Age Differences in Everyday Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Effectiveness - A Meta-Analytic Review

Psychology and Aging
2005, Vol. 20, No. 1, 8599
Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association

0882-7974/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0882-7974.20.1.85
Age Differences in Everyday Problem-Solving and Decision-Making

Effectiveness: A Meta-Analytic Review
Wendy J. L. Thornton and Heike A. Dumke
Simon Fraser University
The authors report a meta-analysis of age differences in everyday problem-solving/decision-making
effectiveness (EPSE). Effect sizes were calculated to reflect 3 age group comparisons: old versus young,
young versus middle-aged, and middle-aged versus old. Findings from the meta-analysis of 28 separate
studies with an aggregate of 4,482 participants do not support theories of preserved EPSE in late
adulthood. Although significant age differences of moderate magnitude persisted across methodological
and theoretical domains, rating criteria (experimenter vs. participant) emerged as a significant moderator
of the effect magnitude and direction. In addition, EPSE in older adults was bolstered when problem
content was interpersonal and when samples were highly educated. Finally, the current results support the
conceptual integration of findings from the everyday problem-solving and everyday decision-making
literatures.
The past several years have witnessed a considerable expansion

in research on everyday cognition in aging. Much of this literature
has been motivated by an appreciation that traditional psychometric measures of cognition may not appropriately capture an older
adults performance when faced with actual problems of daily life
(Denney, 1990). Studies within this literature have contrasted
traditional problem solving, wherein the problem and the steps
toward successful resolution are identified by the investigator, with
everyday problem solving, wherein the problems are often multidimensional and the means toward solving the problems may be
individually determined (Berg, Strough, Calderone, Sansone, &
Weir, 1998; Meacham & Emont, 1989). In fact, the ability to
derive effective solutions to everyday problems is likely of tremendous importance in maintaining quality of life and independence as people age. As an example, higher performance on
everyday problem-solving measures is positively associated with
self-ratings of everyday functioning (Allaire & Marsiske, 2002)
and with better performance on tasks of basic mental abilities
(Diehl, Willis, & Schaie, 1995).
Despite a growing appreciation of the importance of everyday
problem solving in aging, several key issues remain unresolved.
The first regards the developmental trajectory of everyday
problem-solving capabilities. Although reliable age-related de-
clines have been reported on traditional measures that typically

involve structured laboratory tests of reasoning and fluid intelligence (see Schaie & Willis, 1996), findings regarding the effectiveness of everyday problem solving in aging are highly discrepant. A related issue involves the extent to which task
characteristics and methodological differences may moderate these
discrepancies (see Berg & Klaczynski, 1996; Finucane et al.,
2002). Furthermore, the everyday problem-solving literature is
potentially enriched by several recent studies from the field of
decision research examining age differences in the ability to evaluate and select solutions within everyday contexts (Finucane et al.,
2002). However, the question remains to what extent studies of
everyday problem solving and decision making are reporting comparable findings. To address these issues, we provide in the current
study the first quantitative synthesis of this literature with metaanalytic methodology. A meta-analytic review can lend clarity to
disparate findings by highlighting trends and potential moderating
factors that may be undetected in qualitative reviews (Rosenthal &
DiMatteo, 2001). The aim of this meta-analysis was to bring
together the extant literature to better capture the nature of age
differences in everyday problem-solving effectiveness. We begin
by discussing the important definitional issues in this literature,
followed by a review of theoretical issues related to the developmental trajectory of everyday problem solving, and a discussion of
potential moderator variables.
Wendy J. L. Thornton and Heike A. Dumke, Department of Psychology,

Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
Portions of this article were presented at the 31st Annual Meeting of the
International Neuropsychological Society, February 2003, Honolulu, HI;
and at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Gerontological Society of Americas
56th Annual Scientific Meeting, November 2003, San Diego, CA. We
thank Allen E. Thornton for his helpful comments on a version of the
manuscript. We also wish to thank all of the authors who supplied additional information from their original studies.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Wendy
J. L. Thornton, Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, 8888
University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia V5A 1S6, Canada. E-mail:
wthornto@sfu.ca
Defining the Problem

Everyday problem solving is typically defined by the absence of
reliance on traditional or formal approaches to cognition. The
challenges inherent in establishing an affirmative approach toward
a concept that is negatively defined are well known (Chapman,
1993), with the result being that, to date, there is no generally
agreed on set of criteria that defines everyday problem solving.
Indeed, there is no standard nomenclature for distinguishing everyday cognition from other processes. This is illustrated by the
terms used in the extant literature, which include practical problem
solving (Denney, Tozier, & Schlotthauer, 1992), practical intelli85
THORNTON AND DUMKE
86
gence (Willis & Schaie, 1986), everyday problem solving (Collins,

Luszcz, Lawson, & Keeves, 1997), and social problem solving
(DZurilla, Maydeu-Olivares, & Kant, 1998).
To guide our review of this literature, we have compiled the
following definition of everyday problem solving: (a) A problem is
identified that can be expected to commonly occur within the lives
of individuals, (b) the problem solver is required to generate
alternative solutions or strategies to solve this problem, and/or (c)
the problem solver is required to make a decision as to which
solution or strategy will lead to the desired result (see Berg &
Klaczynski, 1996; DZurilla et al., 1998; Finucane et al., 2002;
Meacham & Emont, 1989). We further adopt the definition of
effective problem solving as an approach or solution that can be
expected to be positively associated with a desirable resolution of
the problem (Allaire & Marsiske, 2002).
In addition to the literature emphasizing everyday problem
solving, there has been a recent emergence of studies looking at
decision making within real-world contexts (i.e., Johnson, 1990,
1993; Meyer, Russo, & Talbot, 1995; Riggle & Johnson, 1996).
Decision making, defined as choosing between more than one
option or alternative (Peters, Finucane, MacGregor, & Slovic,
2000), is closely related to problem solving in general and everyday problem solving in particular. In fact, findings from decisionmaking studies have been included in reviews of everyday problem solving (e.g., Berg & Klaczynski, 1996), and vice versa (e.g.,
Finucane et al., 2002; Zwahr, Park, & Shifren, 1999). Nonetheless,
these literatures have typically not been considered interchangeable, as they often diverge in the dependent measures used. Although studies of everyday problem solving typically evaluate the
number of responses, the effectiveness of responses, or both,
studies of decision making often assess process measures, such as
decision speed or amount of information used to reach a decision
(i.e., Johnson, 1990, 1993, 1997; Johnson & Drungle, 2000; Riggle
& Johnson, 1996; Stephens & Johnson, 2000). However, recent
investigations have examined the effectiveness of everyday decision making by reporting either decision-making accuracy (i.e.,
Chen & Sun, 2003; Finucane et al., 2002; Hershey & Wilson,
1997; McDonald-Miszczak, 1997) or quality of decision-making
rationale (Meyer et al., 1995; Stanley, Guido, Stanley, & Shortell,
1984; Zwahr et al., 1999) and thus could be included in the current
meta-analysis. For the sake of brevity, the term everyday problem
solving/decision-making effectiveness (EPSE) is used to describe
findings from both literatures where appropriate.
Developmental Trajectory of EPSE

Two major theoretical approaches regarding how age may impact everyday problem-solving and decision-making performance
have been identified (Marsiske & Willis, 1995). The first emphasizes the importance of experience and accumulated knowledge
structures in maintaining adult cognition. Thus, to the extent that
the problems faced are routine and predictable, EPSE may be
preserved or even improved with age (Baltes, 1993). Supporting
this approach are reports of a linear increase in everyday problemsolving performance from young to late adulthood (Cornelius &
Caspi, 1987) and equivalent performance in older and younger age
groups in medical decision making (Stanley et al., 1984), drivingrelated decisions (Walker, Fain, Fisk, & McGuire, 1997), financial
decision making, (Chen & Sun, 2003), and resolution of interpersonal predicaments (Crawford & Channon, 2002).
The second theoretical approach suggests that despite the everyday context, problem-solving and decision-making processes
are compiled from primary abilities (such as declarative memory
or inductive reasoning) that have been demonstrated to decline
with age (Marsiske & Willis, 1995). Thus, to the extent that an
everyday task relies on these primary abilities, age-related changes
will emerge (Willis, 1996; Willis & Schaie, 1986). This view is
supported by strong correlations between performances on measures of everyday cognition and traditional psychometric measures
of reasoning and working memory (e.g., Allaire & Marsiske, 1999;
Kirasic, Allen, Dobson, & Binder, 1996) and by reports of significant declines in everyday problem-solving (Denney, Pearce, &
Palmer, 1982) and decision-making effectiveness in older age
(Finucane et al., 2002). Furthermore, several studies have reported
that EPSE peaks in middle age, followed by a modest decline in
later years (Denny & Palmer, 1981; Denney et al., 1982; Denney
& Pearce, 1989). The increase in EPSE reported in some middleaged samples has been attributed to the additive effects of experience in solving everyday problems and the relative preservation
of cognitive capacities (Denney, 1990).
To date, studies investigating the age trajectory of EPSE have
not yielded consistent findings supporting either perspective. The
current study aimed to address the important questions of whether
or not age differences exist in EPSE and whether the magnitude of
such differences approximates that of other age-variant aspects of
cognition, such as memory. Toward this end, we investigated the
role of a number of variables that have been previously advanced
as potentially important moderators of EPSE. These include differences in the scoring criteria applied (Berg & Klaczynski, 1996),
differences in the problem-solving domain (Blanchard-Fields,
Chen, & Norris, 1997; Heidrich & Denney, 1994), differences in
the nature of the to-be-solved problem (Allaire & Marsiske, 2002),
and differences in participant characteristics (Denney & Palmer,
1981; Haught, Hill, Nardi, & Walls, 2000). Each of these are
discussed in turn.
Criteria Used to Assess EPSE

The most comprehensive series of studies regarding age differences in EPSE was conducted by Denney and colleagues (Denney
& Palmer, 1981; Denney & Pearce, 1989; Denney et al., 1982;
Denney et al., 1992; Heidrich & Denney, 1994). In these studies,
individuals were presented with a series of vignettes involving
open-ended, real-world problems, such as What should an elderly
woman who has no other source of income do if her social security
check does not come 1 month? (Heidrich & Denney, 1994). In
these studies, EPSE was determined by the number of safe and
effective solutions generated for each problem. Using these criteria, Denney and colleagues consistently reported that older adults
were less effective problem solvers than both middle-aged and
younger adults.
A key assumption underlying this approach is that a higher
number of generated solutions is reflective of better problem
solving. However, although generating a larger number of solutions does increase the likelihood of higher quality solutions (see
Haught et al., 2000; Heidrich & Denney, 1994), it has been argued
that an emphasis on fluency may lead to underestimations of EPSE
AGE DIFFERENCES IN PROBLEM-SOLVING EFFECTIVENESS
in older adults (Berg, Meegan, & Klaczynski, 1999). Other investigators have de-emphasized fluency demands by examining the
quality of the rationale (Blanchard-Fields, Jahnke, & Camp, 1995;
LaRue & DElia, 1985; Meyer et al., 1995; Stanley et al., 1984;
Zwahr et al., 1999), the effectiveness of the responses (Crawford
& Channon, 2002), or the accuracy of the solutions as compared
with an absolute criteria (Chen & Sun, 2003; Finucane et al., 2002;
Hershey & Farrell, 1999; Hershey & Wilson, 1997; Whitfield,
Baker-Thomas, Heyward, Gatto, & Williams, 1999). Nonetheless,
findings from these studies are not uniform, with some reporting
no age differences (Chen & Sun, 2003; Crawford & Channon,
2002; Hershey & Wilson, 1997; Stanley et al., 1984), and others
reporting significant reductions in EPSE in older adults (Finucane
et al., 2002; Whitfield et al., 1999). The current study can lend
clarity to this issue by examining whether or not the magnitude of
age differences in EPSE is affected by the scoring criteria used. If
age differences are reduced when fluency demands are minimized,
this would support previous contentions that the less exhaustive
and more selective approach exhibited by older adults does not, in
fact, imply a true deficit in EPSE (Berg et al., 1999).
Another unresolved issue involves the comparability of experimenter and participant ratings of EPSE. In contrast to the
experimenter-rated approaches described above, several investigators have asked participants to rate their own satisfaction or confidence in their problem-solving abilities (Artistico, Cervone, &
Pezzuti, 2003; Blanchard-Fields et al., 1997; Crawford & Channon, 2002; Hershey & Farrell, 1999; Hershey & Wilson, 1997) or
to provide likelihood ratings of their typical responses to hypothetical problems of daily life (Blanchard-Fields et al., 1997;
Cornelius & Caspi, 1987; DZurilla et al., 1998; Haught et al.,
2000; Wright, Carscaddon, & Lambert, 2000). Although authors
have acknowledged that such self-report likelihood ratings may
not assess actual problem-solving abilities (Cornelius & Caspi,
1987; Haught et al., 2000), findings from self-rating studies are
commonly presented as evidence of preserved EPSE in aging (e.g.,
Artistico et al., 2003; Berg & Klaczynski, 1996; Crawford &
Channon, 2002; Haught et al., 2000). The present study aims to
lend clarity to the issue of whether conclusions regarding age
differences may vary as a function of the rating system used. Using
meta-analytic methodology, we can compare whether effects derived from studies using different rating criteria (experimenter vs.
participant-derived ratings) are homogeneous and of similar
magnitude.
Nature of the Problem to Be Solved

Several researchers have suggested that age differences in EPSE
may be mediated by the domain or context of the to-be-solved
problem. Three currently unresolved issues are whether age differences are attenuated when the problem content is age appropriate, when the problem domain reflects an interpersonal rather than
instrumental context, or when the problem content is ill structured
as opposed to well structured. The first issue was examined by
Denney and colleagues in two studies (Denney et al., 1982; Denney & Pearce, 1989), in which the everyday problems were designed to be highly familiar to the older age group. In both studies,
EPSE increased from young adulthood to middle age and then
declined, prompting the conclusion that it may not be possible to
develop problems on which older adults perform better than young
87
and middle-aged adults (Denney & Pearce, 1989, p. 441). In

contrast, a recent study (Artistico et al., 2003) examining age
differences on age-appropriate everyday problems found that the
performance of older adults was superior to that of younger adults
on the older adult problems.
One of the difficulties in interpreting these findings is that
age-appropriate content may be confounded with other content
variables, such as whether or not the problem has an instrumental
(e.g., household repairs) or an interpersonal focus (e.g., social
predicaments). For example, examination of the problems used in
the study by Artistico et al. (2003) shows that 4/5 of the older
adult problems had an interpersonal focus, whereas 3/5 of the
younger adult problems had an instrumental focus. Although it
has been suggested that older adults may be expected to outperform younger adults on interpersonal tasks because of their cumulative experience in social interactions (Heidrich & Denney, 1994),
few studies have specifically compared age differences within the
social and instrumental problem-solving domains. Heidrich and
Denney (1994) reported that declines in EPSE were evident in
older age groups regardless of problem domain, whereas a recent
study reported equivalent performances in younger and older
adults on problems within the interpersonal domain (Crawford &
Channon, 2002). The current meta-analysis can address this question by examining to what extent the magnitude of age differences
reported across studies is domain dependent.
Yet another issue regarding the nature of the to-be-solved problem involves the degree of structure inherent within the task.
Although well-structured problems typically characterize traditional psychometric tests, tasks used in the extant everyday
problem-solving literature can also be considered along a wellversus ill-structured continuum (Allaire & Marsiske, 2002; Willis,
1996). These authors have defined well-structured problems as
those containing a clear specification of the problem situation, the
means toward problem resolution, or the desired outcome, whereas
ill-structured problems typically leave at least one of these three
elements unspecified and are often open ended (Allaire & Marsiske, 2002). For example, the medical decision-making task used
in a study by Zwahr et al. (1999) can be considered a wellstructured problem using the above criteria. In this study, participants were asked to select a particular course of action among six
alternatives that were provided by the experimenters (wellstructured means toward problem resolution) and to decide
whether they would hypothetically elect to take hormone replacement therapy or choose another course of action instead (wellstructured problem definition). In contrast, the open-ended vignettes used in studies by Denney and colleagues are examples of
ill-structured tasks (Denney & Palmer, 1981; Denney et al., 1982;
Denney & Pearce, 1989; Denney et al., 1992).
One might expect age differences to be magnified on wellstructured everyday problems, given that they more closely approximate traditional problem-solving tasks (Chapman, 1993). In
fact, in an investigation of older adults (Marsiske & Willis, 1995),
performance on a well-structured task (EPT; Willis & Marsiske,
1993) was more strongly and negatively associated with increasing
age than performance on an ill-structured task. In addition, although well- and ill-structured everyday problems were positively
correlated (Allaire & Marsiske, 2002), they were differentially
associated with basic cognitive abilities. Although task structure
may prove to be an important moderator of EPSE in older adults,
THORNTON AND DUMKE
88
to date there has been no systematic investigation of these parameters with multiple age groups. Our meta-analysis can examine the
role of task structure in EPSE by contrasting the magnitude of
effect sizes obtained from studies using well-structured tasks versus those using ill-structured tasks.
Participant Characteristics
Participant characteristics, such as differences in composition of
age groupings or level of formal education, may also underlie
reported age differences, although few primary studies have examined this directly. Our review of the extant literature revealed
that the composition of the age groups involved varied widely. For
example, the age ranges reported for young samples ranged from
as low as 18 years (Heidrich & Denney, 1994) to as high as 64
years (Finucane et al., 2002). Participants classified as middleaged ranged in age from as young as 32 years (Haught et al.,
2000) to as high as 64 years (Meyer et al., 1995), and the ages of
participants classified as old ranged from as low as 55 years
(Patrick, 1995) to as high as 84 years (Devolder, 1993). Such
overlap in age groupings can seriously impede the ability to render
meaningful conclusions from qualitative examination of primary
studies. By ensuring appropriate age group comparisons, the current meta-analysis can provide a more accurate picture of age
differences between comparable groups of young, middle-aged,
and older participants. Another potentially important moderator is
participant educational level. The current meta-analysis can also
address this question by examining the relationship between educational level and effect size magnitude.
Predictions
We addressed the following questions in our meta-analysis: (a)
Are there reliable age differences in EPSE? (b) Are there identifiable methodological variables that moderate these age differences? and (c) Are the findings from the everyday problem-solving
and everyday decision-making literatures distinct, or can they be
meaningfully combined? On the basis of our survey of the literature, we made the prediction that the aging pattern on measures of
EPSE would follow a similar trajectory to that reported on other
cognitive measures, namely, that effect sizes would be largest
between old and young groups and comparatively smaller between
middle-aged versus young and middle-aged versus old groups. In
addition, we examined the following potential moderators of the
expected age differences: the scoring criteria used to establish
EPSE (fluency vs. quality) and the nature of the task (older vs.
younger problem content, interpersonal vs. instrumental content,
well-structured vs. ill-structured task). We predicted that age differences would be smaller under conditions that have been previously argued to bolster EPSE in older age (quality emphasis, older
age problem content, interpersonal problem content, ill-structured
problem) and larger in the other conditions (fluency emphasis,
non-age-specific content, well-structured task). In addition, without specifying the nature of the prediction, we examined whether
the task outcome was dependent on the rater (experimenter vs.
participant) and the focus of the study (i.e., problem solving vs.
decision making). We also examined whether the quality of the
study methodology or the procedures used (i.e., computerized
administration) influenced the effects.
Method
Studies
Three methods were used to locate potentially relevant studies for
inclusion in the analyses: (a) Studies were identified through a computerized search of MEDLINE (1958 2003), PsycINFO (18872003), AgeLine
(1978 2003), and Digital Dissertation Abstracts (1980 2003); (b) manual
searches were conducted of journals identified as having a high number of
potentially relevant articles (Psychology and Aging, 1988 2003; Experimental Aging Research, 19772003; Journals of Gerontology, Series B:
Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 19752003); and (c) inspection of references from reviews of everyday problem solving and decision
making in aging. The key terms used for the computer database search
were decision making, problem solving, everyday, expertise, judgment,
strategies, practical, and age (age differences, age groups). Studies were
limited to those that reported results in English. All studies located by these
means were inspected to ensure that they met the following criteria for
inclusion in the meta-analysis.
1. The study needed to allow at least one age group comparison (i.e.,
young vs. old, middle-aged vs. old, middle-aged vs. young). A recent study
found that representative journals typically report the following age groupings: older (58 82), middle-aged (40 59), and young (19 35; Nichols, Rogers, Fisk, & West, 2001). Therefore, to avoid overlap and fill in
the blanks, we adopted the following age ranges as criteria for inclusion
into the analyses: older (60), middle-aged (40 59), and young
(18 39). Two studies with age groups deviating from these ranges by
greater than or equal to 5 years were eliminated (i.e., Fitzgerald, 2000;
Patrick, 1995). A summary of study demographic characteristics is presented in Table 1.
2. Studies were included if data were reported on one or more of the
following outcomes of interest: number of solutions, quality of solutions,
problem-solving/decision effectiveness, problem-solving/decision accuracy, and quality of problem-solving/decision rationale. Because the focus
of this meta-analysis was on EPSE, only studies allowing examination of
directional effects along this dimension (i.e., better vs. worse EPSE) were
included. Studies examining qualitative age differences in everyday
problem-solving processes (i.e., Berg et al., 1998; Blanchard-Fields, Baldi,
& Stein, 1999; Strough, Berg, & Sansone, 1996; Watson & BlanchardFields, 1998) were not included because they addressed a different research
question and did not allow calculation of a directional effect size for EPSE.
In addition, studies of group problem solving were not included (i.e.,
Streufert, Pogash, Piasecki, & Post, 1990) nor were studies investigating
participants ratings of others problem-solving capabilities (i.e., Klaczynski & Robinson, 2000).
3. Included studies were those that were self-identified or identified by
Wendy J. L. Thornton as examining an aspect of problem solving or
decision making within a practical or real-world context. As such, studies
using traditional Piagetian and anagram tasks were excluded, as were those
substituting more realistic stimuli into traditional laboratory tasks (i.e.,
Rabbitt, 1977; Reese & Rodeheaver, 1985) and examining age differences
in skilled (i.e., wisdom, expertise) or game (i.e., chess) performance.
Studies meeting our inclusion criteria were examined to ensure that they
reported sufficient data for a between-age-group effect size to be generated
on a least one variable of interest. If these data were not reported and
contact information was available, study authors were contacted to request
the necessary data. A complete list of excluded studies is available from the
corresponding author on request.
Coding
On the basis of our review of the extant literature, we subsequently
coded variables of interest relevant to the predictions, as well as methodological variables of theoretical interest. The nine coded variables are as
follows.
30 (25.7)
34 (20.9)
69 (28.5)
62 (22.3)
14 (20.1)
(29.2)
30 (25.3)
802 (1720)
28 (28.4)
32 (28.3)
32 (27.9)
48 (27.8)
48 (19.9)
25 (29.1)
20 (20.1)
43 (28.2)
28 (18.6)
80 (2039)
68 (1830)
27 (28.8)
38i (33.7)
154 (1739)
34 (29.2)
1,746
25.7 (4.2)
Artistico et al. (2003)

Berg et al. (1999)
Blanchard-Fields et al. (1995)
Blanchard-Fields et al. (1997)
Chen & Sun (2003)
Cornelius & Caspi (1987)
Crawford & Channon (2002)
DZurilla et al. (1998)
Denney & Palmer (1981)
Denney & Pearce (1989)
Denney et al. (1982)
Denney et al. (1992)
Dobson (2000), Experiment 2
Feifel & Strack (1989)
Finucane et al. (2002)
Haught (1985)
Haught et al. (2000)
Heidrich & Denney (1994)
Hershey & Wilson (1997)
Hershey & Farrell (1999)
LaRue & DElia (1985)
McDonald-Miszczak (1997)
Meyer et al. (1995), Experiment 1
Stanley et al. (1984)
Taylor (1975)
Whitfield et al. (1999)
Wright et al. (2000)
Zwahr et al. (1999)
Total N
Average agel
Average education
dm
74 (48.7)
67 (49.7)
126d (43.8)
91 (46.5)f
28 (52.9)
32 (49.7)
32 (49.2)
48 (48.8)
76 (52.4)
239 (40)
20 (41.9)
41 (49)
80 (4059)
59 (4059)
35 (51.5)
79d,j (2347)
34 (5059)
68 (4059)
34 (49.3)
1,263
47.9 (4.7)
M-A
30 (69.7)
27 (72.9)
74 (68.7)
76 (68.3)
14 (71.5)
(65.4)
30 (68.3)
91 (69)f
28 (69.0)
32 (69.2)
32 (68.8)
48 (68.9)
48 (74.9)
106 (74.5)
253 (75)
25 (68.4)
20 (70)
29 (69.5)
32 (71.1)
40 (6069)
58 (6079)
69 (6577)
32 (73.3)
33i (69.2)
198 (6090)
14 (6079)
34 (70.1)
1,473
70.2 (2.7)
Old
14.8 (2.6)
15.1 (3.3)
15.1 (3.1)
()
16.8f (2.6)
14.3 ()
16.5 ()
14 ()
15.8 ()
19.9 ()
15.5 ()
13.5 (2.8)
15.5 (1.7)
15.0 (1.1)
M-A
14.8 (2.5)
15.3 (2.6)
14.1 (1.7)
14.0 (1.4)
15.5 (2.9)
15.1 (1.7)
14.7 ()
14.7 ()
15.6 ()
14.6 ()
13.4 (1.4)
18.7 ()
14.3 ()
15.4 ()
13.90 ()
15.4 (1.2)
15.6 (2.8)
Young
Old
14.5 (1.2)
15.2 (2.5)
13.7 (2.9)
14.7 (3.2)
15.2 (3.3)
15.9 (3.1)
14.0 (2.5)
13.9f (2.6)
13.7 ()
13.4 ()
12.3 ()
13.4 ()
15.1 (3.4)
14.7 ()
17.1 ()
15.9 ()
16.20 ()
14.2 (2.2)
12.8 (3.3)
Mean years education (SDs)
22.8 ()
22.9 (7.3)
110.0 (8.1)
40.2 (2.5)
54.1 (12.4)
48.9 (15.0)
30.6 (6.0)
Young
.32
31.7 (5.7)
55.6 (10.0)
45.8 (15.7)
33.1 (4.5)
M-A
23.8a,b ()
31.6c (6.1)
114.4e (11.0)
44.1g (2.8)
59.8c (9.7)
48.6h (23.2)
32.8k (4.8)
Old
Vocabulary (raw score means; SDs)
Note. Dashes indicate that data were not available for these measures. EPSE everyday problem-solving/decision-making effectiveness; N number of participants in each age group; M-A
middle-aged.
a
Thurstone Verbal Meaning Test. b Not included in calculation of d because SDs were not available. c WAISR Vocabulary. d Age treated as continuous variable. e NAART North American
Adult Reading Test. f Demographic data reported in Kant, DZurilla, and Maydeu-Olivares, 1997. g Ammons Quick TestVocabulary. h Quick Word Test. i Ns estimated from ranges provided,
because of missing data. j Data in analysis of young versus middle-aged EPSE only. k Shipley Institute of Living Scale. l The midpoint was used for studies reporting age ranges only. m d
(raw scoreold raw scoreyoung)/pooled SDold & young.
Young
Study
N (age ranges or means)
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Studies Included in the EPSE Meta-Analysis
89
90
THORNTON AND DUMKE
Age groups. Effects were coded as to the age comparison of interest:

old versus young, old versus middle-aged, and middle-aged versus young.
Procedure. Each study was coded as to the primary procedure used.
Examination of the studies revealed that the procedures could be classified
as involving (a) computer-based, (b) paper-and-pencil, or (c) read-aloud
formats.
Quality. We identified three factors (level of education, health, and
mood/depression) that were reported in a sufficient number of studies to
allow coding of degree of experimental control. Studies were coded as
well-controlled if they either matched or excluded participants on two or
more of these factors, partially controlled if participants were matched or
excluded on one of these factors, and not-controlled if none of these factors
were reported.
Focus. We used two criteria to code each study as having either a
primary focus on everyday problem solving or on everyday decision
making. First, we determined the self-identified focus of the study. Second,
we examined each study to ensure that this self-identification was consistent with our working definitions as described earlier.
Well- versus ill-structured tasks. Each problem-solving task used in
each study was coded as either well-structured or ill-structured by applying
Allaire and Marsiskes (2002) definition. Accordingly, well-structured
tasks included problems containing a clear specification of the problem
situation, the means toward problem resolution, or the desired outcome. In
contrast, a task was coded as ill-structured if at least one of these three
elements was unspecified.
Scoring emphasis. Studies were coded according to the criteria used to
determine EPSE. In one approach (quality emphasis), EPSE was determined by evaluation of the effectiveness of the response (i.e., Crawford &
Channon, 2002) or evaluation of the rationale used to derive a solution (i.e.,
Meyer et al., 1995; Zwahr et al., 1999). The other approach (fluency
emphasis) defines EPSE by the total number of solutions (Berg et al., 1999)
or number of safe and/or effective solutions generated for a given problem
(i.e., Denney, 1990; Denney & Pearce, 1989; Denney et al., 1982; Haught
et al., 2000). In cases in which pure fluency (number of solutions only)
and quality ratings were provided (i.e., Crawford & Channon, 2002;
Haught, 1985), we included only the quality outcome measure in the
meta-analysis.
Age appropriateness. Four studies (Artistico et al., 2003; Denney et
al., 1982, 1992; Denney & Pearce, 1989) specifically manipulated the age
appropriateness of the problem content. For these studies, separate effects
were coded for the age differences on the older content problem for
examination in the age-content analysis. In addition, a study examining age
differences on a medical decision involving hormone replacement therapy
was coded as an older content problem (Zwahr et al., 1999). There were
not enough studies (k 3) examining younger content problems to allow
comparative examination of these effects. Thus, effects were coded as
either older content or unspecified content.
Interpersonal versus instrumental. Each effect was coded as to
whether the content of the problem was primarily interpersonal or instrumental in nature. Problems identified as interpersonal typically focused on
issues such as familial conflict, caregiving, or resolving socially awkward
predicaments. In contrast, problems identified as instrumental typically
involved dealing with defective merchandise, household repairs, or financial concerns. Two studies (Artistico et al., 2003; Heidrich & Denney,
1994) provided data from both content domains that could be coded
separately. In addition, several studies did not allow separation of these
effects (Berg et al., 1999; Denney & Palmer, 1981; Denney et al., 1982,
1992; Denney & Pearce, 1989; Dobson, 2000; Haught, 1985) and were
coded as mixed.
Rating criteria. Each effect was coded as to whether the determination
of EPSE was experimenter-rated (i.e., number of solutions, quality of
rationale, etc.) or participant-rated (likelihood ratingsEPSI, satisfaction
ratings, confidence ratings). In addition, studies coded as participant-rated
were further coded as using either a likelihood rating or a confidence rating
methodology. Likelihood ratings were used in studies asking participants to

predict their problem-solving approach (i.e., Cornelius & Caspi, 1987;
DZurilla et al., 1998; Haught et al., 2000; Wright et al., 2000), whereas
confidence ratings typically asked participants to rate how satisfied (Crawford & Channon, 2002) or confident they were in their performance
(Artistico et al., 2003; Blanchard-Fields et al., 1997; Finucane et al., 2002;
Hershey & Farrell, 1999; Hershey & Wilson, 1997; McDonald-Miszczak,
1997).
Analysis
We calculated an effect size (d) for each age group comparison (young
vs. middle-aged, young vs. old, middle-aged vs. old) separately by subtracting the younger group mean EPSE from that of the older group and
dividing this score by the pooled standard deviation. Calculation of d
requires information regarding the number of participants, as well as group
performance means and standard deviations (Cohen, 1988). When these
data were not available, we computed d from F statistics with one degree
of freedom, and t statistics. We calculated d from a correlation statistic
(Taylor, 1975) and from a chi-square statistic (Finucane et al., 2002) with
the assistance of Effect Size software (Shadish, Robinson, & Lu, 1999).
Effect sizes were coded so that positive values indicate effects favoring
EPSE in younger age groups, whereas negative values indicate effects
favoring EPSE in older age groups. To correct for upwardly biased estimation of the effect size with small samples, we used Hedges procedures
(Hedges & Olkin, 1985) to calculate an unbiased estimate, g, for each
study, with the assistance of Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software
(Borenstein & Rothstein, 1999). Combining these g values provided the
overall point estimate for each set of effects across all samples. All effect
sizes were calculated according to a fixed effects model of error estimation.
As we were interested in comparing the differences in effect sizes for the
entire collection of effects, it was necessary to determine whether the effect
sizes were homogeneous and could therefore be assumed to originate from
the same population. The first step in the analysis was to determine whether
all studies shared a common effect size by examining resultant QT values
(Borenstein & Rothstein, 1999). The absence of a significant p value in
accordance with examination of Forrest plot dispersion was used to determine homogeneity of the effect sizes. Within-class homogeneity statistics
(QW) were computed to assess whether the effect size estimates obtained
within each group of interest represented a reliable point estimate of the
population value (Borenstein & Rothstein, 1999). If the test of homogeneity failed, studies were partitioned into groupings based on the theoretically derived moderating variables of interest, and between-group homogeneity statistics (QB) were generated to assess the reliability of betweengroup differences (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). The QB statistic is analogous to
an F statistic in testing class differences.
Some studies yielded multiple comparisons of the variable of interest,
and thus, there arose the possibility of a single study contributing more than
one effect size to the meta-analysis. In three of the studies (Denney et al.,
1992; Devolder, 1993; Hershey & Wilson, 1997), multiple comparisons of
EPSE were derived across separate experiments. In these studies, we
pooled the effect estimates to derive an overall study effect size. Another
situation arose for studies that included more than two age groups, potentially allowing more than one age comparison to be entered into the
analysis. Eight of the studies entered into the initial analysis of age
differences offered effects for more than one age group comparison (i.e.,
old vs. young, old vs. middle-aged, middle-aged vs. young). Eliminating
these comparisons would have seriously limited our ability to examine the
principle hypothesis. Therefore, in the initial analysis, we permitted studies
with information from more than two age groups. This allowed a study to
potentially contribute more than one effect to the overall analysis but not
more than one effect to each age group comparison. Thus, although the
estimate of variability within groups (QW) is based on independent observations, the estimate of variability between groups (QB) provides a more

conservative estimate than if the observations were all from separate
studies (see Robinson, Berman, & Neimeyer, 1990).
We then examined the resultant distribution of effects for statistical
outliers. Our inclusion criteria resulted in a final pool of 30 studies
contained in 30 different publications, arising from 23 different experimenters or laboratories. However, 2 of these studies (Devolder, 1993;
Haught et al., 2000) were identified as outliers and were removed from the
analysis of age group effects according to their relative weight to the
within-grouping heterogeneity as recommended by Hedges and Olkin
(1985). In one of these studies (Haught et al., 2000), the direction of the
effect size favored the old, whereas in the other (Devolder, 1993), the effect
size favored the young. The two outliers represented less than 10% of the
total number of effect sizes, which is well within the recommended range
(Hedges & Olkin, 1985).
Results
Table 2 lists the effect sizes (Hedgess adjusted g) for each study
by outcome variable, as well as important study characteristics.
We first present findings regarding age differences in EPSE (see
Table 3), followed by examination of the potential moderators of
the observed differences (see Table 4). In interpreting these findings, we have adopted the conventional values of .20, .50, and .80
for small, medium, and large effect sizes for comparing independent groups (Cohen, 1992). In addition, effect size estimates with
their 95% confidence intervals (CI95%) are presented in Table 2.
A significance level of .05 can be inferred when zero is not
contained within the CI95%.
Age Differences in EPSE

Twenty experimenter-rated studies were initially grouped according to the age comparison (young vs. middle-aged, middleaged vs. old, and young vs. old), which resulted in the predicted
within-age-group homogeneity and between-age-group heterogeneity. Examination of these effects suggested that EPSE was
diminished in older adults, as compared with both young (g
.427) and middle-aged adults (g .466). Neither confidence
interval contained zero; thus, statistically significant age differences were observed for both comparisons (see Table 3). According to established criteria, the magnitude of the age differences can
be considered medium in comparison with both young and middleaged adults (Cohen, 1988).
Estimates of EPSE were equivalent in young and middle-aged
adults, which ran counter to our predictions (g .044; CI95%
.095.182). The overall point estimate for the comparison of
young and middle-aged effects indicates that no reliable differences emerge between these age groups. Given that the effect
estimates derived from comparisons with young and middle-aged
adults were not reliably different, we combined these two age
groups in subsequent analyses. This eliminated the issue of nonindependence between the age group effects described above, as
each study now contributed only one effect (either young vs. old or
young/middle-aged vs. old). This also allowed us to add two
additional studies that were eliminated from the initial analysis
because of inappropriate age ranges (Finucane et al., 2002; Stanley
et al., 1984). However, one study was also removed from subsequent analysis because of the absence of an older age group
(Taylor, 1975). The 21 studies included in the final meta-analysis
of young/middle-aged versus old effects resulted in a homoge-
91
neous population of effects (Qw 24.06, df 20, p .05), with

an overall effect size of .484 favoring EPSE in young and middleaged adults (see Table 3). The corresponding 95% confidence
interval (CI95% .401.567) indicates that the effect is significantly different from zero. Although we could have declared this
model adequate, we wished to further examine whether the magnitude of age differences varied according to our theoretically
derived moderator variables.
Moderator Variables
We examined the potential moderator variables by categorizing
effects on the basis of sample characteristics and examining the
resultant QB and Qw (see Hedges, 1984). The first moderator
variable of interest was the rating criteria variable, which allowed comparison of studies in which performance was evaluated
by the experimenter versus the participant. Twelve additional
effects and six additional studies were entered into this analysis
(Blanchard-Fields et al., 1997; Cornelius & Caspi, 1987; DZurilla
et al., 1998; Feifel & Strack, 1989; Haught et al., 2000; Wright et
al., 2000). A total of six studies contributed both self-ratings and
experimenter ratings of EPSE (Artistico et al., 2003; Berg et al.,
1999; Crawford & Channon, 2002; Hershey & Farrell, 1999;
Hershey & Wilson, 1997; McDonald-Miszczak, 1997). As described above, this resulted in independent observations within
each grouping and a conservative estimation of between-group
variability (QB; see Robinson et al., 1990). Because only three of
these studies allowed separate coding of middle-aged effects
(Blanchard-Fields et al., 1997; DZurilla et al., 1998; Wright et al.,
2000), we combined young and middle-aged effects for these
studies to allow a comparison of younger/middle-aged (ages 18
59) and older (ages 60 and over) groups. Note that although both
participant and experimenter ratings were also provided in Haught
et al. (2000), the experimenter rating score was identified as an
outlier in the previous analysis. Thus, only the participant rating
score was entered into this analysis.
Studies were then grouped according to rater (experimenterrated vs. participant-rated). This grouping resulted in the predicted within-age-group homogeneity within the experimenterrated studies; however, the participant-rated studies exhibited
significant heterogeneity (Qw 43.37, df 11, p .01). The
participant-rated studies were then grouped by type of rating (i.e.,
likelihood rating vs. confidence rating). One study was identified
as a statistical outlier (Crawford & Channon, 2002) and was
removed from this analysis. After removal of the outlier, this
grouping resulted in a homogeneous population of effects for each
of the three groupings: experimenter-rated (Qw 24.06, df 20,
p .05), participant-rated likelihood ratings (Qw 4.50, df 4,
p .05), and participant-rated confidence ratings (Qw 4.52,
df 5, p .05). Removal of this outlier did not impact betweenstudy group heterogeneity, which was significant both with the
outlier included (QB 18.93, df 1, p .01) and excluded
(QB 25.93, df 1, p .01). Examination of the between-groups
differences revealed that effects from experimenter-rated studies
(g .484) were significantly larger (favoring younger adults) than
effects from participant-rated likelihood ratings, g .213,
t(24) 6.73, p .01, but not from participant-rated confidence
ratings, g .349, t(25) 1.41, p .05. Participant-rated likeli-
THORNTON AND DUMKE
92
Table 2
Individual Study Characteristics and Weighted Effect Sizes (g)
95% CI
Study
Focus
EPSE determination
Task
structure
Problem content
Outcome
measure
Social/instra
Mix
Social
Instr
Social
Mix
Mix
Mix
Mix
Mix
Instr
Mix
Social/instra
Instr
Instr
Instr
Instr
Instr
Instr
Instr
Instr
Instr
Fluency
Fluency
Quality
Quality
Quality
Fluency
Fluency
Fluency
Fluency
Fluency
Quality
Fluency
Fluency
Quality
Quality
Quality
Quality
Quality
Quality
Quality
Quality
Quality
Lower
Upper
.708
.573
.391
.617
.016
.609
.235
.860
.369
.335
.602
.293
.194
.313
.191
.415
.487
.978
.283
.256
.715
.645
.484
.174
.046
.106
.181
.533
.138
.197
.412
.017
.073
.421
.279
.234
.037
.328
.045
.144
.522
.194
.194
.343
.219
.401
1.242
1.100
0.675
1.415
0.501
1.079
0.666
1.308
0.721
0.744
0.783
0.865
0.621
0.663
0.710
0.785
0.830
1.434
0.761
0.707
1.087
1.072
.567
.409
.061
.235
.503
.390
.213
.785
.277
.533
1.060
.934
.359
.034
.155
.063
.053
.154
.067
.291
.172
.430
.064
.367
.564
.349
.229
.344
.142
.320
.155
.219
.189
.811
.689
.718
.447
.890
.909
.509
Experimenter-rated studies
Artistico et. al. (2003)
Berg et. al. (1999)
Blanchard-Fields et. al. (1995)
Chen & Sun (2003)
Crawford & Channon (2002)
Denney & Palmer (1981)
Denney & Pearce (1989)
Denney et. al. (1982)
Denney et. al. (1992)
Dobson (2000)
Finucane et. al. (2002)
Haught (1985)
Heidrich & Denney (1994)
Hershey & Farrell (1999)
Hershey & Wilson (1997)
LaRue & DElia (1985)
McDonald-Miszczak (1997)
Meyer et. al. (1995)
Stanley et. al. (1984)
Taylor (1975)c
Whitfield et al. (1999)
Zwahr et al. (1999)
Subtotal (k 21)
PS
PS
PS
DM
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
DM
PS
PS
PS
DM
PS
DM
DM
DM
DM
PS
DM
No. of effective solutions

No. of solutions
EPSI criteriab
Decision accuracy
Solution quality
S & E solutionsquality points
No. of effective solutions
Decision accuracy
Identifying valid solution steps
Decision accuracy
Quality of rationale
Decision accuracy
Decision accuracy
Solution accuracy
Ill
Ill
Ill
Well
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Well
Ill
Ill
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Participant-rated likelihood scales

Cornelius & Caspi (1987)
DZurilla et al. (1998)
Feifel & Strack (1989)
Haught et. al. (2000)
Wright et. al. (2000)
Subtotal (k 5)
EPSI
SPSIR
LSI
PSI
PSI
Participant-rated confidence
Artistico et. al. (2003)d

Berg et. al. (1999)d
Blanchard-Fields et. al. (1997)
Hershey & Farrell (1999)d
Hershey & Wilson (1997)d
McDonald-Miszczak (1997)d
Subtotal (k 6)
PS
PS
PS
PS
DM
DM
Self-efficacy rating
Perceived effectiveness
Confidence rating
Confidence rating
Confidence rating
Self-efficacy rating
Note. 95% CI the effect estimate meets standard test of statistical significance when zero is not included in the 95% confidence interval; EPSI
Everyday Problem Solving Inventory; SPSIR Social Problem Solving InventoryRevised; PSI Problem Solving Inventory; LSI Life Situations
Inventory; Ill ill-structured task; Well well-structured task; social interpersonal problem content; instr instrumental problem content; mixed
both interpersonal and instrumental problems; EPSE everyday problem-solving/decision-making effectiveness; PS problem solving; DM decision
making; S & E safe and effective.
a
Study allowed separate coding of interpersonal and instrumental problems. b In this study, EPSE was defined as a higher score on the PF and CA scales
and as a lower score on the PD and AD scales. c Effect estimate not included in subtotal, as this study was not included in the final analysis because of
the absence of an older age comparison group. d Study included both experimenter ratings and confidence ratings.
hood and confidence rating effects were also significantly different

from each other, t(9) 5.91, p .01.
Examination of these effects revealed that likelihood estimates
tended to favor older adults, whereas confidence ratings tended to
favor younger/middle-aged adults. That is, although older adults
tended to rate their hypothetical problem-solving abilities as better
than younger/middle-aged adults did, they tended to be less confident in their actual EPSE than younger/middle-aged adults. Of
considerable interest is the large and significant difference noted

between effects derived from participant-rated likelihood scales
(g .213) and experimenter-rated scales (g .484), which is
strong evidence that these study populations are not homogeneous.
Thus, although experimenters rate older adults EPSE as worse
than that of younger/middle-aged adults, older adults rate their
own EPSE as better than younger/middle-aged adults on likelihood
rating scales. These relationships can be observed in Table 2.
93
Table 3
EPSE Effect Sizes and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for Each Age Group Comparison
Age group comparison
No. of
studies
(k)
Young vs. middle-age

Middle-age vs. old
Young vs. old
Old vs. young/middle-age
9
10
17
21
Mean weighted
effect size
(g)
95% CI
Within-category
homogeneity statistic
(Qw)
814
1,035
1,329
2,610
.044
.466
.427
.484
.095.182
.333.598
.317.538
.401.567
12.08*
9.71*
20.93*
24.06*
Note. EPSE everyday problem-solving/decision-making effectiveness.

* all ps .05, suggesting within-group homogeneity; effect estimate meets standard test of statistical significance when zero is not included in the 95% CI.
Mean weighted
effect size
(g)
95% CI
2
10
9
165
1,688
757
.509
.519
.409
.196.821
.413.624
.259.558
6
5
10
439
606
1,565
.413
.388
.542
.220.606
.212.564
.434.650
14
7
1,626
984
.423
.570
.315.532
.441.700
10
11
1,533
1,077
.543
.405
.434.653
.278.532
9
12
800
1,810
.444
.502
.297.592
.402.603
4
10
7
450
1,533
627
.210*
.543*
.456*
.013.407
.434.653
.291.622
p .05). Results also revealed significant between-groups heterogeneity when studies were coded as interpersonal, instrumental,
or mixed (QB 8.43, df 2, p .05). Examination of the
between-groups differences revealed that effects from problems
with interpersonal content (g .210) were significantly smaller
(favoring younger adults) than effects from both studies with
instrumental problem content, g .543, t(12) 2.81, p .05, and
mixed problem content, g .456, t(9) 2.47, p .05. Effect
estimates from studies with instrumental versus mixed problem
contents were not significantly different from each other, t(15)
0.55, p .50. Thus, although EPSE was significantly reduced in
older adults as compared with young/middle-aged adults in all
content conditions, these age differences were substantially reduced when the problem content was interpersonal.
We also investigated three additional planned contrasts (fluency
vs. quality scoring emphasis; age-appropriate problem content;
well-structured vs. ill-structured task), and three unplanned contrasts (quality of the study methodology; problem-solving vs.
decision-making focus; and computerized vs. noncomputerized
administration). Results of these analyses are presented in Table 4.
None of these additional moderator analyses resulted in significant
between-group differences.
We also examined the assertion that educational level is related
to EPSE. Mean participant educational levels by age group were
available from 15 experimenter-rated studies. We computed the
correlation between the mean educational levels of the older participants (M 14.26, SD 1.16) and the effect sizes for EPSE. At
first glance, it appears that a strong relationship exists between the
educational level of older participants and the magnitude of the
effect estimates (r .63, p .01), suggesting that higher levels
of education in older participants resulted in a diminished difference in EPSE between younger and older adults. Nonetheless, the
significance of this relationship was reduced (r .43, p .06)
after one study was removed that was identified as an outlier both
in the previous analysis and on the basis of visual plot inspection
(Haught et al., 2000). It is interesting to note that this study
specifically examined the role of educational level by recruiting a
very highly educated older-adult sample (M education level 17.1
years).
4
16
374
2,112
.507
.473
.292.722
.380.565
Additional Analyses
The second moderator variable examined was interpersonal

versus instrumental problem content. Two studies (Artistico et al.,
2003; Heidrich & Denney, 1994) allowed separate coding of both
contents. To maintain independence of studies in this analysis, we
eliminated the instrumental problem content condition from both
studies. This was done to maximize the number of studies in the
interpersonal condition, which were few (k 4). Examination of
the effect sizes with these study conditions included (g .548)
versus removed (g .543) suggests that this elimination did not
substantially bias the resultant effect sizes estimates. Grouping
effects on the basis of problem content resulted in a homogeneous
population of effects for each of the three groupings: interpersonal
content (Qw 4.36, df 3, p .05), instrumental content (Qw
10.37, df 9, p .05), and mixed content (Qw 5.77, df 6,
Table 4
Analyses of Potential Moderators of Effect Size
Variable
Procedure
Computer
Paper/pencil
Read aloud
Quality
Well-controlled
Partially controlled
Not controlled
Focus
Problem solving
Decision making
Task structure
Well structured
Ill structured
Scoring emphasis
Fluency
Quality
Problem content*
Interpersonal
Instrumental
Mixed
Age content
Older
Unspecified
No. of
studies
(k)
* ps .05, suggesting between-group heterogeneity; effect estimate meets

standard test of statistical significance when zero is not included in the 95%
confidence interval (CI).
In any meta-analysis, the potential for publication bias emerges

such that studies with null effects (i.e., no age differences) may not
be represented in the published literature. This was not perceived
THORNTON AND DUMKE
94
to be a significant problem for the current investigation, as 25% of

the included studies (7/28) reported nonsignificant age effects.
Nonetheless, the possibility of publication bias was visually inspected using a funnel plot (Egger, Smith, Schneider, & Minder,
1997), in which the total number of participants from each study
was plotted against its effect size. If the portion of the plot near the
0 effect size is not present (i.e., few studies apparent in the lower
left quadrant of the plot), this may indicate a problem with publication bias as these studies can be inferred to be absent from the
examined literature. A funnel plot of the 21 studies included in the
analysis of age differences did not reveal a relative absence of
single-sample zero magnitude effects; thus, there was no indication
of a problem with publication bias in the extant research. In
addition, there was no significant correlation between total n and
effect size (r .14, p .5).
Discussion
Several findings from the current meta-analysis contribute toward resolution of some of the important issues in this literature.
First, the published literature to date does not support theories of
preserved EPSE in late adulthood, nor does the literature support
the pervasive notion that problem-solving abilities peak in middle
age. Rather, age differences in everyday problem solving are
reliable and of moderate magnitude across methodological and
theoretical domains. Second, very different conclusions regarding
EPSE are derived from likelihood ratings versus experimenter
ratings, suggesting that these criteria assess different constructs.
Third, both the content of the to-be-solved problem and the educational level of the older sample were found to influence the
magnitude of age differences in EPSE. Finally, results appear to
support the conceptual integration of findings from the everyday
problem-solving and everyday decision-making literatures. Each
of these findings is discussed in the following paragraphs.
Age Differences in EPSE

The first question motivating this meta-analysis was whether the
extant literature supports the contention that there are reliable age
differences in EPSE. The answer to this question is clearly affirmative. An appropriate estimate is that a reliable reduction in
EPSE occurs in older age (g .484), which is of medium magnitude using the conventional values for interpretation of effect
sizes (Cohen, 1992). In other terms, the current effect estimate
suggests that the median young or middle-aged participant would
outperform nearly 69% of the older participants on a task assessing
EPSE (see Cohen, 1988, Table 2.2.1, p. 22). Of further interest is
the absence of any appreciable difference in EPSE between young
and middle-aged adults. The findings suggest that EPSE does not
peak in middle age, as has been previously contended (Denney,
1990), but rather is quite stable until late life, when reliable
reductions are apparent.
The current findings have important implications for researchers
interested in everyday cognition, as establishing the magnitude of
this effect highlights the importance of ensuring adequate sample
sizes in cross-sectional studies. It is likely that one factor that has
contributed to the disparate conclusions regarding problem solving
in aging is the fact that the majority of the relevant studies have
reported results based on small samples. To have sufficient power
(.80) to detect a medium effect (d .50) at .05 requires a

sample size (N) of 64 in each group (Cohen, 1992). As can be seen
in Table 1, the typical group sample size reported in this literature
was considerably smaller than 64. Thus, many individual studies
lack sufficient statistical power to detect small or even medium
effects. As an example, a recent study (Chen & Sun, 2003) with a
total of 28 participants (14 young, 14 older) reported null age
differences, despite a group difference exceeding moderate magnitude (g .617). This may explain in large part the apparent
disparity in this literature to date, in that conclusions drawn from
single sample studies may not represent an accurate picture of the
developmental trajectory of everyday problem solving.
To put these findings into an appropriate context, we find it
useful to compare these effects with others that have been reported
in meta-analyses of the cognitive aging literature. In their metaanalysis of age differences in repetition priming, La Voie and
Light (1994) reported a weighted mean effect of .30 favoring
younger adults. In comparison, medium effects favoring younger
adults have been reported for recognition memory in aging (.57,
Spencer & Raz, 1995; .50, La Voie & Light, 1994), and large age
differences have been reported on recall memory measures (.99,
Verhaeghen, Marcoen, & Goosens, 1993; 1.01, Spencer & Raz,
1995; .97, La Voie & Light, 1994). In the current meta-analysis,
the average nonweighted effect estimate (d) for the six studies
reporting vocabulary was .32, favoring older adults (see Table 1).
Thus, it is of interest to note that the age differences favoring
younger adults noted in the EPSE literature are roughly approximate to that reported for recognition memory and are of greater
magnitude (although in the opposite direction) than the older adult
advantage in vocabulary.
In our introduction, we presented two theoretical approaches
regarding how age may impact EPSE. The first approach emphasizes the importance of experience and accumulated knowledge in
maintaining adult cognition in familiar situations (e.g., Baltes,
1993, 1997), whereas the second suggests that problem-solving
and decision-making processes are compiled from primary abilities demonstrated to decline with age (e.g., Willis, 1996; Willis &
Schaie, 1986). The current findings appear to provide partial
support for both perspectives. The reliable disadvantage in EPSE
observed in older age is consistent with literature demonstrating
strong links between performance on measures of everyday cognition, primary ability measures, and fluid intellectual abilities in
older adults (Allaire & Marsiske, 1999, 2002; Diehl et al., 1995;
Kirasic et al., 1996). Nonetheless, no detectable difference in
EPSE was found from young age to middle age. Although the
current findings cannot pinpoint at what age reliable declines in
EPSE occur, the differences are apparent in older age groups with
an average age of 70 (see Table 1). Given the positive association
between EPSE and performance on tasks of inductive reasoning
(Allaire & Marsiske, 1999) and working memory (Kirasic et al.,
1996), one may expect that age group differences on these measures would follow similar trajectories. In fact, this does not appear
to be the case. Cross-sectional age differences on tests of reasoning
and working memory suggest a linear decline in performance from
young adulthood toward older age (see Kaufman & Lichtenberger,
2002), whereas significant increases in accumulated knowledge of
the world are evident until late life (see Kaufman & Lichtenberger,
2002; Schaie, 1996). Thus, the current findings support the perspective that EPSE in middle age may be maintained at the level
of young adults by the counterbalancing effects of accumulated

knowledge structures and relatively mild declines in basic mental
abilities. In older age, the declines in primary reasoning and
memory abilities may override the benefits of accumulated knowledge, resulting in a moderate overall decrement in EPSE.
Moderators of Age Differences in EPSE

Although age differences were reliable across a variety of experimental methodologies, these findings also suggest that contextual factors significantly moderate the magnitude of the observed
age differences. The first important moderator involves whether
EPSE was determined by participant or experimenter ratings.
Although older adults typically rated their own problem solving on
likelihood ratings as being superior to that of younger/middle-aged
adults, experimenter rating systems reliably determined older
adults to be less effective problem solvers. Furthermore, the current findings suggest that studies using participant ratings and
those using experimenter ratings are likely examining very different constructs, and thus, it is not reasonable to combine these
findings into a singular examination of EPSE. This finding extends
those from a previous factor analytic model of problem-solving
performance in older adults aged 68 94 years (Marsiske & Willis,
1995). In this study, problem-solving performance as measured by
a participant-rated likelihood scale (EPSI; Cornelius & Caspi,
1987) shared little commonality with performance as measured by
either Denney and Pearces (1989) practical problems or a wellstructured problem-solving task (EPT). The current findings support these conclusions in comparisons of EPSE in young, middleaged, and older age groups with few samples including participants
over age 80.
In addition, the current findings suggest a further division of
effects from participant rating scales into those that primarily
assess likelihood ratings and those that assess performance satisfaction or confidence. There are several potential explanations for
the finding that likelihood ratings tend to favor older adults.
Likelihood rating scales, such as the EPSI, may in part assess
sensitivity toward and knowledge regarding socially sanctioned
ways of solving problems (Berg & Klaczynski, 1996; Marsiske &
Willis, 1995). Such crystallized knowledge regarding social norms
may be expected to increase with age (Berg & Klaczynski, 1996).
In addition, it has been suggested that the situations presented with
likelihood rating scales are too simple and brief to assess strategy
development and planning (Devolder, 1993). A third potential
explanation for these findings is that likelihood rating scales provide more environmental support than do studies that require
participants to generate solutions or make decisions on the basis of
the deliberate processing of information. By externalizing task
components required by other everyday problem-solving and
decision-making tasks (i.e., having the participant select strategies
from a list), likelihood rating scales reduce the need for the
self-initiated cognitive processes that are often associated with
performance decrements in older adults (Craik, 1986; Craik &
Jennings, 1992). Many analogous examples exist in the memory
and aging literature, with findings commonly reporting that older
adults perform better on recognition-type tasks than on memory
recall tasks (for a review, see Craik & Jennings, 1992). Finally, the
issue of which rating system, experimenter or participant, has the
95
highest predictive validity for real-world problem-solving performance remains an important question for future research.
It is interesting that while older adults rate their likelihood of
effective problem solving as better than younger adults, they are
significantly less confident regarding their actual performance. As
with likelihood ratings, confidence ratings presumably reflect past
experience (Bandura, 1977) and, as such, have been shown to be
closely related to actual problem-solving performance (Artistico et
al., 2003; Haught et al., 2000). The current analysis suggests that
younger/middle-aged adults are more confident than older adults
regarding their problem-solving abilities and that the magnitude of
this age difference is small to medium (g .349). It is important
to note that the current findings do not speak to the relative
accuracy of these various rating systems in older and younger
participants. Rather, they suggest that global estimates of EPSE
vary considerably according to who is determining effectiveness
and depending on whether likelihood or confidence ratings are
used. A potentially fruitful area for future research involves
whether experimental manipulation of self-efficacy impacts older
adults performance on everyday problem-solving and decisionmaking tasks, as has been demonstrated in other cognitive domains
(see Bandura, 1997).
The second moderator detected in the current meta-analysis
involves whether the problem content is interpersonal or instrumental in focus. The current findings suggest that age differences
in EPSE are attenuated when the problem content reflects interpersonal concerns (g .210) as compared with instrumental
concerns (g .548) or those with mixed content (g .456).
Although some caution is necessary given that few studies are
included in the interpersonal content category (k 4), such findings are consistent with those that have highlighted the importance
of contextual factors in problem-solving behaviors. Previous authors have suggested that interpersonal concerns may be more
emotionally salient in older adulthood (Blanchard-Fields et al.,
1995) and that older adults may have more experience solving
interpersonal problems than younger adults (Heidrich & Denney,
1994). In addition, findings indicate that older adults tend to
approach problems with emotionally salient interpersonal content
differently than either middle-aged or younger adults (BlanchardFields et al., 1995, 1997).
The question remains whether older adults engage more fully in
problem-solving tasks that they perceive to be more salient or
more representative of domains with which they have had previous
success. One may predict that self-efficacy in EPSE varies as a
result of task-specific factors, as has been demonstrated in other
cognitive domains (for a review, see Cavanaugh, 1996). Although
there were too few studies providing confidence ratings to effectively assess moderators in the current meta-analysis, it is interesting to note that two studies that investigated satisfaction (Crawford & Channon, 2002) and self-efficacy (Artistico et al., 2003)
regarding interpersonal problem solving reported higher confidence ratings in older adults, as compared with younger adults.
Systematic investigation of self-efficacy across interpersonal and
instrumental problem-solving domains may shed additional light
on this issue.
The findings regarding the impact of educational level are
potentially interesting but require further exploration. To date, few
studies of EPSE have specifically targeted highly educated older
adults (Haught, 1985; Haught et al., 2000), and we are unaware of
96
THORNTON AND DUMKE
any study that has compared EPSE in older adults with different
levels of formal education. In fact, most studies attempt to ensure
that older and younger adults have equivalent levels of formal
education, leading to minimal educational variation in the current
literature (see Table 1). Because formal education is highly associated with performance on formal reasoning tasks (Schaie, 1996),
the observed relationship between education and EPSE may not be
surprising. However, a common assumption is that everyday problem solving is at least in part distinct from schooled abilities (see
Berg & Klaczynski, 1996). This poses potentially interesting questions regarding what factors may underlie the apparent relationship
between formal education and EPSE. For example, what aspects of
performance on everyday tasks are impacted by educational attainment, and under what conditions does this relationship
emerge? Future studies of EPSE may benefit from examining the
impact of this potentially important variable.
It is important to note that the lack of a significant difference
between effect estimates derived from studies with a problemsolving versus a decision-making focus supports the commonality
of these literatures. Specifically, the current analyses provide evidence that these findings can be meaningfully combined into a
single homogeneous population of effects. Although this does not
imply that these literatures are interchangeable, it appears that
some factors associated with age impact EPSE in a homogenizing
manner, regardless of objectively defined outcome criteria (i.e.,
decision accuracy, quality of decision rationale, number of safe/
effective solutions, solution quality ratings). A potentially fruitful
contribution of the decision-making literature toward understanding EPSE involves apparent age differences in application of
reasoning biases. Older adults, perhaps in reaction to reductions in
information-processing capabilities, may rely less on analytic processing and more on heuristics to guide decision making (Yates &
Patalano, 1999). Heuristic strategies tend to simplify information
processing by providing shortcuts through complex problems
(Yates & Patalano, 1999) but can also lead to systemic deviations
or biases and, subsequently, less than optimal solutions (Peters
et al., 2000). Although few studies have directly assessed age
differences in susceptibility to bias, findings of age-related increases in illusory correlations (Mutter & Pliske, 1994) have been
suggested to reflect an increase in the use of heuristic processes
(see Peters et al., 2000). In addition, both older and middle-aged
adults are reportedly more prone than younger adults to display
biased reasoning, as evidenced by the uncritical acceptance of
information that reflects their own positions and the rejection of
evidence perceived to be inconsistent with their beliefs (Klaczynski & Robinson, 2000). Whether age-related changes in susceptibility to bias are systematically related to EPSE remains an interesting question for future research.
Our analyses did not reveal systematic differences in effect sizes
with regard to quality of study methodology, method of test
administration (i.e., computerized vs. paper and pencil), or ageappropriate content. In addition, other moderators that have been
suggested by previous investigators (i.e., well- vs. ill-structured
task) were not supported, although this may reflect the interrelatedness of these concepts, as previously identified (Allaire & Marsiske, 2002), and the lack of clear distinctions between these
problem types within the extant literature. The similarity of effect
estimates in studies using quantity versus quality scoring criteria
also deserves special comment. It has been argued that fluency
criteria excessively penalizes older adults performance and mischaracterizes effective problem solving (Berg et al., 1999). Evidence that experts tend to use less information to solve problems
(e.g., Meyer et al., 1995) has been used to support the contention
that older adults use a less exhaustive and more selective approach
to problem solving and therefore may not generate strategies
previously found to be unproductive (Berg et al., 1999). An alternate view holds that a higher number of generated solutions does
in fact reflect better EPSE, as evidenced by the positive relationships observed between the number of generated solutions and
solution quality (see Haught et al., 2000; Heidrich & Denney,
1994). The current findings are consistent with the latter perspective. The magnitude of the age differences was not reduced when
quality was emphasized. Rather, age differences in EPSE were
reliable and consistent regardless of whether the criteria emphasize
number of safe and effective solutions generated, quality of rationale, or decision accuracy.
Limitations of the Current Meta-Analysis

To accomplish our goals, we spotlighted a segment of the
everyday problem-solving and decision-making literatures that
allowed us to examine our questions by reporting data on at least
two age groups and allowing a determination of EPSE. We recognize that this approach does not take into account studies that
have focused on contextual differences in problem-solving processes. Much of this research has focused on identifying how the
process of everyday problem solving is shaped by the individuals
approach toward defining the problem, the appraisal of personal
salience, and age by contextual variations in strategy selection
(Berg et al., 1998, 1999; Strough et al., 1996; Watson &
Blanchard-Fields, 1998). By focusing on the changing nature of
problem-solving contexts across the life span, these authors have
focused attention toward the process of problem solving, rather
than evaluation of the outcome, and have demonstrated that older
adults use qualitatively different approaches toward solving problems than do younger adults. Such findings have been interpreted
as evidence of adaptive cognition in aging (Blanchard-Fields et al.,
1995, 1997; Watson & Blanchard-Fields, 1998). However, the
consequences (in terms of effectiveness) of using differential approaches to problem solving are unknown. We believe that methodologies incorporating both outcome and process measures are
critical to gain a full picture of problem solving and decision
making across the life span. The current findings regarding the
mitigation of age differences with both interpersonal problem
content and highly educated older adult samples support the importance of individual and contextual factors in understanding
EPSE. An important step in advancing this literature will be to
better understand the functional implications of individual and
group differences in problem-solving processes.
Given the cross-sectional nature of the studies used to derive
effect estimates, we cannot comment on age changes in EPSE over
time. The current findings are further limited by the lack of
available comparisons of EPSE in older (75) and oldest (85)
age groups. We did not include studies that limited examination of
problem solving to older age (i.e., age 60 and above) as only six
published studies were identified with independent samples that
allowed an estimation of EPSE (Allaire & Marsiske, 1999; Diehl
et al., 1995; Marsiske & Willis, 1995; Poon et al., 1992; Whitfield
et al., 1999; Willis, Jay, Diehl, & Marsiske, 1992), and only three
reported data appropriate for between-older-age-group effect size
calculations (Diehl et al., 1995; Marsiske & Willis, 1995; Whitfield et al., 1999). It is possible that everyday problem solving may
reflect different underlying processes with advanced age. It is
interesting to note that, although scoring emphasis did not emerge
as a significant moderator in our comparison of young/middleaged versus older effect estimates, quality versus fluency outcomes
did yield statistically independent results in a study of everyday
cognition in participants aged 60 90 (Allaire & Marsiske, 2002).
Similarly, factor analytic solutions of cognitive measures may
differ with advanced age (Kaufman, Lichtenberger, & McLean,
2001), and reasoning tasks may elicit reliance on different cognitive processes in adults aged 75 and over (Kaufman & Lichtenberger, 2002).
Finally, although effects obtained from the extant literature
present evidence of decreased EPSE in older adults, the current
results do not directly speak to the functional implications of this
age difference. We agree with previous statements that understanding the functional impact of variations in EPSE is a crucial step
toward advancing this literature (e.g., Allaire & Marsiske, 2002).
The few studies to date that have investigated this issue report
strong relationships between performance on everyday problemsolving tasks and functional independence (Allaire & Marsiske,
2002; Diehl et al., 1995). In addition, although much work to date
has focused on problem solving in healthy older adults, little
attention has been focused toward everyday problem solving and
decision making in groups that may be at risk for age-associated
cognitive impairments. If age differences in EPSE reflect a decline
in basic mental abilities, one may predict that groups at risk for
accelerated cognitive decline would be at increased risk for poor
problem solving and decision making. Such findings could have
significant implications for maintenance of optimal functioning.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
meta-analysis.
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, 101115.
*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: Potentials and limits. Gerontologist,
33, 580 594.
Baltes, P. B. (1997). On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny:
Selection, optimization, and compensation as foundation of developmental theory. American Psychologist, 52, 366 380.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
Freeman.
Berg, C. A., & Klaczynski, P. A. (1996). Practical intelligence and problem
solving: Searching for perspectives. In F. Blanchard-Fields & T. M.
Hess (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive change in adulthood and aging
(pp. 323357). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
*Berg, C. A., Meegan, S. P., & Klaczynski, P. (1999). Age and experiential
differences in strategy generation and information requests for solving
97
everyday problems. International Journal of Behavioral Development,

23, 615 639.
Berg, C. A., Strough, J., 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., Baldi, R., & Stein, R. (1999). Age relevance and
context effects on attributions across the adult lifespan. International
Journal of Behavioral Development: Special IssueCognitive in Everyday Life: Adult Developmental Aspects, 23, 665 683.
*Blanchard-Fields, F., Chen, Y., & Norris, L. (1997). Everyday problem
solving across the adult life span: Influence of domain specificity and
cognitive appraisals. Psychology and Aging, 12, 684 693.
*Blanchard-Fields, F., Jahnke, H. C., & Camp, C. (1995). Age differences
in problem-solving style: The role of emotional salience. Psychology
and Aging, 10, 173180.
Borenstein, M., & Rothstein, H. (1999). Comprehensive meta-analysis.
Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
Cavanaugh, J. C. (1996). Memory self-efficacy as a moderator of memory
change. In F. Blanchard-Fields & T. M. Hess (Eds.), Perspectives on
cognitive change in adulthood and aging (pp. 488 507). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Chapman, M. (1993). Everyday reasoning and the revision of belief. In
J. M. Puckett & H. W. Reese (Eds.), Mechanisms of everyday cognition
(pp. 93113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
*Chen, Y., & Sun, Y. (2003). Age differences in financial decisionmaking: Using simple heuristics. Educational Gerontology, 29, 627
635.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155159.
Collins, K., Luszcz, M., Lawson, M., & Keeves, J. (1997). Everyday
problem solving in elderly women: Contributions of residence, perceived control, and age. Gerontologist, 37, 293302.
*Cornelius, S. W., & Caspi, A. (1987). Everyday problem solving in
adulthood and old age. Psychology and Aging, 2, 144 153.
Craik, F. I. M. (1986). A functional account of age differences in memory.
In F. Klix & H. Hagendorf (Eds.), Human memory and cognitive
capabilities: Mechanisms and performances (pp. 409 422). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Craik, F. I. M., & Jennings, J. M. (1992). Human memory. In F. I. M. Craik
& T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition (pp.
51110). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
*Crawford, S., & Channon, S. (2002). Dissociation between performance
on abstract tests of executive function and problem solving in real-lifetype situations in normal aging. Aging and Mental Health, 6, 1221.
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). Amsterdam:
North-Holland.
*Denney, N. W., & Palmer, A. M. (1981). Adult age differences in
traditional and practical problem-solving measures. Journal of Gerontology, 36, 323328.
*Denney, N. W., & Pearce, K. A. (1989). A developmental study of
practical problem solving in adults. Psychology and Aging, 4, 438 442.
*Denney, N. W., Pearce, K. A., & Palmer, A. M. (1982). Developmental
study of adultsPerformance on traditional and practical problemsolving tasks. Experimental Aging Research, 8, 115118.
*Denney, N. W., Tozier, T. L., & Schlotthauer, C. A. (1992). The effect of
instructions on age differences in practical problem solving. Journal of
Gerontology, 47, P142P145.
Devolder, P. A. (1993). Adult age differences in monitoring of practical
problem-solving performance. Experimental Aging Research, 19, 129
146.
98
THORNTON AND DUMKE
Diehl, M., Willis, S. L., & Schaie, K. W. (1995). Everyday problem solving
in older adults: Observational assessment and cognitive correlates. Psychology and Aging, 10, 478 491.
*Dobson, S. H. (2000). Precursors of adult age differences in abstract and
practical problem solving. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section
BThe Sciences and Engineering, 60, 3601.
*DZurilla, T. J., Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Kant, G. L. (1998). Age and
gender differences in social problem-solving ability. Personal and Individual Differences, 25, 241252.
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in
meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical
Journal, 315, 629 634.
*Feifel, H., & Strack, S. (1989). Coping with conflict situations: Middleaged and elderly men. Psychology and Aging, 4, 26 33.
*Finucane, M. L., Slovic, P., Hibbard, J. H., Peters, E., Mertz, D. K., &
McGregor, D. G. (2002). Aging and decision-making competence: An
analysis of comprehension and consistency skills in older versus
younger adults. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 15(2), 141
164.
Fitzgerald, J. M. (2000). Younger and older jurors: The influence of
environmental supports on memory performance and decision making in
complex trials. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 55B,
323331.
*Haught, P. A. (1985). Problem-solving performance of young and older
adults. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section BThe Sciences
and Engineering, 46, 3293.
*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.
Hedges, L. V. (1984). Estimation of effect size under nonrandom sampling:
The effects of censoring studies yielding statistically insignificant mean
differences. Journal of Educational Statistics, 9(1), 61 85.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
*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(2), 105126.
*Hershey, D. A., & Farrell, A. H. (1999). Age differences on a procedurally oriented test of practical problem solving. Journal of Adult Development, 6, 8794.
*Hershey, D. A., & Wilson, J. A. (1997). Age differences in performance
awareness on a complex financial decision-making task. Experimental
Aging Research, 23, 257273.
Johnson, M. M. (1990). Age differences in decision making: A process
methodology for examining strategic information processing. Journal of
Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 45(2), P75P78.
Johnson, M. M. (1993). Thinking about strategies during, before, and after
making a decision. Psychology and Aging, 8, 231241.
Johnson, M. M. S. (1997). Individual differences in the voluntary use of a
memory aid during decision making. Experimental Aging Research,
23(1), 33 43.
Johnson, M. M. S., & Drungle, S. C. (2000). Purchasing OTC medications:
The influence of age and familiarity. Experimental Aging Research,
26(3), 245261.
Kaufman, A. S., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (2002). Assessing adolescent and
adult intelligence. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kaufman, A. S., Lichtenberger, E. O., & McLean, J. E. (2001). Two- and
three-factor solutions of the WAISIII. Assessment, 8(3), 267280.
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.
Klaczynski, P. A., & Robinson, B. (2000). Personal theories, intellectual
ability, and epistemological beliefs: Adult age differences in everyday
reasoning biases. Psychology and Aging, 15, 400 416.
*LaRue, A. D., & DElia, L. F. (1985). Anxiety and problem solving in

middle-aged and elderly adults. Experimental Aging Research, 11(3 4),
215220.
La Voie, D., & Light, L. L. (1994). Adult age differences in repetition
priming: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 9, 539 553.
Marsiske, M., & Willis, S. L. (1995). Dimensionality of everyday problem
solving in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 10, 269 283.
*McDonald-Miszczak, L. C. (1997). Self efficacy, self-regulation, and
complex decision making in younger and older adults. Dissertation
Abstracts International: Section BThe Sciences and Engineering, 57,
6606.
Meacham, J. A., & Emont, N. C. (1989). The interpersonal basis of
everyday problem solving in adulthood. In J. D. Sinnott (Ed.), Everyday
problem solving: Theory and applications. New York: Praeger.
*Meyer, B. J. F., Russo, C., & Talbot, A. (1995). Discourse comprehension
and problem solving: Decisions about the treatment of breast cancer by
women across the life span. Psychology and Aging, 10, 84 103.
Mutter, S. A., & Pliske, R. M. (1994). Aging and illusory correlation in
judgments of co-occurrence. Psychology and Aging, 9, 53 63.
Nichols, T. A., Rogers, W. A., Fisk, A. D., & West, L. D. (2001). How old
are your participants? An investigation of age classifications as reported
in human factors. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society 45th Annual Meeting, 260 261.
Patrick, J. M. H. (1995). Age and expertise effects on decision making
processes and outcomes. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section
BThe Sciences and Engineering, 56, 4607.
Peters, E., Finucane, M. L., MacGregor, D., & Slovic, P. (2000). The
bearable lightness of aging: Judgment and decision processes in older
adults. In National Research Council, P. C. Stern, & L. L. Carstensen
(Eds.), The aging mind: Opportunities in cognitive research (Appendix
C, pp. 144 165). Washington, DC: National Academy.
Poon, L. W., Martin, P., Clayton, G. M., Messner, S., Noble, C. A., &
Johnson, M. A. (1992). The influences of cognitive resources on adaptation and old age. The International Journal of Aging & Human
Development, 34, 31 46.
Rabbitt, P. (1977). Changes in problem solving ability in old age. In J. E.
Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (pp.
606 625). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Reese, H. W., & Rodeheaver, D. (1985). Problem solving and complex
decision making. In K. W. Schaie (Ed.), Handbook of the psychology of
aging (2nd ed., pp. 474 499). New York: Academic Press.
Riggle, E. D. B., & Johnson, M. M. S. (1996). Age differences in political
decision making: Strategies for evaluating political candidates. Political
Behavior, 18, 99 118.
Robinson, L. A., Berman, J. S., & Neimeyer, R. A. (1990). Psychotherapy
for the treatment of depression: A comprehensive review of controlled
outcome research. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 30 49.
Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta-analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 59 82.
Schaie, K. W. (1996). Intellectual development in adulthood. In J. E. Birren
& K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (pp.
266 286). Academic Press.
Schaie, K. W., & Willis, S. L. (1996). Psychometric intelligence and aging.
In F. Blanchard-Fields & T. M. Hess (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive
change in adulthood and aging (pp. 293322). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Shadish, W. R., Robinson, L., & Lu, C. (1999). ES: A computer program
for effect size calculation. St. Paul, MN: Assessment Systems Corporation.
Spencer, W. D., & Raz, N. (1995). Differential effects of aging on memory
for content and context: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 10,
527539.
*Stanley, B., Guido, J., Stanley, M., & Shortell, D. (1984). The elderly
patient and informed consent. JAMA, 252, 13021306.

Stephens, E. C., & Johnson, M. M. S. (2000). Dr. Mom and other influences on younger and older adultsOTC medication purchases. Journal
of Applied Gerontology, 19, 441 459.
Streufert, S., Pogash, R., Piasecki, M., & Post, G. M. (1990). Age and
management team performance. Psychology and Aging, 5, 551559.
Strough, J., Berg, C. A., & Sansone, C. (1996). Goals for solving everyday
problems across the life span: Age and gender differences in the salience
of interpersonal concerns. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1106 1115.
*Taylor, R. N. (1975). Age and experience as determinants of managerial
information processing and decision making performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 18, 74 81.
Verhaeghen, P., Marcoen, A., & Goosens, L. (1993). Facts and fiction
about memory aging: A quantitative integration of research findings.
Journal of Gerontology, 48, 157171.
Walker, N., Fain, W. B., Fisk, A. D., & McGuire, C. L. (1997). Aging and
decision making: Driving-related problem-solving. Human Factors, 39,
438 444.
Watson, T. L., & Blanchard-Fields, F. (1998). Thinking with your head and
your heart: Age differences in everyday problem-solving strategy preferences. Aging, Neuropsychology, & Cognition, 5, 225240.
*Whitfield, K. E., Baker-Thomas, Heyward, K., Gatto, M., & Williams, Y.
(1999). Evaluating a measure of everyday problem solving for use in
African Americans. Experimental Aging Research, 25, 209 221.
Willis, S. L. (1996). Everyday problem solving. In K. W. Schaie (Ed.),
99
Handbook of the psychology of aging (4th ed., pp. 287307). New York.
Academic Press.
Willis, S. L., Jay, G. M., Diehl, M., & Marsiske, M. (1992). Longitudinal
change and prediction of everyday task competence in the elderly.
Research on Aging, 14(1), 68 91.
Willis, S. L., & Marsiske, M. (1993). Manual for the Everyday Problems
Test. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
Willis, S. L., & Schaie, K. W. (1986). Practical intelligence in later
adulthood. In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world (pp.
236 268). New York: Cambridge University Press.
*Wright, B. M., Carscaddon, D. M., & Lambert, S. D. (2000). Sex,
education, and cautiousness: Implications for counselors. Adultspan
Journal, 2(2), 113122.
Yates, J. F., & Patalano, A. L. (1999). Decision making in aging. In D. C.
Park, R. W. Morrell, & K. Shifren (Eds.), Processing of medical information in aging patients: Cognitive and human factors perspectives (pp.
3154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
*Zwahr, M. D., Park, D. C., & Shifren, K. (1999). Judgments about
estrogen replacement therapy: The role of age, cognitive abilities, and
beliefs. Psychology and Aging, 14, 179 191.
Received July 24, 2003

Revision received August 18, 2004
Accepted August 31, 2004

Age Differences in Everyday Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Effectiveness - A Meta-Analytic Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Age Differences in Everyday Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Effectiveness - A Meta-Analytic Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychology and Aging

2005, Vol. 20, No. 1, 8599

Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association

Age Differences in Everyday Problem-Solving and Decision-Making

The past several years have witnessed a considerable expansion

clines have been reported on traditional measures that typically

Wendy J. L. Thornton and Heike A. Dumke, Department of Psychology,

Defining the Problem

THORNTON AND DUMKE

gence (Willis & Schaie, 1986), everyday problem solving (Collins,

Developmental Trajectory of EPSE

Criteria Used to Assess EPSE

AGE DIFFERENCES IN PROBLEM-SOLVING EFFECTIVENESS

Nature of the Problem to Be Solved

and middle-aged adults (Denney & Pearce, 1989, p. 441). In

THORNTON AND DUMKE

Artistico et al. (2003)

Mean years education (SDs)

Vocabulary (raw score means; SDs)

N (age ranges or means)

AGE DIFFERENCES IN PROBLEM-SOLVING EFFECTIVENESS

THORNTON AND DUMKE

Age groups. Effects were coded as to the age comparison of interest:

methodology. Likelihood ratings were used in studies asking participants to

AGE DIFFERENCES IN PROBLEM-SOLVING EFFECTIVENESS

Age Differences in EPSE

neous population of effects (Qw 24.06, df 20, p .05), with

THORNTON AND DUMKE

No. of effective solutions

Participant-rated likelihood scales

Artistico et. al. (2003)d

hood and confidence rating effects were also significantly different

considerable interest is the large and significant difference noted

AGE DIFFERENCES IN PROBLEM-SOLVING EFFECTIVENESS

Age group comparison

Young vs. middle-age

Note. EPSE everyday problem-solving/decision-making effectiveness.

The second moderator variable examined was interpersonal

* ps .05, suggesting between-group heterogeneity; effect estimate meets

In any meta-analysis, the potential for publication bias emerges

THORNTON AND DUMKE

to be a significant problem for the current investigation, as 25% of

Age Differences in EPSE

(.80) to detect a medium effect (d .50) at .05 requires a

AGE DIFFERENCES IN PROBLEM-SOLVING EFFECTIVENESS

of young adults by the counterbalancing effects of accumulated

Moderators of Age Differences in EPSE

THORNTON AND DUMKE

Limitations of the Current Meta-Analysis

AGE DIFFERENCES IN PROBLEM-SOLVING EFFECTIVENESS

everyday problems. International Journal of Behavioral Development,

THORNTON AND DUMKE

*LaRue, A. D., & DElia, L. F. (1985). Anxiety and problem solving in

AGE DIFFERENCES IN PROBLEM-SOLVING EFFECTIVENESS

Received July 24, 2003

You might also like