Paper Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Age-Differences-In-Everyday-Problem-Sol 👈

1. Age differences in everyday problem
solving: The role of problem context
Wendy Loken Thornton,1
Theone S. E. Paterson1
and
Sophie E. Yeung1
Abstract
Reductions in everyday problem solving (EPS) are often reported in older age, although it has been suggested that problem context may
modify this effect. We evaluated the impact of two aspects of problem context: age appropriateness (age-neutral vs. older-age content) and
problem type (interpersonal vs. practical) on EPS performance in 175 adults aged 18–87. Older adults generated fewer solutions to
ill-structured EPS vignettes than younger and middle-aged adults. Middle-aged adults demonstrated an advantage on practical problems.
While all age groups demonstrated a relative performance advantage for interpersonal content on older age problems, older adults
showed the least relative benefit in this condition. Thus older adults do not exhibit relative performance gains on EPS problems designed
to be most salient and relevant to this age group.
Keywords
applied cognition, cognition, executive function, life course and developmental change, problem solving
Cognitive declines are often reported on traditional laboratory
measures of problem solving and memory in later life; however,
questions remain regarding to what extent and under what
conditions everyday problem solving (EPS) may be robust to the
effects of age. In contrast to traditional approaches for assessing
cognition, EPS tasks are designed to assess the ability to solve
specific problematic situations that are representative of what one
might face in daily life (Denney, 1990). While there are several
approaches to the study of EPS in adulthood, attempts to consoli-
date this literature (Marsiske & Margrett, 2006; Thornton &
Dumke, 2005) have provided robust evidence for age differences
favouring younger adults on EPS performance measures, which
emphasize the fluency, accuracy, and/or effectiveness of partici-
pants’ responses. These EPS performance measures include
well-structured problems (for which the initial state and desired
end-state are provided; e.g., Allaire & Marsiske, 1999), ill-
structured vignettes (requiring the generation of multiple safe and
effective solutions to open-ended problems; e.g. Denney & Pearce,
1989), and those emphasizing the accuracy/effectiveness of the
generated solution/s (e.g., Crawford & Channon, 2002). In contrast,
methods that allow participants to rate their own perceived
problem-solving approach (e.g., Cornelius & Caspi, 1987), or
emphasize qualitative aspects of the problem approach (e.g., Berg,
Strough, Calderone, Sansone, & Weir, 1998), often yield different
pictures of EPS in later life (for reviews, see Marsiske & Margrett,
2006; Thornton & Dumke, 2005).
In the current study, we examine the influence of contextual
factors on EPS performance using an ill-structured vignette task,
on which age differences favouring younger adults are typically
reported (see Marsiske & Margrett, 2006; Thornton & Dumke,
2005). These measures approximate ‘‘real-world’’ problem solving
by requiring the participant to generate spontaneous, safe and effec-
tive solutions to common problems as they emerge. Importantly,
there is increasing evidence linking performance on these EPS
measures to real-world outcomes. For example, performance using
ill-structured EPS measures predicts quality of life in older adults
beyond that accounted for by traditional cognitive tasks (Gilhooly
et al., 2007). Furthermore, performance on these measures is a
unique predictor of life skills functioning (Thornton, Kristinsson,
DeFreitas, & Thornton, 2010), and a better predictor of medication
adherence (Gelb, Shapiro & Thornton, 2010) than traditional
cognitive measures. Similarly, in older adults, performance on
well-structured EPS performance measures explains unique var-
iance in self-rated functioning (Allaire & Marsiske, 2002), and is
predictive of increased risk of mortality (Allaire & Willis, 2006;
Weatherbee & Allaire, 2008). Given the importance of effective
problem solving in maintaining independence and quality of
life, it is critical to determine the factors associated with optimal
EPS performance.
EPS performance in context
It has been suggested that experience and accumulated knowledge
in later life may bolster everyday cognition when the to-be-solved
problem is familiar and relevant to the older adult (Baltes, 1993)
and that increasing value is placed on emotionally meaningful rela-
tionships in later life (Carstensen & Mikels, 2005). Within this
framework, one may predict that older adults have more experience
with and greater affinity for interpersonal problems, and this may
translate into context-specific EPS performance gains. Findings
from studies examining age differences in strategy selection appear
to support this contention (e.g., Blanchard-Fields, 2007; Blanchard-
1
Simon Fraser University, Canada
Corresponding author:
Wendy J. L. Thornton, Simon Fraser University, Department of Psychology,
8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia V5A 1S6, Canada.
Email: wthornto@sfu.ca
International Journal of
Behavioral Development
37(1) 13–20
ª The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0165025412454028
ijbd.sagepub.com

2. Fields, Mienaltowski, & Seay, 2007); however, findings from studies
using performance-based measures are less clear. For example,
previous studies have comparedage differencesinsolution generation
on interpersonal (e.g., social predicaments) and practical EPS prob-
lems (e.g., household repairs), and have reported worse performance
in older adults in both domains (Heidrich & Denney, 1994; Strough,
McFall, Flinn, & Schuller, 2008). Nonetheless, a meta-analysis of this
literature found that age differences on EPS performance measures
were attenuated (but not eliminated) when the problem type reflected
interpersonal as compared to practical concerns (Thornton &
Dumke, 2005). Thus while absolute EPS performance may not be
equivalent across age regardless of problem domain, the question
remains whether older adults demonstrate relative performance
gains for interpersonal problems on performance-based measures.
The age-appropriateness of the to-be-solved problem has also
been suggested as a potential modifier of age differences on EPS
performance measures. Researchers have postulated that perfor-
mance gains should be evident in later life when the problem
context reflects age-appropriate concerns (e.g., retirement, widow-
hood), although findings are disparate. While some authors report
worse EPS performance (as indexed by solution generation) in later
life despite using older-age problems (Denney & Pearce, 1989;
Denney, Pearce, & Palmer, 1982), others report an advantage for
older adults using age-appropriate problems (Artistico, Cervone, &
Pezzuti, 2003). One explanation for these disparities may be that
previous studies have typically confounded the age-appropriate and
interpersonal domains in their problem sets, precluding the ability
to examine each domain separately. Thus while there is evidence
suggesting that problem domain may prove an important modifier
of age differences on EPS performance measures, we are aware of
no study to date that has systematically manipulated the impact of
both age-appropriateness and problem type.
Another important question involves how EPS performance in
mid-life may be affected by problem context. Several studies have
reported that EPS performance (as indexed by solution generation)
peaks in middle age, followed by a decline in later years (Denny &
Palmer, 1981; Denney & Pearce, 1989; Denney et al., 1982),
although this trend is not universally reported (see Thornton &
Dumke, 2005). It is often presumed that EPS is compiled from basic
mental abilities that tend to decline in later life (Marsiske & Willis,
1995), and this view is supported by associations between perfor-
mances on everyday and traditional psychometric measures of
memory, working memory, and executive functioning (e.g., Allaire
& Marsiske, 1999; Kirasic, Allen, Dobson, & Binder, 1996;
Thornton, Deria, Gelb, Hill, & Shapiro, 2007). Thus the increase
in EPS performance reported in some middle-aged samples has
been attributed to the additive effects of experience in solving
everyday problems and the relative preservation of cognitive capa-
cities (Denney, 1990). We have previously shown that performance
on traditional neuropsychological measures (i.e., memory/execu-
tive functioning and vocabulary/verbal fluency) partially (but not
fully) mediates the associations between age and EPS (Thornton
et al., 2007). Therefore we assessed whether age differences across
problem context were maintained after statistically controlling for
performance on traditional cognitive measures.
Current aims
Using ill-structured vignettes derived from the extant literature, we
evaluated the impact of two aspects of problem context,
age-appropriateness (age-neutral vs. older-age content), and problem
type (interpersonal vs. practical concerns) on EPS performance in
younger, middle-aged, and older adults. We predicted that, while
older adults would generate fewer EPS solutions overall than either
younger or middle-aged adults, they would show enhanced perfor-
mance gains (i.e., a relatively greater number of safe and effective
solutions) on the very problems presumed to be most salient to older
adults (older-age interpersonal problems), and greater relative perfor-
mance costs (i.e., generate fewer solutions) on the problems pre-
sumed least salient (age-neutral practical problems). Toward these
ends, we first developed our protocol by having younger and older
adults rate EPS vignettes taken from the extant literature along these
dimensions. We then addressed whether adult age differences in EPS
performance were impacted by these contextual factors in a new
sample of 175 participants.
Method
Participants
We recruited middle-aged (ages 51–64) and older adults (ages
65–87) through advertisements at community centres throughout
the greater Vancouver, British Columbia (BC) area. Younger
participants (ages 18–30) were recruited though the Simon Fraser
University (SFU) undergraduate participant pool. To ensure that
participants could adequately comprehend the testing protocol,
exclusion criteria included a history of major illnesses with known
direct central nervous system (CNS) effects, previously identified
cognitive impairments (e.g., diagnosis of dementia), a current diag-
nosis of a major psychiatric illness, or visual acuity less than 20/50.
The protocol was approved by the SFU research ethics board, and
all participants provided written consent. Information regarding
demographic characteristics and mean performances on the vari-
ables of interest is presented in Table 1.
Materials
EPS task. A preliminary aim was to identify a set of problems that
could represent the problem-solving domains of interest. To
develop our protocol, we contacted 20 older adults who had
participated in previous studies in our lab (mean age ¼ 73.05,
SD ¼ 8.75), and asked them to answer a series of questions based
upon a set of ill-structured EPS vignettes that have been used exten-
sively in adult developmental studies of EPS (Artistico et al., 2003;
Denney & Palmer, 1981; Denney & Pearce, 1989; Haught, Hill,
Nardi, & Walls, 2000; Haught & Walls, 2007; Marsiske & Willis,
1995). Twenty younger participants were recruited using the
university undergraduate participant pool (mean age ¼ 19.35,
SD ¼ 1.18). Years of education did not differ significantly between
younger (M ¼ 14.35, SD ¼ 1.18) and older adults (M ¼ 14.60,
SD ¼ 2.10), and the gender distributions were equivalent. Older
participants were contacted via letter and asked to rate 20 problem
vignettes along five dimensions: (a) ‘‘In your opinion, how impor-
tant would this problem be in a person’ s life?’’; (b) ‘‘How impor-
tant would this problem be to you?’’; (c) ‘‘How often have you had
to deal with a similar problem in your own life?’’; (d) ‘‘In your
opinion, what age group would more commonly face this prob-
lem?’’; and (e) ‘‘In your opinion, does this problem reflect more
of a practical (e.g., household/mechanical oriented) or social
(e.g., relationship/caregiver oriented) concern?’’ Participants
responded on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5
(very much) for questions (a) through (c). Responses for question
14 International Journal of Behavioral Development 37(1)

3. (d) ranged from 1 (younger adults only) to 5 (older adults only).
Responses for question (e) ranged from 1 (completely practical)
to 5 (completely social). Younger adults were tested either individu-
ally or in small groups in the Cognitive Aging Laboratory at SFU.
We then examined mean ratings to determine a subset of 16
from the original 20 problems with four from each category of
interest. For question (d), it was clear that few problems were rated
as primarily ‘‘younger adult’’ problems. Rather, responses differen-
tiated best between age-neutral problems (‘‘occurs equally at
any age’’) and older-age problems. Ratings were compared using
independent and paired samples t-tests. Older-age problems were
rated as more likely to be faced by older adults (M ¼ 3.90,
SD ¼ .24) than were age-neutral problems (M ¼ 3.14, SD ¼ .25;
t(39) ¼ 15.90, p < .001), and the magnitude of this difference was
large (d ¼ 3.10; Cohen, 1992). Furthermore, problems identified as
having a practical focus (M ¼ 2.25, SD ¼ .42) were rated differ-
ently than those identified as interpersonal (M ¼ 4.05, SD ¼ .48;
t(39) ¼ 18.34, p < .001) and the magnitude of this difference was
also large (d ¼ 4.00; Cohen, 1992). These differences were
maintained in both younger and older participants (all ps < .001).
Older participants rated all problem domains as more important
both generally and personally than did younger participants (all
ps < .05). Older and younger participants did not differ in their
ratings of personal experience with problem domains. Mean ratings
for each problem type are available upon request. The EPS task
used for the current study consisted of the 16 paper-and-pencil
vignettes drawn from the preliminary study. We used four problems
which showed the highest discrimination from within each of four
categories: (a) age-neutral practical; (b) age-neutral interpersonal;
(c) older-age practical; and (d) older-age interpersonal. The final
problem set for each condition is presented in the Appendix.
Measures of neuropsychological functioning. Verbal
memory was measured with the California Verbal Learning
Test—2 (CVLT-II; Delis, Kramer, Kaplan, & Ober, 2000), which
assesses learning over repeated trials, susceptibility to memory inter-
ference, and delayed verbal memory. Executive functioning mea-
sures were the trail making, colour-word interference and category
fluency subtests of the Delis-Kaplan Executive Functioning System
(D-KEFS; Delis, Kaplan, & Kramer, 2001), which examine three
aspects of executive functioning: mental set shifting, cognitive inhi-
bition, and response monitoring (Miyake et al., 2000). Vocabulary
was assessed with the Vocabulary (V-2) and Extended Range Voca-
bulary (V-3) subtests from the ETS kit (Ekstrom, Harmon, & Der-
man, 1976).
Procedures
All participants were tested individually in a two-hour session at
local libraries, community centres, or the SFU Cognitive Aging
Laboratory. Middle-aged and older participants received monetary
compensation for their time and travel, and younger participants
received course credit that was predetermined and not influenced
by actual time on task. The measures were administered and scored
by trained research assistants according to standardized procedures.
One problem was presented per page, and problems were randomly
ordered. Two versions of the problem sets were created (version 2
presented the second half of the problem set first), and test version
was randomly assigned to participants. None of the participants
involved in rating the initial items in the preliminary study were
involved in the main study of 175 adults. Participants were asked
to read each problem carefully and to write down as many solutions
as possible, even if it was a solution that they themselves would not
adopt. Participants were given no time limits for completion of this
task, and few took longer than the time allotted for the full assess-
ment (two hours).
The scoring criteria for the EPS task were devised (Denney &
Pearce, 1989) and adapted by previous authors (Marsiske & Willis,
1995) to incorporate both an individual’s wealth and quality of
ideas. To receive a point, a solution had to satisfy the following cri-
teria: (1) dealt directly with the problem at hand; (2) safe for all
individuals involved in the problem; and (3) effective in resolving
the problem for both the short and long term. The total number
of conceptually distinct safe and effective solutions generated by
each participant for each problem was combined into a total EPS
score. In our laboratory, inter-rater agreement using these criteria
was determined to be very high (ric ¼ .96). The percentage of safe
and effective solutions as compared to total number of solutions
generated (pure fluency) was comparable between middle-aged
(M ¼ 85%, SD ¼ .05) and older participants (M ¼ 88%,
SD ¼ .05; p nonsignificant [n.s.]), whereas the percentage was
lower for younger participants than either of the older age groups
(M ¼ 82%, SD ¼ .06); F(2, 172) ¼ 16.74, p < .001.
Statistical analyses
Analyses were conducted using SPSS 18 software (SPSS Inc.
Chicago, IL). Group differences across demographic and cognitive
variables were examined with analysis of variances (ANOVAs)
or nonparametric tests where appropriate. Since detailing
neuropsychological functioning was not a focus of the current
Table 1. Demographic and EPS variables
Participant characteristics
Younger
(n ¼ 84)
Middle-aged
(n ¼ 46)
Older
(n ¼ 45) p-value*
Age (mean + SD) a
19.52 + 2.18 b
59.35 + 3.45 c
71.69 + 5.68 <.001
Female (%) 59 (70%) 35 (76%) 32 (71%) n.s.
Education (mean yrs. + SD) b
13.13 + 1.26 a
15.52 + 2.35 b
13.93 + 2.64 <.001
EPS total score a
63.49 + 14.26 b
72.65 + 20.82 c
54.44 + 15.45 <.001
EPS practical overall b
3.43 + .80 a
4.28 + 1.22 b
3.20 + .85 <.001
EPS interpersonal overall b
4.50 + 1.17 b
4.80 + 1.49 a
3.60 + 1.18 <.001
EPS age neutral overall a
3.99 + .96 b
4.57 + 1.24 c
3.42 + 1.01 <.001
EPS older age overall a
3.95 + .95 b
4.51 + 1.45 c
3.38 + 1.13 <.001
Notes. EPS ¼ everyday problem solving; * ¼ p-value obtained from ANOVA, planned comparison follow-up tests, or Pearson chi-square; a, b, c
¼ level at which
group differences occur (e.g., a b c
¼ all groups different from each other; a b b
¼ a
different from b
, which are not different from each other).
Thornton et al. 15

4. study, we conducted a principal component analysis with the neurop-
sychological test scores to reduce the number of variables. This
revealed two components with eigenvalues exceeding 1.0, explaining
47% and 19% of the variance, respectively. On the first component,
labelled‘‘memoryandexecutivefunctions,’’measuresoflearningand
memory, mental set shifting, and cognitive inhibition loaded highly.
The second component consisted of the vocabulary and category flu-
ency measures, and is considered the ‘‘vocabulary/fluency’’ factor.
These two scores were retained for use as potential covariates in sub-
sequent analyses.
To determine which variables would be included as covariates
in the primary analysis, we first examined the associations between
the variables of interest (see Table 2). To reduce the possibilities of
capitalizing on chance associations, we chose to add only variables
to the model that resulted in group differences at a level of p < .01.
As seen in Table 1, middle-aged adults had a higher level of educa-
tion than either younger or older adults. Higher education and better
neuropsychological functioning (memory/executive and vocabu-
lary/fluency abilities) were significantly associated with better
overall EPS performance (see Table 2) and were included as covari-
ates in separate analyses. With these covariates in the model, the
relationships of interest were only mildly attenuated, and the main
effects and interactions reported herein all retained significance
(i.e., p < .05). Thus we dropped the covariates from the final model
so that we could present the unadjusted means and simplify the
interpretation of the results.
To address our primary prediction that older adults would show
enhanced performance gains on problems that have been suggested
to be most salient to older adults (older-age interpersonal problems),
and greater performance costs on problems presumed least salient
(age-neutral practical problems), we conducted repeated measures
ANOVA, with EPS performance (mean number of safe and effective
solutions in each of the four conditions) as the dependent variable. We
utilized a 3 (age group) 2 (problem type) 2 (age-appropriateness)
mixed linear model in which age group was the between-subject
factor, and problem type (interpersonal vs. practical) and
age-appropriateness (age-neutral vs. older-age problems) were
within-subject factors. Mean contrasts were performed to decompose
the significant main effects and interactions as appropriate.
Results
As predicted, older adults generated fewer solutions (M ¼ 3.40,
SE ¼ .15) to the EPS problems overall, F(2,172) ¼ 13.85,
p .001, than either middle-aged (M ¼ 4.54, SE ¼ .15) or younger
adults (M ¼ 3.97, SE ¼ .11). In addition, the number of responses
was higher for interpersonal (M ¼ 4.30, SE ¼ .10) than practical
problems (M ¼ 3.64, SE ¼ .07) for all age groups, F(1, 172) ¼
97.03, p .001. However, these relationships were impacted by
problem type. Examination of the interaction between problem type
and age group, F(2, 172) ¼ 11.21, p .001, using planned compar-
isons revealed that middle-aged adults generated more solutions
than both younger t(172) ¼ 4.88, p .001, and older adults,
t(172) ¼ 5.43, p .001, on practical problems, whereas, counter
to our predictions, older adults generated fewer solutions than both
younger, t(172) ¼ 3.85, p .001, and middle-aged adults on
interpersonal problems, t(172) ¼ 4.52, p .001. These means are
presented in Table 1.
A significant age-appropriateness by problem type interaction was
also revealed, F(1, 172) ¼ 335.24, p .001. Examination of thiseffect
indicated that, for age neutral problems, all participants performed
better on practical (M ¼ 4.18, SE ¼ .10) as compared to interpersonal
problems (M ¼ 3.80, SE ¼ .10), whereas the opposite pattern emerged
for older-age problems, on which participants performed better on
interpersonal problems (M ¼ 4.80, SE ¼ .13) in comparison to prac-
tical problems (M ¼ 3.10, SE ¼ .07). These relationships were further
qualifiedby a significantage-appropriateness by problemtypebyage-
group interaction, F(2, 172) ¼ 11.94, p .001, which was decom-
posed by comparing the means for each group across each level of
problem type and age-appropriateness using planned comparisons
(see Figure 1). On practical problems, significant age-group differ-
ences emerged for both age-neutral, F(2, 172) ¼ 18.67, p .001, and
older-age problems, F(2, 172) ¼ 9.40, p .001. For both conditions
(age-neutral and older-age problems), middle-aged adults performed
better than both older, t(172) ¼ 5.33, p .001; t(172) ¼ 4.28, p
.001, respectively, and younger adults, t(172) ¼ 5.46, p .001;
t(172) ¼ 2.98, p .005, respectively, while older and younger
adults’ performances were not significantly different. On interperso-
nal problems, age-group differences were again observed for both
age-neutral, F(2, 172) ¼ 12.14, p .001, and older-age problems,
F(2, 172) ¼ 9.21, p .001. However, for age-neutral interpersonal
problems, older adults performed worse than both younger, t(172)
¼ 4.64, p .001, and middle-aged adults, t(172) ¼ 4.02, p .001,
who exhibited equivalent performance. On older-age interpersonal
problems, middle-aged adults performed better than both younger,
t(172) ¼ 2.11, p .05, and older adults, t(172) ¼ 4.28, p .001,
while older adults also performed worse than younger adults in this
condition, t(172) ¼ 2.76, p .01.
Table 2. Intercorrelations among cognitive and demographic variables of interest (n ¼ 175)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Age —
2 Education .35þ
—
3 EPS Total .06 .25þ
—
4 EPS: NP .14 .26þ
.84þ
—
5 EPS: OP .04 .24þ
.81þ
.64þ
—
6 EPS: NI .26þ
.16* .85þ
.60þ
.56þ
—
7 EPS: OI .09 .21þ
.91þ
.63þ
.67þ
.71þ
—
8 Mem/Exec .62þ
.21þ
.28þ
.13 .21þ
.38þ
.23þ
—
9 Vocabulary/Fluency .46þ
.37þ
.37þ
.45þ
.33þ
.20þ
.31þ
.44þ
Notes. Correlation is significant at *p .05, þ
p .01 (two-tailed); EPS ¼ everyday problem solving; EPS NP ¼ age-neutral practical problems; EPS OP ¼ older-age
practical problems; EPS NI ¼ age-neutral interpersonal problems; EPS OI ¼ older-age interpersonal problems; mem/exec ¼ memory/executive functioning factor;
vocabulary/fluency ¼ crystallized abilities factor.
16 International Journal of Behavioral Development 37(1)

5. To further decompose the age-appropriateness by problem type
by age-group interaction, we computed the difference scores
between interpersonal and practical problems and compared this
score between age groups at both levels of age-appropriateness.
By using these difference scores, we created a new dependent
variable (relative benefit) that allowed us to examine relative
performance gains for interpersonal problems within each age-
appropriateness condition. A positive difference score indicated
that participants performed relatively better on interpersonal versus
practical problems, and a negative difference score was associated
with better relative performance on practical problems. In contrast
to our predictions, on older-age problems, older adults actually
demonstrated less relative benefit for interpersonal problems than
either younger, t(172) ¼ 2.11, p .05, or middle-aged adults,
t(172) ¼ 2.25, p .05), whereas younger and middle-aged adults
showed equivalent interpersonal problem benefit. Furthermore, on
age-neutral problems, younger adults demonstrated a relative
benefit for interpersonal problems as compared with both middle-
aged, t(172) ¼ 6.47, p .001, and older adults, t(172) ¼ 4.64,
p .001, who showed the reverse pattern by generating more
solutions to practical problems. The difference scores reflecting the
comparison of relative benefits between the age-appropriateness
conditions across age groups are presented in Figure 2.
Discussion
The current findings suggest that problem domain does appear to
influence EPS performance in adulthood, although the relationships
are not straightforward. Consistent with our predictions, older
adults generated fewer solutions to EPS problems overall than
younger and middle-aged adults. However, counter to our predic-
tions, their performance was not differentially bolstered under con-
ditions presumed to be optimal for EPS performance in late life:
when the problem domain involves older age content, and when the
problem type reflects interpersonal concerns. While older adults did
generate more solutions to interpersonal problems than to practical
problems, this was true for all age groups, with younger adults actu-
ally showing the greatest relative benefit in this condition. On
older-age problems, all participants generated more solutions when
the problem content was interpersonal; however, older adults actu-
ally showed the least interpersonal problem benefit in this
condition.
Consistent with some previous reports (e.g., Denney Palmer,
1981; Denney Pearce, 1989; Denney et al., 1982), we found that
absolute EPS performance was greatest in middle-aged adults. In
addition, a novel contribution of these findings is that EPS in
mid-life was particularly bolstered on practical problems. Superior
problem solving in mid-life has been previously attributed to the
additive effects of experience in solving problems of daily life and
relative preservation of cognitive capacities (Denney, 1990;
Heidrich Denney, 1994). In the current study this mid-life benefit
was maintained even after statistically controlling for differences in
education and performance on traditional neuropsychological tasks.
Previous studies have shown that age differences in EPS are asso-
ciated with, but not fully explained by, variations in basic mental
abilities (Allaire Marsiske, 1999; Thornton et al., 2007). Thus the
Figure 1. Mean EPS performance in each age group for each problem type.
Note. a, b, c
¼ level at which group differences occur (e.g., a b c
¼ all groups different from each other; a b b
¼ a
different from b
, which are not different from
each other).
Thornton et al. 17

6. important question remains: What factors underlie these robust age
differences in EPS performance? Studies examining age differences
with a variety of EPS measures and potential modifiers are needed to
determine how robust the apparent mid-life boost in EPS perfor-
mance may prove to be, and whether this boost can be extended into
later life.
In terms of EPS performance in later life, the current findings
offer little support for models suggesting that older adults may
show relative performance gains on problems designed to be most
salient and relevant to this age group. It has been suggested that
interpersonal problem content may become more salient with
increasing age, as evidenced by older adults’ strategy selection
(Blanchard-Fields et al., 2007) and judgements of solution quality
(Crawford Channon, 2002). Nonetheless, the current findings are
consistent with previous reports that this does not translate into
performance gains as indexed by solution generation (Heidrich
Denney, 1994).
In addition, the current findings suggest that a straightforward
explanation of age differences in terms of ‘‘age-appropriateness’’
is unlikely. These findings are in contrast with a previous report
of a selective advantage in solution-generation for older adults on
‘‘older-adult’’ problems (Artistico et al., 2003). There is some
indicationthatmethodologicalorsampledifferencesmayunderliethis
disparity, as ‘‘interpersonal content’’ and ‘‘age-appropriateness’’were
confounded in this earlier study. Furthermore, our younger
participants generated more than twice as many solutions to ‘‘older
age’’problems(avg.¼ 3.95solutions)thanyoungerparticipantsinthis
previous study (avg. ¼ 1.83 solutions; Artistico et al., 2003), despite
the factthatsimilarinstructions and scoring criteriawere implemented
(i.e., explicitly encouraging participants to generate as many solutions
as possible, even if it is one that they may not adopt). In addition, the
actor in the stimulus materials was explicitly identified as a ‘‘young
adult/student’’ or an ‘‘older person’’ in the study by Artistico and col-
leagues. In the current study, the actor in each vignette was described
only as ‘‘a person,’’ as we intended age relevance to be determined by
theproblemcontentalone.Perhaps asaresultof this change,few prob-
lems were rated as primarily concerning a ‘‘younger adult’’ and were
treated instead as‘‘age neutral’’ problems.Futurestudiesare neededto
determine to what extent differences in problem wording may influ-
ence salience and/or EPS performance.
The current findings should be considered in light of certain lim-
itations. It could be argued that our problem set, although rated by a
separate group of older and younger adults for problem type and
age-appropriateness, did not adequately capture the characteristics
of ‘‘salience.’’ It is important to note, however, that the current
problem set was comprised of ill-structured EPS vignettes that
had been used in previous studies assessing age differences in
either problem type or age-appropriateness (Artistico et al.,
2003; Denney Palmer, 1981; Denney Pearce, 1989; Haught
et al., 2000). Furthermore, older participants tended to rate all
problem domains as more important both generally and person-
ally than did younger participants. Notably, it appears that the
Figure 2. Relationships between age group, problem type, and age-appropriateness.
Note. ‘‘Relative benefit’’ ¼ Difference between mean performance on interpersonal EPS problems and mean performance on practical EPS problems.
Positive scores ¼ relative benefit for interpersonal problems, and negative scores ¼ relative benefit for practical problems.
18 International Journal of Behavioral Development 37(1)

7. older adult’s perception of problem importance did not translate
into performance gains.
It is also important to note that there are several methods for
assessing EPS, and controversy remains regarding how to best index
performance in older adults. The ill-structured EPS measure used in
the current study requires participants to come up with as many inde-
pendent, practical, safe, and effective solutions to everyday problems
as they can. This approach assumes that an individual who is able to
generate numerous effective solutions is better able to flexibly apply
their knowledge and experience to a problem. Some have argued that
EPS methods that require solution-generation penalize older adults’
performance by emphasizing fluency, and may mischaracterize
effective problem solving if older adults elect to use a more selective
approach (Berg, Meegan, Klaczynski, 1999). It is important to
note that, in the current study, the percentage of safe and effective
solutions versus total number of solutions was comparable in
middle-aged and older adults. This argues against the notion that per-
formance differences are due to older adults ‘‘holding back’’ and
relying on a more selective approach. Regardless, it appears that
whether or not individuals elect, or are less able, to generate effective
strategies, the net result is that a higher number of effective strategies
predicts better everyday functioning across a variety of domains
(Gelb et al., 2010; Gilhooly et al., 2007; Thornton et al., 2010). Since
the study of EPS is premised on the assumption of ecological validity
(see Marsiske Margrett, 2006), fluency-based EPS measures are
likely well-suited for incorporation in studies examining real-world
functioning in older populations. Future research is needed to deter-
mine what aspects of EPS performance are essential for optimal
everyday functioning, and what factors underlie performance
declines in later life.
In sum, by systematically examining the impact of both age-
appropriateness and content (interpersonal vs. practical) on EPS
domains, the current findings demonstrate that a simple explanation
of age differences in terms of problem context is unlikely. The
findings suggest that, while EPS performance in adulthood is influ-
enced by both problem domain and problem type, there is little
support for models suggesting that older adults show relative
performance gains on problems suggested to be most salient and
relevant to this age group. With mounting evidence for the utility
of EPS performance measures in predicting real-world functioning,
it is increasingly important to identify positive and negative
modifiers of EPS in older age, and to determine how to maximize
EPS effectiveness across the lifespan.
Acknowledgements
We thank Dr. Allen E. Thornton and Dr. Rachel Fouladi for their
helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. We thank
Jessica Kubik for her assistance with data collection. We address
special thanks to all those who agreed to participate in this study.
Funding
This work was supported in part by a Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Standard Research
Grant awarded to the first author. Theone S. E. Paterson was
supported by an SSHRC Canada Graduate Master’s Scholarship
and by a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Train-
ing Award. Sophie E. Yeung was supported by an SSHRC
Canada Graduate Master’s Scholarship.
References
Allaire, J. C., Marsiske, M. (1999). Everyday cognition: Age and
intellectual ability correlates. Psychology and Aging, 14, 627–644.
Allaire, J. C., Marsiske, M. (2002). Well- and ill-defined measures of
everyday cognition: Relationship to older adults’ intellectual ability
and functional status. Psychology and Aging, 17, 101–115.
Allaire, J. C., Willis, S. L. (2006). Competence in everyday activities
as a predictor of cognitive risk and mortality. Aging, Neuropsychol-
ogy and Cognition, 13, 207–224.
Artistico, D., Cervone, D., Pezzuti, L. (2003). Perceived self-efficacy
and everyday problem solving among young and older adults.
Psychology and Aging, 18, 68–79.
Baltes, P. B. (1993). The aging mind: Potential and limits. The
Gerontologist, 33, 580–594.
Berg, C.A., Meegan, S. P., Klaczynski, P. (1999). Age and experien-
tial differences in strategy generation and information requests for
solving everyday problems. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 23, 615–639.
Berg, C. A., Strough, J. L., Calderone, K. S., Sansone, C., Weir, C.
(1998). The role of problem definitions in understanding age
and context effects on strategies for solving everyday problems.
Psychology and Aging, 13, 29–44.
Blanchard-Fields, F. (2007). Everyday problem solving and emotion:
An adult developmental perspective. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 16, 26–31.
Blanchard-Fields, F., Mienaltowski, A., Seay, R. B. (2007). Age dif-
ferences in everyday problem-solving effectiveness: Older adults
select more effective strategies for interpersonal problems. Journal
of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 62B, P61–P64.
Carstensen, L. L., Mikels, J. A. (2005). At the intersection of emotion
and cognition: Aging and the positivity effect. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 14, 117–121.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112,
155–159.
Cornelius, S. W., Caspi, A., (1987). Everyday problem solving in
adulthood and old age. Psychology and Aging, 2, 144–153.
Crawford, S., Channon, S. (2002). Dissociation between perfor-
mance on abstract tests of executive function and problem solving
in real-life-type situations in normal aging. Aging and Mental
Health, 6, 12–21.
Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., Kramer, J. H. (2001). Delis–Kaplan executive
function system. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Delis, D. C., Kramer, J. H., Kaplan, E., Ober, B. (2000). The Califor-
nia verbal learning test—adult version (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX:
The Psychological Corporation.
Denney, N. W. (1990). Adult age differences in traditional and
practical problem solving. In E. A. Lovelace (Ed.), Aging and
cognition: Mental processes, self-awareness, and interventions
(pp. 329–349). Oxford, UK: North-Holland.
Denney, N. W., Palmer, A. M. (1981). Adult age differences on
traditional and practical problem-solving measures. Journal of
Gerontology, 36, 323–328.
Denney, N. W., Pearce, K. A. (1989). A developmental study of prac-
tical problem solving in adults. Psychology and Aging, 4, 438–442.
Denney, N. W., Pearce, K. A., Palmer, A. M. (1982). A developmen-
tal study of adults’ performance on traditional and practical
problem-solving tasks. Experimental Aging Research, 8, 115–118.
Ekstrom, R. B., Harmon, D., Derman, D. (1976). Manual for kit of
factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Services.
Thornton et al. 19

8. Gelb, S. R., Shapiro, R. J., Thornton, W. J. L. (2010). Predicting
medication adherence and employment status following kidney
transplant: The relative utility of traditional and everyday cognitive
approaches. Neuropsychology, 24, 514–526.
Gilhooly, M. L., Gilhooly, K. J., Phillips, L. H., Harvey, D., Brady, A.,
Hanlon, P. (2007). Real-world problem solving and quality of life
in older people. British Journal of Health Psychology, 12, 587–600.
Haught, P. A., Hill, L. A., Nardi, A. H., Walls, R. T. (2000). Perceived
ability and level of education as predictors of traditional and practical
adult problem solving. Experimental Aging Research, 26, 89–101.
Haught, P. A., Walls, R. T. (2007). Longitudinal adult practical
problem-solving: 1983, 1993, 2003. Educational Gerontology, 33,
395–419.
Heidrich, S. M., Denney, N. W. (1994). Does social problem solving
differ from other types of problem solving during the adult years?
Experimental Aging Research, 20, 105–126.
Kirasic, K. C., Allen, G. L., Dobson, S. H., Binder, K. S. (1996).
Aging, cognitive resources, and declarative learning. Psychology
and Aging, 11, 658–670.
Marsiske, M., Margrett, J. A. (2006). Everyday problem solving and
decision making. In J. Birren K. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the
psychology of aging (6th ed., pp. 315–342). Amsterdam,
Netherlands.
Marsiske, M., Willis, S. L. (1995). Dimensionality of everyday
problem solving in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 10,
269–283.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Hower-
ter, A. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and
their contributions to complex ‘‘frontal lobe’’ tasks: A latent vari-
able analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49–100.
Strough, J., McFall, J. P., Flinn, J. A., Schuller, K. L. (2008). Colla-
borative everyday problem solving among same-gender friends in
early and late adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 23, 517–530.
Thornton, A. E., Kristinsson, H., DeFreitas, V. G., Thornton, W. J. L.
(2010). The ecological validity of everyday cognition in hospita-
lized patients with serious mental illness. Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Neuropsychology, 32, 299–308.
Thornton, W. J. L., Deria, S., Gelb, S., Hill, A., Shapiro, R. J. (2007).
Neuropsychological mediators of the links among age, chronic illness,
and everyday problem solving. Psychology and Aging, 22, 470–481.
Thornton, W. J. L., Dumke, H. A. (2005). Age differences in every-
day problem-solving and decision-making effectiveness: A
meta-analytic review. Psychology and Aging, 20, 85–99.
Weatherbee, S. R., Allaire, J. C. (2008). Everyday cognition
and mortality: Performance differences and predictive utility of the
everyday cognition battery. Psychology and Aging, 23, 216–221.
Appendix. Everyday problem-solving vignettes*
Problem type
Age-neutral practical
A person bought a vacuum cleaner from a door-to-door salesman. After two or three weeks, the vacuum cleaner no longer works. What should this
person do? (Denney Palmer, 1981; Haught et al., 2000; Haught Walls, 2007).
One evening, a person goes to the refrigerator and notices that it is not cold inside but, rather, it’s warm. What should the person do? (Denney
Palmer, 1981; Haught Walls, 2007).
A person lives in a house with a basement. One night there is a flash flood and they notice that the basement is being flooded by the water coming in
the window wells. What should they do? (Denney Palmer, 1981; Haught Walls, 2007).
If someone was travelling by car and got stranded out on a highway during a blizzard, what should they do? (Denney Palmer, 1981; Haught et al.,
2000; Haught Walls, 2007).
Age-neutral interpersonal
A woman is taking care of an 8-year-old child. One day she arrives at home 15 minutes after the child typically comes home on the school bus, but the child
is not there. After an hour and 30 minutes, the woman has still not heard from her. It’s beginning to get dark. What should she do? (Denney Pal-
mer, 1981; Haught et al., 2000; Haught Walls, 2007).
A person who avoids social situations because of extreme shyness wants to change this. What should he/she do? (Artistico et al., 2003).
A person is taking care of a friend’s or relative’s child while the parents are travelling in Europe. The child gets hurt and needs medical attention, but
when the person takes the child to the emergency room, they find that the hospital refuses to do anything for the child until they have a parent’s
signature. What should the person do? (Denney Palmer, 1981; Haught Walls, 2007).
A man is experiencing a very difficult time with his partner, and wants to do something to improve the relationship. What should he do? (Artistico et al., 2003).
Older-age practical
Let’s say that a man’s doctor has told him to take it easy because of a heart condition. It’s the summertime and the man’s yard needs to be mowed but
the man cannot afford to pay someone to mow the lawn. What should he do? (Denney Pearce, 1989; Marsiske Willis, 1995).
A woman can drive her car to run errands except in winter when the weather is bad. What should she do about getting groceries and other necessities
when the weather is bad? (Denney Pearce, 1989; Marsiske Willis, 1995).
A couple is living on a small pension and they have no other source of income. One winter they find that the heating bills are so high that they cannot
pay them. What should they do? (Denney Pearce, 1989; Marsiske Willis, 1995).
Suppose that a woman needs to go somewhere at night. She cannot see well enough to drive at night and it’s too far to walk. What should she do? (Denney
Pearce, 1989; Marsiske Willis, 1995).
Older-age interpersonal
A man has just retired. He doesn’t have any hobbies because he has never had time for them before. Now he is really bored. What should he do? (Denney
Pearce, 1989; Marsiske Willis, 1995).
A woman feels that her sons are too intrusive with her privacy because they frequently ask her to be a babysitter for the grandchildren. This situation is
quite inconvenient for her, as she has many other issues to deal with during the week. What should she do? (Artistico et al., 2003).
Let’s say that a woman has just been widowed and lives alone. What can she do to continue associating with people? (Denney Pearce, 1989; Marsiske
Willis, 1995).
A person who lives alone wants to see her/his grandchildren more frequently. What should she/he do? (Artistico et al., 2003).
Note. *All vignettes have been previously used in adult developmental studies of EPS (e.g., Artistico et al., 2003; Denney Palmer, 1981; Denney Pearce, 1989;
Haught et al., 2000; Haught Walls, 2007; Marsiske Willis, 1995) with minor wording modifications.
20 International Journal of Behavioral Development 37(1)
View publication stats
View publication stats