulation, individuals prefer to use more emotion-regulating strategies in the latter half of the life span (Carstensen, 1992; Labouvie-Vief, Hakim-Larson, & Hobart, 1987). Thus, evidence suggests that older adults may possess a rich repertoire of emotionally regulative skills. Specifically examining the influence of affect in everyday problem-solving situations, Blanchard-Fields and Camp (1990) conducted studies examining both emotional salience and problem-solving styles. Participants were first asked to generate their own solutions to problems presented to them, and secondly, to rate the perceived utility of solutions representing different problem-solving strategies. They found that low emotionally salient problems yielded no age differences in problem-solving style. However, in high emotionally salient problems, there was increased variability in responding between age groups, with older adults choosing more ‘‘cut and dry’’ and/or emotion-regulating responses. They concluded that older individuals could be viewed as having a deeper awareness of an uncontrollable situation in which direct, problemfocused confrontation is not appropriate. Blanchard-Fields et al. (1995) looked further at the role of emotional salience in the choice of problem-solving strategy. Qualitative differences in problem-solving style for situations varying in emotionality were examined among

adolescents, young, middle-aged, and older adults. Using hypothetical problem situations, these researchers found age differences for problem-solving strategies were highly dependent upon the degree to which the situation was charged emotionally. In general, problem-focused strategies were endorsed more than emotion-focused strategies by all ages. Additionally, all age groups were more likely to use the avoidant/denial style in situations with less interpersonal involvement, and passive/dependent and cognitive analysis strategies in situations high in interpersonal interaction. However, older adults used both passive/dependent and avoidant/denial strategies much more than younger age groups. Thus, these findings could be interpreted as revealing older adults as differentiated problem solvers in situations of an interpersonal nature. These findings converge to indicate that emotion plays an important role in everyday problem solving. Moreover, this evidence suggests agerelated differences in the way individuals regulate their emotions and select strategies to solve a problem; however, emotional regulation is not the only possible factor influencing problem solving. One’s orientation to the problem (e.g., concentration on self/individualistic versus others/interpersonal aspects) must also be considered. One way of defining orientation is whether the problem solver focuses on the individualistic issues of the problem (e.g., ‘‘self’’-related issues such as achievement) or the interpersonal nature of the problem (e.g., concerns about the ‘‘other’’ as with relationship issues). Thus, orientation could have an effect on ways of constructing the problem situation and on problemsolving strategy preference. Indeed, recent work by Blanchard-Fields and colleagues (BlanchardFields, 1994; Blanchard-Fields, Chen, & Norris, 1997) found differing problem-solving styles among young, middle-aged, and older adults depending upon whether the problem situation was in an instrumental versus a social domain. However, in the present study, the type of orientation was manipulated in terms of each potential strategy, not in terms of the problem itself.

EVERYDAY PROBLEM-SOLVING STRATEGY PREFERENCES

Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:09 09 October 2014

THE PRESENT STUDY Although there is growing evidence that older adults prefer more emotion-regulating approaches to everyday problems, there are a number of methodological issues in the literature that still need to be addressed. First, in previous everyday problem-solving research there have been two primary approaches to examining strategies: (a) asking participants to generate their own solutions to problem situations in an open-ended manner; or (b) presenting participants with a relatively short list of strategies, usually limited in number or scope (e.g., Denney, 1989). Both methods usually rely on a Likert-type rating scale for quantifying responses. The present study went beyond these approaches by offering a much expanded repertoire of possible strategies from which to choose (initially over 100 possible strategies per situation). By including a much larger sample of potential solutions, a better overall representation of the strategies was achieved. The collection of possible strategies presented for each problem situation included a wide range of what participants would likely use and even some which they would probably not use. Second, building upon work by Folkman and Lazarus (e.g., 1980), thoughts and actions may be globally viewed as directed in two ways: (a) regulating distressing emotions by using emotion-focused strategies; or (b) altering the troubled person – environment, via problem-focused strategies. A number of different subcategories of emotion-focused and problem-focused strategies have also been identified in the literature (e.g., avoidance/denial, cognitive analysis, confrontive coping, etc.). The present study included analyses using these two broad toplevel categories, emotion- and problem-focused, and additionally, an expanded categorization scheme. The expanded scheme was employed in order to explore possible subtle findings not detectable with the broadly defined categories. Third, this study used the Q-sort technique as a means of quantifying the measures of perceived effectiveness. This procedure entailed the participants ranking the possible strategies to a problem situation along a continuum from least

227

to most effective. This allowed for a study of relative measures, thereby providing a direct comparison between strategies. This type of simultaneous comparison is not afforded by separate-measure rating scales. In summary, we attempted to extend previous research by: (a) simultaneously exploring possible interactive effects of age, gender, strategy focus, and personal orientation on perceived strategy effectiveness; (b) greatly expanding the sample set of possible strategies available; (c) using both broadly and narrowly defined categorization schemes; and (d) employing the Q-sort method for quantifying participants’ perceived levels of effectiveness for each strategy. In order to accomplish this, hypothetical problem situations involving interpersonal relations were presented to participants. These individuals were asked to rank a wide range of problem-solving solutions, representing emotion- and problemfocused strategy foci, and self- and others-oriented personal orientations of strategies, which might be used in everyday situations. Based on previous research, we expected no significant age-related differences for problem-focused strategies; however, we hypothesized there would be age differences for emotion-focused strategies. Specifically, we predicted that older adults would endorse emotion-focused strategies to a greater degree than the younger individuals.

DEVELOPMENT OF INSTRUMENTS AND STIMULI Selection and Validation of Vignettes The four vignettes used for the present study were selected from the set of hypothetical vignettes originally used as stimuli in the Blanchard-Fields et al. (1995) study. It was hypothesized that content-specific issues could be reduced by using only situations pertinent to a single domain familiar to all age groups, such as the domain of family relations (Berg & Calderone, 1994). In order to determine which vignettes were represented in the family domain, a pilot study was conducted in which each of ten hypothetical problem situations were listed, along with a choice of six categories: family,

Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:09 09 October 2014

228

T.L. WATSON AND F. BLANCHARD-FIELDS

friendship, romance, school, work, and other. Respondents (N = 39; 21 women and 18 men, mean age = 33 years) were asked to pick the best fitting category for that particular vignette. If none of the categories seemed appropriate, they were asked to write in their own category. The responses were uniform across the entire sample, with 94% interrater agreement. Based on these responses, the following four vignettes were selected and gender references removed (with keywords used to identify the vignette in brackets): 1. A person has a 16-year-old who keeps taking the car several times a week. The family has only one car. What should the person do? [TEEN vignette] 2. A person spends a lot of time helping their relative take care of things, but is busy with a family of their own, and the person is beginning to feel like their relative is just taking them for granted. What should the person do? [RELATIVE vignette] 3. A person discovers that their spouse is having an affair with someone else, and that it has been going on for several months. What should the person do? [SPOUSE vignette] 4. A person takes care of their blind and diabetic parent. The parent is beginning to have serious kidney trouble, and is hard to care for. The doctor is recommending a nursing home. What should the person do? [PARENT vignette] Having selected the four vignettes, sets of possible strategies to these hypothetical problem situations needed to be identified and classified. Generation of Strategies Drawing from other protocols in the everyday problem-solving literature (e.g., BlanchardFields et al., 1995) and interviewing individuals of differing ages, large sets of strategies for each vignette were generated. The teen vignette initially had 121 possible strategies; the relative, the parent, and the spouse situations had 108, 112, and 114 possible solutions, respectively. From these sets, a finalized group of strategies for each vignette were culled and later grouped into four strategy focus/orientation categories.

STUDY ONE: VALIDATION OF STRATEGY CATEGORIES Study One was conducted to classify this wide range of strategies into four categories, which were used as stimuli in the primary study. A cross of the two types of strategy focus and personal orientation were used for this classification procedure, resulting in the following four categories: (a) emotion-focused strategy (regulation of distressing emotions)/individualistic orientation, dealing primarily with needs of self; (b) emotion-focused strategy (regulation of distressing emotions)/interpersonal orientation, dealing primarily with needs of others; (c) problem-focused strategy (troubled person – environment interaction)/individualistic orientation, dealing primarily with needs of self; and (d) problem-focused strategy (troubled person – environment interaction)/interpersonal orientation, dealing primarily with needs of others.

METHOD Participants Sixty adults (with equal gender representation) were recruited to perform the categorization procedure. The sample for this validation study (see Table 1) consisted of 20 individuals in each of the following three age groups: young adults, ages 1830; middle-aged adults, ages 31-64; and older adults, ages 65 and over. Categorization Schemes Two categorization schemes were used to later examine the strategies ranked by each participant. The first scheme, described earlier, was based on four categories of strategies: emotion- and problem-focused, and self- and others-oriented. Subsequently, in order to allow a more in-depth examination of the strategy preferences, a second classification scheme, representing a synthesis of several coding plans in the literature (e.g., LabouvieVief et al., 1989; Folkman et al., 1987), expanded the original two strategy focus categories into ten (Blanchard-Fields & Watson, 1997). The additional categories allowed a more fine-grained analysis, especially of the emotion-focused categories. However, it should be noted that the expanded scheme was implemented post hoc to strategy development and data collection.

229

EVERYDAY PROBLEM-SOLVING STRATEGY PREFERENCES

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants.

Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:09 09 October 2014

Validation of strategy categories

Age Young Middle-aged Older Gender Men Women Vocabulary Young Middle-aged Older Years of formal education Young Middle-aged Older

Ranking of strategies

n

M

SD

n

M

SD

20 20 20

20.20 49.22 71.17

1.63 7.34 6.02

51 59 60

20.84 51.38 70.81

2.43 8.12 5.85

30 30

–– ––

–– ––

81 89

–– ––

–– ––

20 20 20

28.94 34.01 35.12

3.69 5.77 4.11

51 59 60

30.08 34.18 33.15

3.58 4.25 4.86

20 20 20

13.45 15.64 12.21

1.49 2.06 2.42

51 59 60

13.14 15.02 13.70

1.49 2.06 2.42

Note. Vocabulary scores could range from 0 to 40.

Initial four-category scheme The task involved a forced-choice, biserial sort. For each of the four problem situations, presented in a counterbalanced manner, the participants were provided the vignette and its associated randomized set of possible strategies. One half of the participants were asked to categorize each strategy as either emotion focused or problem focused; the other half categorized the same strategies as either self oriented or others oriented. Ultimately, 73 strategies selected as best representing each of the four categories were used as stimuli for each problem situation,1 as described in detail in a following section. To illustrate the categorization process, examples from the parent vignette for each of the four categories are as follows. 1. Emotion-Focused/Self-Orientation (EFS): Become involved in other activities to divert attention away from strong emotions. 2. Emotion-Focused/Others-Orientation (EFO): Try not to show any emotion for the sake of the parent. 3. Problem-Focused/Self-Orientation (PFS): Hire a nurse to care for the parent to ease your burden.

1 A complete listing of the 296 strategies used (73 for each of the 4 vignettes) may be obtained by request.

4. Problem-Focused/Others-Orientation (PFO): Let the parent choose which nursing home to live in. Expanded ten-category scheme In order to explore strategy usage in more detail and to take further advantage of the richness of the data set, an expanded categorization scheme was employed. Based on previous findings, we hypothesized that age differences would most likely be found in the emotion-focused strategies. Therefore, the second scheme comprised ten categories, made up of the three problem-focused categories, Cognitive Analysis, Planful Problem Solving, and Regulation/Inclusion of Others, and the seven emotion-focused categories of Avoidance/Denial/ Escape, Managing Reactions through Confrontive Emotion Coping, Managing Reactions through Suppression, Passive/Dependent, Reflection on Emotions, Acceptance of Responsibility, and Seek Social Support. See Table 2 for a description of these categories. With the vignettes selected and validated as belonging in the domain of family relations, and the strategies generated and categorized, the primary study involving ranking each of the strategies was conducted.

230

T.L. WATSON AND F. BLANCHARD-FIELDS

Table 2. Expanded Categories. Category Problem-Focused Cognitive Analysis Planful Problem Solving Regulation/Inclusion of Others

Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:09 09 October 2014

Emotion-Focused Avoidance/Denial/Escape Managing Reactions through Confrontive Emotion Coping Managing Reactions through Suppression of Emotions Passive/Dependent Reflection on Emotions Acceptance of Responsibility Seek Social Support

STUDY TWO: RANKING OF STRATEGIES METHOD Participants For the primary study, participants were 170 adults (89 women, 81 men) recruited from the metropolitan Atlanta area. These participants were divided into three age groups: 51 young adults, ages 18-30; 59 middle-aged adults, ages 31-64; and 60 older adults, ages 65 and over (see Table 1 for summary characteristics of the participants). The young participants were recruited from a southeastern university’s undergraduate population. They received extra class credit for their participation. The middle-aged and older groups, all community-dwelling and primarily from middle-class backgrounds, were solicited from local community organizations and participant pools. These participants were paid $15 for their participation. Age differences in verbal ability, educational level, ethnicity, and health were analyzed using one-way analyses of variance. Verbal ability was measured using the Shipley Vocabulary Test. A

Description Intrapsychic or cognitive efforts to understand the problem better, or to solve it through logical analysis Self-initiated, overt behaviors that deal directly with the problem and its effects Attempts to shape another’s opinions or behaviors to conform to that of the problem solver

Intentional redirecting of thoughts and behaviors away from the situation Expression of emotions to other person(s) seen as the cause of the problem Attempts not to feel or show emotional reactions Acceptance of the situation as is; heavy dependence upon someone else for a solution Conscious dealing with the emotions of self or others; looking at another’s viewpoint Acknowledgement of one’s obligations; accepting duties Search for assistance in dealing with the emotions

significant age effect was found for verbal ability, F(2, 167) = 12.92, p < .001, with older and middleaged adults scoring higher on this measure than the younger group. There were also significant age differences in level of education, F(2, 167) = 12.12, p < .001; the middle-aged group had more years of formal education than either the young or older adults. Although there was a significantly larger number of Caucasian participants relative to other ethnic origins, F(2, 167) = 34.04, p < .001, there were no significant differences between age groups. Approximately 72% of the participants in each age group were Caucasian. Individual health was assessed using a 4-point self-rated scale (1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, 4 = excellent). No significant age differences were found on this measure (overall M = 3.32, SD = 0.61). Materials and Procedure for Ranking of Strategies Testing occurred in a single session, with an average duration of just under two hours. Initially, participants completed a consent form, a demographic information sheet, and a verbal ability test. Next, with the stimuli produced in the preliminary studies described above, a hands-on sorting board and

231

Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:09 09 October 2014

EVERYDAY PROBLEM-SOLVING STRATEGY PREFERENCES

a paper-and-pencil follow-up questionnaire were used to rank perceived problem-solving effectiveness. Employing a technique utilized by Scheidt and Schaie (1978), the 73 strategies per vignette were adapted as a deck of cards, each card with one strategy. The value of 73 was chosen based on the number of strategies needed to approximate a quasi-normal curve for the Q-sort technique utilized in the primary study (Stephenson, 1953). There were 18 strategies within each of the four categories listed above, with the exception of the last one; 19 strategies were placed in the problemfocused/others-oriented category (in order to total 73). The top 18 (or 19) strategies were selected for inclusion as the stimuli for the primary study, based on endorsement by percentage of participants, with a range of 78 – 98% agreement. An average of 92% of the statements selected was in agreement with the experimenters’ category choice. There were 11 available categories into which the participants were to sort the possible strategies (see Table 3 for the frequency distribution). The ranking task was clearly explained to each participant, with specific attention given to defining the anchor points, the specific number of strategies allowed in each category, and the response continuum. The presentation of the four problem vignettes and their corresponding possible strategies was counterbalanced between participants to control for possible order effects. Each strategy was assigned a numerical score (ranging from 1 to 11) based on its placement from the participant’s sort. For example, a strategy placed in the least effective slot received a rating of 1, one in the middle slot was assigned a 6, and one chosen as most effective was given a score of 11. Once all 73 strategies had an assigned rating for each vignette, mean scores were calculated for each of the four categories (EFS, EFO, PFS, and PFO).

RESULTS None of the four individual difference measures, verbal ability, educational level, health rating, or ethnicity was a significant covariate; therefore, each was excluded from further analyses. Because a main effect of vignette was found, F(3, 501) = 16.97, p < .01, as well as low correlations between the four problem situations (" = .14), analyses of variance were performed individually on each of the four vignettes. These analyses were conducted in light of possible content-specific effects arising from inherent differences in the problem situations. As Berg (1989) found, strategy effectiveness can be highly dependent upon the content of the specific problem. For all analyses, when significant interaction effects were observed, post hoc univariate tests were conducted to assess simple effects as well as partial interaction contrasts. Given the number of post hoc analyses, we adjusted the criterion for significance using the Bonferroni adjustment. Age and Gender Differences in Strategy Focus and Orientation using the Four-Category Scheme In order to assess age differences in the fourcategory categorization scheme, we employed a 3 × 2 × 2 × 2 (Age × Gender × Strategy Focus × Personal Orientation) mixed-model design. Age and gender were the between-subjects factors; and focus of problem-solving strategy (emotionfocused and problem-focused) and personal orientation of the strategy (self-oriented and others-oriented) were the within-subject factors. The rankings of strategy effectiveness served as the dependent measure. Across vignettes, problem-focused strategies uniformly were preferred over emotion-focused, and others-oriented pre-

Table 3. Frequency Distribution used in the Q-sort. Least effective

Most effective

Rank/Score

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Frequency

2

3

5

8

12

13

12

8

5

3

2

Note. n = 73.

Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:09 09 October 2014

232

T.L. WATSON AND F. BLANCHARD-FIELDS

ferred over self-oriented. Gender effects indicated that men chose problem-focused and selforiented strategies to a greater degree than women. Contrary to our initial hypothesis, in half of the situations, older adults preferred problem-focused strategies significantly more than emotion-focused whereas the middle-aged and young individuals endorsed emotion-focused over problem-focused strategies. However, this may not tell the whole story. First, rarely in the real world does a person take a course of action based on a single strategy. Perhaps a more interesting question is: What combinations of categories do individuals choose? Second, we will see that an assessment of multiple dimensions of problem- and emotion-focused strategies yields a strikingly different conclusion. We will detail this in a later section. In order to further explore age and gender differences, the types of combinations of categories ranked as highly effective were examined. A pattern analysis of the two strategies ranked as most effective by each individual was conducted. These two strategies were the ones that received rankings of 11 (on a scale of 1 to 11) by the participant performing the Q-sort task of the 73 available strategies. All age groups endorsed PFO as one of the most effective strategy categories; that is, all participants selected PFO as one of their top two choices. However, older adults were significantly more likely to pair a problem-focused strategy with an emotion-focused strategy, unlike the middle-aged and young individuals who consistently paired two problem-focused strategies (see Table 4). Age and Gender Differences in Strategy Focus using the Expanded Categorization When we examined the combined use of strate-

gies, age differences appeared more in the endorsement of emotion-focused type of strategies on the part of older adults. Thus, we used the expanded strategy categorization to determine further what kind of emotion-focused strategies young, middle-aged, and older adults endorsed. In these analyses, differences in type of strategy focus only were examined; that is, personal orientation was eliminated from further analysis. In order to assess age or gender differences in the expanded category scheme, we employed a 3 × 2 × 10 (Age Group × Gender × Category Type) mixed-model design. Analyses of variance were conducted separately for the four vignettes. Age group and gender were the between-subject factors, and strategy category type was the within-subject factor. See Table 5 for age group means and standard deviations for all vignettes. Table 6 displays the means and standard deviations by gender. Apparent in both of these tables is the fact that more differences are found in the emotion-focused categories. Teen vignette No significant main effects were found; however, there were significant Age Group × Category Type, F(18, 1503) = 1.99, p < .01, and Gender × Category Type, F(9, 1512) = 3.52, p < .001, interactions. Overall, there were relatively few age differences for problem-focused strategies. Older adults endorsed Regulation/Inclusion of Others strategies more than the young and middle-aged adults. However, for emotion-focused strategies, older individuals chose Acceptance of Responsibility strategies more than the younger two age groups. Middle-aged participants ranked Avoidance/Denial/Escape higher than the young or older individuals. The young participants preferred Reflection on Emotions

Table 4. Combinations of Strategies Ranked as Two Most Effective. Age group Young Middle-aged Older

Teen

Relative

Spouse

Parent

PFO – PFO PFO – PFO PFO – PFO

PFS – PFO PFO – PFO EFO – PFO

PFS – PFO PFS – PFO EFO – PFO

PFO – PFO PFS – PFO EFO – PFO

Note. PFO = Problem-Focused/Others-Oriented; PFS = Problem-Focused/Self-Oriented; EFO = Emotion-Focused/Others-Oriented.

233

EVERYDAY PROBLEM-SOLVING STRATEGY PREFERENCES

Table 5. Expanded Categorization Scheme: Significant Age Group Differences in Strategy Rankings.

Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:09 09 October 2014

Young

Teen vignette Emotion-focused ADE AR RE Problem-focused RIO Relative vignette Emotion-focused AR MRS SSS Problem-focused –––– Spouse vignette Emotion-focused ADE AR MRC MRS RE Problem-focused CA Parent vignette Emotion-focused ADE MRC MRS PD SSS Problem-focused CA

Middle-aged

Older

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

5.44 4.66 6.02d

0.31 0.20 0.51

6.12c 5.15 5.57

0.41 0.74 0.22

5.40 6.52a 5.42

0.25 0.28 0.36

4.98

0.29

5.69

0.39

6.77a

0.32

4.66 4.19 5.32

0.20 0.35 0.11

5.13 4.38 6.33c

0.25 0.31 0.45

6.88a 6.42a 5.13

0.34 0.45 0.56

5.29 4.04 7.14d 4.12 5.01

0.41 0.33 0.10 0.11 0.43

6.47c 5.89b 5.23 6.20b 5.77c

0.21 0.52 0.26 0.43 0.29

5.55 6.02b 4.88 6.52b 5.19

0.50 0.35 0.42 0.21 0.26

5.98d

0.34

5.14

0.55

5.00

0.21

4.93 6.33d 3.97 5.33 5.59

0.37 0.40 0.13 0.29 0.23

5.59c 5.11 4.03 5.01 6.88c

0.48 0.31 0.44 0.33 0.29

5.11 4.97 6.33a 6.74a 5.22

0.31 0.12 0.20 0.26 0.21

5.43e

0.17

5.39e

0.21

4.29

0.39

Note: Scores range from 1 (least effective) to 11 (most effective). Only categories with significant age differences are displayed, all at p < .05. CA = Cognitive Analysis; RIO = Regulation/Inclusion of Others; ADE = Avoidance/ Denial/Escape; MRC = Managing Reactions through Confrontive Emotion Coping; MRS = Managing Reactions through Suppression; PD = Passive/Dependent; RE = Reflection on Emotions; AR = Acceptance of Responsibility; and SSS = Seek Social Support. a Older greater than middle-aged and young. b Older and middle-aged greater than young. c Middle-aged greater than young and older. d Young greater than middle-aged and older. e Young and middle-aged greater than older.

strategies more often than the middle-aged or older adults. No significant gender differences were found for the problem-focused categories. However, for the emotion-focused categories, women endorsed Reflection on Emotions strategies more than men whereas men ranked strategies in the categories Acceptance of Responsi-

bility and Managing Reactions through Suppression of Emotions higher than women. Relative vignette An Age Group × Category Type, F(18, 1503) = 2.14, p < .01, significant interaction was found. No significant age differences were found for

234

T.L. WATSON AND F. BLANCHARD-FIELDS

Table 6. Expanded Categorization Scheme: Significant Gender Differences in Strategy Rankings.

Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:09 09 October 2014

Men

Teen vignette Emotion-focused AR MRS RE Problem-focused –––– Relative vignette Emotion-focused ADE AR MRS RE SSS Problem-focused –––– Spouse vignette Emotion-focused ADE AR RE Problem-focused PPS Parent vignette Emotion-focused ADE SSS Problem-focused PPS

Women

M

SD

M

SD

6.72 6.52 6.02

0.11 0.39 0.51

5.75 5.12 7.02

0.61 0.21 0.16

4.66 5.83 5.39 3.66 5.32

0.20 0.39 0.55 0.20 0.11

5.56 5.01 4.02 5.13 6.33

0.36 0.61 0.41 0.25 0.45

4.20 5.78 5.08

0.51 0.21 0.31

6.09 4.22 7.19

0.67 0.23 0.20

6.27

0.54

3.77

0.42

4.33 5.59

0.48 0.23

5.44 6.88

0.59 0.29

7.33

0.29

5.02

0.34

Note: Scores range from 1 (least effective) to 11 (most effective). Only categories with significant age differences are displayed, all at p < .05. PPS = Planful Problem Solving; ADE = Avoidance/Denial/Escape; MRS = Managing Reactions through Suppression; RE = Reflection on Emotions; AR = Acceptance of Responsibility; and SSS = Seek Social Support.

the problem-focused categories. Age differences were detected for the following emotion-focused strategies. Older adults preferred Acceptance of Responsibility and Managing Reactions through Suppression of Emotions strategies more than the younger two age groups. Middle-aged participants ranked Seek Social Support higher than the young or older participants. Significant main effects of gender (p < .01) and category type (p < .001) were found, further qualified by a Gender × Category Type, F(9, 1512) = 3.45, p < .001, interaction. Again, no significant gender differences were found for the

problem-focused categories. However, women ranked the strategies in the emotion-focused categories of Avoidance/Denial/Escape, Reflection on Emotions, and Seek Social Support higher than men. As with the teen vignette, men were more likely than women to endorse Acceptance of Responsibility and Managing Reactions through Suppression of Emotions strategies. Spouse vignette There was a significant age group main effect (p < .05), as well as an Age Group × Category Type, F(18, 1503) = 3.83, p < .001, significant

Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:09 09 October 2014

EVERYDAY PROBLEM-SOLVING STRATEGY PREFERENCES

interaction. As with the previous two vignettes, there were relatively few differences in use of the problem-focused strategies, with the one exception of the young participants ranking Cognitive Analysis strategies higher than the older age groups. For the emotion-focused categories, older and middle-aged adults preferred Acceptance of Responsibility and Managing Reactions through Suppression of Emotions strategies more than individuals in the youngest age group. Middleaged participants also ranked Avoidance/ Denial/Escape and Reflection on Emotions strategies significantly higher than the young individuals. The young participants chose Managing Reactions through Confrontive Emotion Coping strategies much more often than the middle-aged or older adults. Additionally, a Gender × Category Type, F(9, 1512) = 3.45, p < .001, significant interaction was found. Men ranked strategies in the problem-focused category of Planful Problem Solving higher than women; they selected Acceptance of Responsibility strategies more often in the emotion-focused category. Women endorsed Avoidance/Denial/Escape, Passive/ Dependent, and Seek Social Support emotionfocused strategies more than men. Parent vignette Age group (p < .001), gender (p < .05), and category type (p < .001) yielded significant main effects. In addition, Age Group × Category Type, F(18, 1503) = 4.89, p < .001, and Gender × Category Type, F(9, 1512) = 1.81, p < .05, significant interactions were found. For the problem-focused categories, Cognitive Analysis was selected more by the middle-aged and young participants than the older participants. Consistent with the other vignettes, the majority of age differences occurred for the emotion-focused strategies. Older adults endorsed strategies in the categories of Managing Reactions through Suppression of Emotions and Passive/ Dependent more than the middle-aged and young individuals. Middle-aged participants once more ranked Avoidance/Denial/Escape and

235

Seek Social Support higher than the young or older individuals. The young adults again ranked Managing Reactions through Confrontive Emotion Coping significantly higher than the two older age groups. Men were more likely than women to choose the problem-focused category of Planful Problem Solving. Consistent with most of the other vignettes, women endorsed the emotion-focused Avoidance/Denial/Escape and Seek Social Support strategies more than men. Summary of Analyses using the Expanded Categorization Scheme Several common age group and gender differences emerged when examining these data using the expanded ten-category scheme. As hypothesized, few significant age differences were found in use of the problem-focused strategies, with two exceptions: young individuals preferred Cognitive Analysis strategies more than the senior age groups; and the older participants endorsed Regulation/Inclusion of Others more than their junior participants. By far, most of the significant age differences appeared in the degree of endorsement of emotion-focused strategies. With respect to emotion-focused categories, older adults were more likely to endorse Acceptance of Responsibility and Manage Reactions through Suppression strategies than participants in the younger two groups. Avoidance/Denial/ Escape strategies were highly ranked for all vignettes by the middle-aged adults. The young individuals preferred strategies in the Manage Reactions through Confrontive Emotion Coping category, especially for the vignettes with a high degree of socio-emotional conflict (e.g. placement of a parent in a nursing home), more than participants in the older two age groups. Gender effects indicated that men were more likely than women to endorse the problem-focused category of Planful Problem Solving and the emotionfocused Acceptance of Responsibility strategies. Women chose strategies in the emotion-focused categories of Avoidance/Denial/Escape and Seek Social Support to a greater degree than men.

236

T.L. WATSON AND F. BLANCHARD-FIELDS

Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:09 09 October 2014

DISCUSSION Age- and gender-related differences in everyday problem-solving strategies were examined within a social context, specifically within the domain of family relations. This study explored the effects of focus and personal orientation of strategy on perceived problem-solving effectiveness in everyday problem situations, using two categorization schemes. One scheme consisted of four broadly defined, global categories of strategies, crossing emotion-focused and problem-focused with self-oriented and others-oriented. In an attempt to get an additional, more detailed assessment of the responses, an expanded ten-category coding scheme was also utilized. We will discuss both series of analyses in turn. Age Differences in Global Measures of Emotion-Focused and Problem-Focused Strategies Overall, all participants preferred problem-focused over emotion-focused, and others-oriented over self-oriented strategies. These results are consistent with previous research (e.g., Blanchard-Fields et al., 1995) which suggests that individuals, in general, are less comfortable evoking emotional responses, and are more willing to deal with only the problem itself. An age group difference of particular interest appeared in the combination of strategies ranked as the two most effective. Middle-aged and young individuals consistently chose only PFO and PFS strategies as their most preferred responses. In contrast, with three of the four vignettes older adults paired one PFO strategy with an EFO strategy. Perhaps this pattern of responding on the part of older adults, which includes both instrumental and emotion-regulation strategies, suggests a broader and more flexible style of responding that is sensitive to situational variation. As Labouvie-Vief (1991) asserts, with adulthood comes the ability to integrate rational, analytic modes of thinking with more contextually embedded thoughts and feelings. Transition throughout adulthood appears to bring an enhanced understanding of the contextual and reflexive nature of thinking, enabling

individuals with the ability to consider multiple aspects of a problem situation, including the degree of emotional context. Thus, even though everyone’s primary focus is directed toward solving the problem, older adults possess a broad repertoire of problem-solving strategies and are more willing to choose emotionally regulative strategies (at least in conjunction with problem-focused strategies) if the situation warrants it. Age Differences in Expanded Categorization of Emotion-Focused and Problem-Focused Strategies Use of the ten-category scheme allowed for more fine-grained analyses of strategy types, particularly with respect to the emotion-focused categories. In the situations which could be considered more instrumental (for instance, dealing with a teenager’s disruptive use of the family car), the older adults endorsed strategies regulating the situation and more responsible in nature (e.g., ‘‘forbid the teen from using the car until they agree to the parent’s rules’’). This concurs with the Blanchard-Fields, Chen and Norris (1997) finding that older adults used more problem-focused styles in an instrumental situation, such as being a consumer. Middle-aged adults tended to use more avoidant, less direct strategies (e.g., ‘‘don’t pay any attention to this behavior and it will probably go away’’), perhaps in a farsighted, nonoverreactive approach. The young participants seemed to strongly identify with the teenager in this particular vignette, yielding a reflective approach to emotion-focused strategies (e.g., ‘‘try to remember what it was like when you were a teenager and don’t get too upset’’). Considering that many of the study’s young college-aged participants were still in their teens, this is not too difficult to understand. More pronounced differences occurred with the vignettes that involve more interpersonal conflict (e.g., spousal infidelity). A stark contrast appeared between the young and the two senior groups in the strategies chosen to manage reactions. The older adults were more suppressed in their styles (e.g., ‘‘don’t let the spouse see the pain they’ve caused’’). In con-

Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:09 09 October 2014

EVERYDAY PROBLEM-SOLVING STRATEGY PREFERENCES

trast, the young participants clearly endorsed a confrontive approach (e.g., ‘‘let the spouse know this situation is causing you great distress’’ and ‘‘share the hurt feelings about the affair with the spouse’’) whereas the middleaged adults used more avoidant strategies (e.g., ‘‘take a vacation alone to get away from the situation’’). In concert with earlier findings, most differences emerged with the emotion-focused categories. Indeed, there were few age- or gender-related disparities in the degree of endorsement of problem-focused strategies. Generalizing across problem situations, older adults were more likely to prefer strategies lower in outward affective reaction, such as suppression of emotional response, acceptance of responsibility, and passive dependency. Older adults endorsed more passive-dependent strategies than younger individuals, especially in situations greater in interpersonal conflict. This may be more adaptive an approach than it first appears. As Lawton and associates point out, older adults have a greater preference for strategies that abate negative emotional arousal given the potential for increases in stressors and decreases in resources with advancing age (Lawton, Kleban, Rajagopal, & Dean, 1992). Additionally, in our present society, older individuals are frequently channeled into and then forced to remain in dependent positions. For instance, Baltes (1988) found nursing home staff (with seemingly good intentions) regularly rewarded, and thereby reinforced, dependent behavior by the residents. Thus, the question of whether passive dependency in some situations is a mark of sagacity or merely resultant from everyday social shaping remains an issue. Somewhat different in response, middle-aged individuals tended to choose strategies that created some distance from them and the problem. Are the middle-aged individuals just escaping from common less-than-pleasant aspects of life during our complicated times? Or is this type of avoidant behavior quite adaptive for someone in this age group who is likely to be inundated from all sides with everyday problems concerning all domains of living (e.g., work, immediate family, extended family, financial concerns, etc.)?

237

In contrast to the two elder age groups, the young individuals were much more willing to address both the problem and its associated emotions in more direct, even confrontational, ways. Perhaps at this early life stage, the typical young adult has not yet learned the wisdom of ‘‘pick your battles carefully.’’ From a more positive perspective, the young individuals could be viewed as being more capable of experiencing and releasing their emotions, and perhaps in a cathartic manner, helping to reduce the danger of potential explosions of pent-up feelings later. Also, young adults preferred cognitive analysis strategies more than the other age groups. This could make sense in that cognitive and analytic strategies are more conspicuously relevant in an academic context, more likely salient to the young, primarily college-aged group. As is evident from this discussion there are a number of interpretations that can be made from these findings. In addition to the age effects highlighted here, we must also consider the possibility of cohort effects, one potential consequence of a cross-sectional study such as this one. For instance, it could be argued that older adults’ preference for accepting responsibility may be related to generational values rather than age-related shifts per se. Studies employing longitudinal designs could help tease apart issues such as this. Also, further refinement of strategies and more quantifiable methods for judging participants’ choices will help in the future in better explaining the age differences that are found. Gender Differences Some gender differences were apparent in all situations, but more so in the interpersonal situations in which conflict was likely. Not too surprisingly, women tended to be less confrontive and less self-centered in their approach. Consistent with research by Nolen-Hoeksema (1990), women were more likely than men to experience negative feelings and to seek help. This was especially true for the middle-aged women who, as members of the ‘‘sandwich generation,’’ are likely to have more personal and home responsibilities in addition to full-time work duties (Jorm, 1987; Nolen-Hoeksema, 1990).

Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:09 09 October 2014

238

T.L. WATSON AND F. BLANCHARD-FIELDS

Men were more likely to respond with actionoriented, address-the-problem-now strategies (often in the form of retaliation) whereas women turned to outside sources for support. For example, with the spousal infidelity vignette, men were much more fatalistic in their approach, with marriage-ending behaviors endorsed (e.g., ‘‘have the spouse move out permanently’’). Women, on the other hand, were more interested in working it out together (e.g., ‘‘seek couples’ counseling’’). Indeed, in three of the four problem situations, women were more likely to seek social support in dealing with the emotions elicited (e.g., ‘‘seek support from the clergy’’). Men, especially middle-aged and older, may be more likely to construe asking for support as a sign of weakness, and therefore tend to gravitate toward more planful problem solving (e.g., ‘‘file for divorce immediately’’), and emotional suppression and acceptance of personal responsibility types of strategies (e.g., ‘‘realize this is your problem and you have to deal with it’’). This agrees with the notion that a man is more likely to take charge of the situation himself, whereas a woman may look to outside sources for assistance (Jorm, 1987). As Cramer (1979) states, women are more likely to adopt affiliative roles, looking to their social support systems in times of need more than men do. Conclusions These findings strike an interesting chord in attempting to understand the complexities of problem solving in everyday settings. On the one hand, few age differences appeared in broad classes of emotion-focused and problem-focused strategies preferred. However, notable differences occurred in the particular kinds of strategies preferred within these two categories, especially as the situational context varied. This provides support for the notion that everyday problem-solving competence is a multidimensional construct (Marsiske & Willis, 1995), and one which is heavily influenced by contextual factors.

It is necessary to note some of the limitations of the present study for interpreting age and gender differences in everyday problem solving. First, contrary to our expectations, there was a lack of strong relationship between the vignettes. Thus, participants could have individualized relationships to these particular vignettes along noncontrolled dimensions (e.g., age relevance, personal familiarity with a similar situation, degree of negative feelings elicited, etc.). Further refinement of the problem vignettes could help reduce the likelihood of these confounds. However, it may not be simply the case that situational specificity in responding can be eliminated. Individualized social schemas may play a role in this type of everyday problem solving (Blanchard-Fields, 1996). As BlanchardFields (1996) concludes, content specificity across vignettes arises because of individual differences in the content of such beliefs and value systems. In addition, the relevance and strength of social schemas elicited in different types of interpersonal situations may be important factors in understanding when adults will engage in complex, in-depth reasoning about a situation, and when they will rely on automatically activated rules or heuristics. Second, unlike the four-category scheme, the ten categories were not equally distributed among the problemsolving strategies, given that it was a post hoc application. Thus, the findings based on the expanded scheme are exploratory in nature, yet provide a promising direction for future investigation. Third, the samples used for these studies primarily consisted of middle-class, well-educated individuals of Caucasian ethnic background. This may be considered acceptable for one of the purposes of this study: to establish the viability of a new, complex scoring scheme. Nonetheless, a cautionary note should be made when attempting to generalize these results to a larger, more diversified population. In conclusion, the unique contributions of this study were development and application of a comprehensive scoring scheme, coupled with the robust Q-sort method using a large, representative sample of strategies. The findings from this study support the tenet that emotion plays an important role in the process of solving ev-

EVERYDAY PROBLEM-SOLVING STRATEGY PREFERENCES

Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:09 09 October 2014

eryday problems, especially when viewed at the situation-specific level. Issues remain to be explored regarding exactly how focus and personal orientation of a problem-solving strategy affect perceived effectiveness, independent of contextual factors of the situation. Future research is needed to further tease apart the influence emotion has on cognitive functioning, and in particular, how that influence differs by gender and is shaped across the life span.

REFERENCES Baltes, M.M. (1988). The etiology and maintenance of dependency in the elderly: Three phases of operant research. Behavior Therapy, 19, 301-319. Berg, C. A. (1989). Knowledge of strategies for dealing with everyday problems from childhood through adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 25, 607-618. Berg, C. A., & Calderone, K. S. (1994). The role of problem interpretations in understanding the development of everyday problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence (pp. 105-132). New York: Cambridge University Press. Berg, C., Klaczynski, P., Calderone, K., & Strough, J. (1994). Adult age differences in cognitive strategies: Adaptive or deficient? In J. Sinnott (Ed.), Handbook of adult lifespan learning (pp. 317-388). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Blanchard-Fields, F. (1986). Reasoning on social dilemmas varying in emotional relevance: An adult developmental perspective. Psychology and Aging, 1, 325-333. Blanchard-Fields, F. (1994). Age differences in causal attributions from an adult development perspective. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 49, 43-51. Blanchard-Fields, F. (1996). Causal attributions across the adult life span: The influence of social schemas, life context, and domain specificity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 137-146. Blanchard-Fields, F., & Camp, C., (1990). Affect, individual differences, and real world problem solving across the adult life span. In T. Hess (Ed.), Aging and cognition: Knowledge organization and utilization (pp. 461-497). Amsterdam: North Holland. Blanchard-Fields, F., Chen, Y., & Norris, L. (1997). Everyday problem solving across the adult life span: Influence of domain-specificity and cognitive appraisal. Psychology and Aging, 12, 684-693.

239

Blanchard-Fields, F., & Irion, J. (1987). Coping strategies from the perspective of two developmental markers: Age and social reasoning. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 149, 141-151. Blanchard-Fields, F., Jahnke, H., & Camp, C. (1995). Age differences in problem solving style: the role of emotional salience. Psychology and Aging, 10, 173-180. Blanchard-Fields, F., & Watson, T. L., (1997, May). Age differences in interpersonal problem-solving strategies: The role of emotional salience. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC. Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: Support for socioemotional Selectivity Theory. Psychology and Aging, 7, 331338. Carstensen, L. L., & Turk-Charles, S. (1994). The salience of emotion across the adult life span. Psychology and Aging, 9, 259-264. Cramer, P. (1979). Defense mechanisms in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 15, 476-477. Denney, N. W. (1989). Everyday problem solving: Methodological issues, research findings and a model. In L. W. Poon, D. C. Rubin, & B. A. Wilson (Eds.), Everyday cognition in adulthood and later life (pp. 330-351). New York: Cambridge University Press. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Pimley, S., & Novacek, J. (1987). Age differences in stress and coping processes. Psychology and Aging, 2, 171-184. Jorm, A. F. (1987). Sex and age differences in depression: A quantitative synthesis of published research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 21, 46-53. Labouvie-Vief, G. (1991). Modes of knowledge and the organization of development. In M. L. Commons, C. Armon, L. Kohlberg, F. A. Richards, T. Grotzer, & J. D. Sinnott (Eds.), Adult development, Vol 2: Models and methods in the study of adolescent and adult thought (pp. 43-62). New York: Praeger. Labouvie-Vief, G., DeVoe, M., & Bulka, D. (1989). Speaking about feelings: Conceptions of emotion across the life span. Psychology and Aging, 4, 425437. Labouvie-Vief, G., Hakim-Larson, J., & Hobart, C. J. (1987). Age, ego level, and the life-span development of coping and defense processes. Psychology and Aging, 2, 286-293. Lawton, M. P., Kleban, M. H., & Dean, J. (1993). Affect and age: Cross-sectional comparisons of structure and prevalences. Psychology and Aging, 8, 165-175. Lawton, M.P., Kleban, M.H., Rajagopal, D., & Dean, J. (1992). Dimensions of affective experience in

240

T.L. WATSON AND F. BLANCHARD-FIELDS

Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:09 09 October 2014

three age groups. Psychology and Aging, 7, 171184. Marsiske, M., & Willis, S. (1995). Dimensionality of everyday problem solving in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 10, 269-283. Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1990). Sex differences in depression. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Puckett, J. M., Reese, H. W., Cohen, S. H., & Pollina, L. K. (1991). Age differences versus age deficits in laboratory tasks: The role of research in everyday cognition. In J. D. Sinnott & J. C. Cavanaugh

(Eds.), Bridging paradigms: Positive development in adulthood and cognitive aging (pp. 113-130). New York: Praeger. Scheidt, R. J., & Schaie, K. W. (1978). A taxonomy of situations for an elderly population: Generating situational criteria. Journal of Gerontology, 33, 848-857. Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Qtechnique and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago.