problem solving vs solution focused

Problem-Solving Therapy vs Brief Solution-Focused Therapy (Cognitive Behavioral Teletherapy Tips)

• by Team Experts
• July 2, 2023 July 3, 2023

Discover the surprising differences between Problem-Solving Therapy and Brief Solution-Focused Therapy for effective cognitive behavioral teletherapy tips.

Step	Action	Novel Insight	Risk Factors
1	Understand the between Problem-Solving (PST) and Brief Solution-Focused (BSFT)	PST is a that focuses on identifying and solving specific problems, while BSFT is a that emphasizes finding solutions rather than dwelling on problems	PST may not be for clients who are not ready to actively participate in , while BSFT may not be suitable for clients with complex
2	Determine which is best suited for the client’s needs	suggests that both PST and BSFT can be for a range of , but requires to tailor their to the client	Choosing the wrong approach may lead to ineffective or even harm the client
3	Incorporate into	can be just as effective as therapy, and may even have some advantages such as and	However, must be aware of the of , such as and
4	Introduce and	can help clients become more aware of their thoughts and , while can help them manage	However, therapists must be careful not to overwhelm clients with too many or to rely solely on these without addressing underlying issues
5	progress and adjust as needed	and can help therapists track progress and make adjustments to treatment as needed	However, therapists must be aware of their own and limitations, and seek supervision or consultation when necessary

What is Cognitive Behavioral Teletherapy and How Does it Work?

The goal-oriented approach: a key component of brief solution-focused therapy, why evidence-based practice is crucial in cognitive behavioral teletherapy, the role of mindfulness practices in promoting emotional regulation during cognitive behavioral teletherapy, common mistakes and misconceptions, related resources.

Step	Action	Novel Insight	Risk Factors
1	is a form of that is conducted remotely through .	has become increasingly popular due to its .	or poor internet can disrupt the and affect the .
2	The uses and to help the client identify and change and .	and are often incorporated to help the client manage .	, which involves gradually exposing the client to feared situations, may not be as through .
3	is also provided to help the client develop for difficult and situations.	are used to help the client identify and overcome obstacles to their .	Brief , which focuses on finding solutions rather than analyzing problems, may be more suitable for due to its time-limited nature.
4	The , or the between the and client, is crucial for the of teletherapy.	The lack of may make it more difficult to establish and rapport with the client.	It is important for the therapist to be aware of and adapt their accordingly.

Step	Action	Novel Insight	Risk Factors
1	Begin with a .	Brief Solution-Focused (BSFT) is a strength-based that focuses on the client’s strengths and resources.	The may overlook the client’s problems and .
2	Use to build rapport and .	BSFT uses a collaborative to , where the client is an active participant in the .	The client may not be willing to participate in the .
3	Ask solution-building questions to help the client identify their .	BSFT uses outcome-focused to help the client achieve their .	The client may have unrealistic goals or .
4	Utilize a resource utilization to help the client identify their strengths and resources.	BSFT is a time-limited model that focuses on empowering the client to make changes.	The client may not be ready or willing to make changes.
5	Collaborate with the client to set achievable goals.	BSFT uses change-promoting strategies to help the client achieve their goals.	The client may not have the necessary resources or to achieve their goals.
6	Use empowerment-based to help the client take ownership of their goals.	BSFT has a future-oriented mindset that focuses on the client’s and to overcome .	The client may have a negative mindset or lack .
7	Employ resilience- methods to help the client overcome obstacles.	BSFT uses to help the client overcome barriers to change.	The client may have difficulty accessing .
8	Use to help the client develop strategies to achieve their goals.	BSFT is a that focuses on the client’s strengths and resources to achieve .	The client may have difficulty identifying solutions to their problems.

In summary, the goal-oriented approach is a key component of Brief Solution-Focused Therapy (BSFT). BSFT utilizes positive psychology principles , client-centered therapy , solution-building questions, strength-based perspective , collaborative goal-setting , outcome-focused interventions , resource utilization focus , time-limited treatment model, empowerment-based techniques , change-promoting strategies, future-oriented mindset, resilience- enhancing methods, cognitive-behavioral teletherapy tips , and problem-solving therapy to help the client achieve their goals. However, there are potential risk factors that the therapist should be aware of, such as the client’s readiness and willingness to participate in the goal-setting process , unrealistic goals or expectations , lack of necessary resources or support , negative mindset or lack of resilience, difficulty accessing teletherapy services , and difficulty identifying solutions to their problems.

Step	Action	Novel Insight	Risk Factors
1	Understand the importance of in .	is crucial in because it ensures that the provided is and based on .	Not using evidence-based practice can lead to ineffective and negative for patients.
2	Follow and .	and provide a framework for evidence-based practice in cognitive behavioral teletherapy.	Not following clinical guidelines and best practices can lead to ineffective treatment and negative for patients.
3	Use .	involves tailoring treatment to the needs and preferences .	Not using patient-centered care can lead to ineffective treatment and negative mental health outcomes for patients.
4	Utilize , , and .	These have been shown to be in treating a variety of .	Not utilizing -based , , and can lead to ineffective treatment and negative mental health outcomes for patients.
5	Structure appropriately.	Structuring appropriately can help ensure that the patient receives the most possible.	Poorly structured therapy sessions can lead to ineffective treatment and negative mental health outcomes for patients.
6	Stay up-to-date on and .	and are constantly evolving, and it is important to stay informed to ensure that treatment is provided in a safe and ethical manner.	Not staying up-to-date on telehealth regulations and ethical considerations can lead to legal and ethical issues.

Step	Action	Novel Insight	Risk Factors
1	Introduce the concept of in .	involve paying to the without judgment.	Some may have about mindfulness practices and may be resistant to trying them.
2	Explain how mindfulness practices can promote during .	Mindfulness practices can help become more self-aware of their thoughts and , which can lead to better .	Some individuals may find it difficult to on the and may become frustrated with the .
3	Discuss specific mindfulness practices that can be used during cognitive behavioral teletherapy.	, , and can all be used to promote emotional regulation.	Some individuals may not find certain mindfulness practices helpful and may need to try different .
4	Highlight the importance of incorporating mindfulness practices into cognitive behavioral teletherapy.	Mindfulness practices can the of and improve overall .	Some individuals may not be willing to try mindfulness practices and may need additional from their .
5	Emphasize the need for that incorporate mindfulness practices.	Each individual may respond differently to mindfulness practices, and it is important to tailor accordingly.	Some individuals may require additional or resources to fully engage in mindfulness practices.

Overall, incorporating mindfulness practices into cognitive behavioral teletherapy can be a valuable tool for promoting emotional regulation and improving mental health treatment outcomes . However, it is important to recognize that not all individuals may respond positively to mindfulness practices and that individualized treatment plans may be necessary. Therapists should also be prepared to address any resistance or challenges that may arise during the use of mindfulness practices.

Mistake/Misconception	Correct Viewpoint
Problem-Solving and Brief Solution-Focused are the same thing.	While both therapies on finding solutions to problems, they differ in their . is more structured and focuses on identifying specific problems and developing strategies to solve them, while brief is more flexible and focuses on identifying strengths and resources that can be used to achieve .
only apply to one type of therapy.	While these may be particularly relevant for , they can also be applied to other types of or even . The key is to adapt the based on the specific needs of each client and their .
There is a clear winner between Problem-Solving Therapy vs Brief Solution-Focused Therapy.	Both therapies have been shown to be for different types of clients with different needs. It’s important for to assess each client’s unique situation before deciding which will work best for them.
cannot be as as therapy.	has shown that teletherapy can be just as effective as in-person therapy when conducted by a trained using -based such as . However, it’s important for therapists to consider factors such as issues or lack of that could the of .

• More evidence for problem-solving therapy: improving access is still a problem in need of solving.
• The effectiveness of group problem-solving therapy on women’s sexual function and satisfaction after mastectomy surgery.

• Mental Health
• Nutrition & Health
• Relationships
• Sharper Brain

When autocomplete results are available use up and down arrows to review and enter to go to the desired page. Touch device users, explore by touch or with swipe gestures.

Self Help Nirvana is an online community for everybody whose goal is personal improvement and development.

A Guide To Solution-Focused Problem Solving

“ Focus on the solution, not on the problem. ”
 
(Jim Rohn)

Introduction

Generally, when we have a problem, the focus is on what’s missing – what is wrong.

The problem is that in doing so, we risk getting lost in the deficits, which may lead to more challenges and fewer solutions.

The solution-focused model looks at problem solving from a more positive perspective – rather than focusing on deficits, the focus is on strengths, skills, experiences, resources, and support.

This problem-solving method helps us home in on what we bring to the problem and ways to address it, rather than the ways in which we are lacking.

The problem therefore becomes manageable and the process empowering.

This guide helps you to:

• Discover the steps in the solution-focused model and ways to apply it to your daily life. The process lends itself to most issues and the more you apply it the easier it is to use.
• Use questions to identify details, thus leading you step-by-step to think through your experiences and draw from your repertoire of strengths to address the challenge.

The result is less time focused on the many aspects of the issue and more time actually getting to a solution.

In addition, you will learn more about the questions you can use to find your solution and how to apply each one:

• The Stages of Change
• The Basic Concepts Of Solution-Focused Problem Solving

The Exploring Change Question

The Coping Question

The Scaling Question

The Miracle Question

Let’s begin – and don’t forget there are activity sheets and worksheets you can download, in the Additional Resources section at the end.

Stages Of Change

Before problem solving, it’s helpful to get clear about your intentions. In other words, what are you looking for from the process, and what changes will you need to make as you apply your solution?

There are many stages in the change process, so being clear about what you need from the experience is important, and it may save you a lot of time.

There are costs and benefits involved in making changes.

Let’s follow the story of Karen as she uses the information to start an exercise program.

“My doctor told me I need to start exercising to build up my strength.”	At this point Karen is only considering this at the request of her doctor. She is not seriously thinking about it, but it is lingering in the back of her mind.
“I am having trouble getting up the stairs. Maybe I should see what options are available.”	Gathering information is the goal in this stage of change. Researching alternatives, asking for recommendations, calling to ask questions. Karen is now actively thinking about the recommendation.
“My weakness is keeping me from doing things I like to do. I can’t keep up with my friends when we go to the mall. I need to make some changes.”	Her mind is made up. She is ready to make a commitment. Karen develops a plan to begin.
She buys a pair of good shoes, finds a class that fits her schedule, and begins the new regimen.	Karen joins a gym and starts classes three days a week. This plan works for her and she feels better after only a few weeks.
Keeping up the schedule can be difficult with other things competing for time. Karen follows through, but it is difficult some weeks.	She reminds herself how good it feels to take the stairs without stopping and go out with friends with no concern for how she will keep up. It keeps her motivated.
Holidays come up, she has to work late, or she gets sick and misses her classes for two weeks. It is hard to get back in the routine, but she is ready to take action again.	Karen asks for support and encouragement from her friends. A woman who takes the same class offers to give her a ride to help her get back in the groove. She moves back into a routine without more delays.

Cost And Benefits Of Change

When Karen considers the costs and benefits of starting and returning to the exercise program, it helps her make the necessary changes – she is aware of the negative consequences she experienced before she began and the positive consequences after she began exercising.

By keeping these costs and benefits in mind, she is more motivated to keep it up (maintenance stage) even when it became difficult.

Relapse is something to bear in mind because it happens in many situations.

But if you plan for how to deal with relapses in advance, it is easier to get back to the action stage faster.

Karen knew she needed support and encouragement to return to the regimen, and by asking for help when she needed it, she was back to her classes without further delay.

“ The problem contains the solution. ” (Michael Bierut)

Basic Concepts Of Solution-Focused Problem Solving

The underlying premise of the solution-focused method is empowerment – solution-focused problem solving emphasizes solutions to problems, and not the problem.

These tools help you focus on the times when things are better.

Knowing that you have these skills to address obstacles, you will be more confident in your ability to resolve your challenges.

The Strengths Perspective

Solution-focused problem solving is based on a strengths perspective – you focus on your strengths, skills, experience, resources, and support, rather than getting lost in the problem.

It may require a shift in your thinking, but the process you’re learning here makes that easier.

And if you slip back into focusing on the problem, it may mean that you’re not ready to make a change yet.

Layers Of Support

In this model we will explore support and resources that can make a solution doable, and there are two layers of support to consider:

• The Inner Circle. The inner circle of support includes those you’re close to – your friends, family, and neighbours – and people like your babysitter or nanny, housekeeper, pet-sitter – others that you rely on and could call on for help most of the time. These are your go-to people for quick responses.
• The Outer Circle. The outer circle of support includes others that you may be less involved with. This may include those you work or go to church with. Your medical provider, the doorman at work, and more are also included in this outer circle of support.

There may be times when you come up with a possible solution that has worked before but need to find a support person to make it happen, so checking these layers of support will help you identify possibilities.

“ If you define the problem correctly, you almost have the solution. ” (Steve Jobs)

Tools For Solution-Focused Problem Solving

In this section, you’ll learn how to apply the tools of the trade, and there are four questions you can use to walk through the process.

There are times when you need somebody to bounce things off of or get another perspective. Coaches and counselors are often helpful in those situations, so don’t be afraid to ask for help when you need it – it’s the smart thing to do!

The questions are designed to help you identify what you have available to solve the problem by looking at a time when things were better.

This is fairly basic, but it is worth starting off with this before using one of the other questions.

What you should do is make a list of things you’ve done to address the issue.

In Karen’s case of finding a way to get more exercise, the list may look like this by the time she is ready to take action:

• Talked to friends about their exercise routine.
• Explored the workout room in the building.
• Looked at websites for local programs.
• Called somebody at work about a walking club during lunch.

With these things in mind, Karen will recognize that she has made some steps toward her goal.

This allows her to continue to move forward without beating herself up for lack of progress.

The list also gives her a chance to note anything of interest she discovered in each step.

Staying motivated can be difficult, so anything you can do to acknowledge progress is helpful, especially when it’s in writing.

The Scaling Question is perhaps your most versatile question because:

• It is content-free and not related to the problem.
• It makes no assumptions about the direction you need to take.
• You can pick from the infinite possibilities available.

Karen may have used this in the contemplation stage of change regarding her physical discomfort before the exercise program.

Karen may ask: “ On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being as good as things get, and 1 being as bad as things get, where am I today? ”

And respond: “ Today, I am at a 3. ”

Then Karen may ask: “ What will it look like when I am at a 4 – what will be different? ”

And respond: “ I will walk up the stairs with less pain and keep up with my friends when we are shopping. ”

Here’s another way to use the Scaling Question…

Then Karen may ask: “ When things were better, what was going on? What was I doing that worked? ”

And respond: “ I was walking a mile each day after work with my husband. But, it is winter now, so that is not an option. ”

In this scenario, Karen would need to ask another question since that solution is not possible at this time.

She would ask: “ What did I learn from walking after work that I can apply to finding a way to exercise now? ”

And respond: “ I found that if I went as soon as I got home, it gave me the energy to make dinner, clean the kitchen, and I slept better. ”

With this new information, Karen may decide to join a class after work instead of after dinner.

Another way of using the Scaling Question is to measure something on a daily basis and look at what was helpful on the days that things were better.

Karen monitors her energy level after lunch (2:00 pm) and after she gets home (6:00 pm).

Question: What was different on the days my energy was higher in the evening?

Response: Days of exercise class

This question is great for getting out of crisis mode or when you’re overwhelmed by the problem.

Its purpose is to change the focus from overwhelming elements of the problem to strengths, skills, and experience you have to solve the challenge.

You recall how you coped with similar experiences. What worked? What you can apply from that situation, even if it’s not the total solution to your current issue.

Consider Lara’s issue: Lara’s husband is going out of town on business for two weeks. She has two school-age children who have to be dressed, fed, and on the bus by 7:30, and she has to be at work by 8:30. Her husband always gets the kids ready in the morning, and she is overwhelmed by the thought of doing all of this on her own for two weeks.

Lara starts with the Exploring Change Question: “ What have I tried to solve the problem? ”

• Joe (her husband) spoke to his boss about sending somebody else. That won’t work.
• I asked to work from home those two weeks. My request was denied.
• I tried to find a short-term nanny with no success.

The Coping Question might be a good one for this situation. She then asks herself:

“ Have I ever dealt with something like this before? How did I cope with it? ”

“ When Joe was in the hospital for a week two years ago, Jamie (her sister) came over and stayed with us the whole week. She took care of the kids in the morning while I got myself ready for work. Since she moved, that won’t work now. ”

This is a possible solution, but another support person will be needed to make it work. When looking for support people, you begin by thinking about your inner circle – friends, family, and neighbors.

If there is nobody in the inner-circle, you check the outer circle of support, a less personal support network. That is usually professional organizations, a medical team, people you work with or go to church with, online communities, and more.

“ Is there somebody else who can help? Any other family, friends or neighbours? Who else is in my network that may be able to help? ”

“ All my family live out of state now. My friends have jobs and most of the neighbours also work. There is a girl (Susie) who lives down the street that has babysat for us before. It might be possible to get her to come over or stay at night to help. ”

Ultimately, your goal is to develop a plan of action.

The final question is: “ What happens next to explore this possibility? ”

“ Call Susie’s mom to see what she thinks. If she agrees, talk with Susie about details. ”

If you have no previous experience that applies to a situation, think of others you know that have coped with similar issues and talk to them about it to get ideas.

And if necessary, ask online if there’s a community page in your area.

Get creative!

The Miracle Question is a way of getting outside the problem by suspending reality for a few minutes to dream of a time when things will be better.

Note that this can go astray, so follow up questions may be necessary.

Chris has been struggling with health-related challenges for a few years. He’s taking his medication, but the side-effects are very difficult to tolerate. He feels hopeless about getting long-term results.

In Chris’s situation, the Miracle Question would go something like this:

“ Suppose tonight, after you go to sleep, you wake up and your health issues are gone. What would that look like? ”

“ My blood sugar would be 120 – no pain in my feet – I would have lots of energy and no more depression. ”

Dig deeper: “ What else? ”

“ I would be working in my shop with Lincoln, my dog, looking at the mountains, and listening to Colorado Public Radio. ”

Then: “ Who else would notice this change? ”

“ My wife would notice. She would notice that I’m not on the couch watching TV all weekend. I am not as grumpy. I’m finally working on things she asked me to do six months ago. ”

And: “ What difference would all this make? ”

“ I would get more done and feel good about it. My wife would be happy and when she is happy, everybody is happy. Maybe we would even have sex! ”

And: “ What was going on in your life the last time things were like this for you? ”

“ I was getting a lot of exercise, preparing for a two-day bike tour. I spent several hours each week training for that. I felt better and got more done – barely watched TV all week. I was definitely less grumpy because I felt better. And my wife and I were more involved in things together. ”

Finally: “ How can you recreate some of this in your life now? ”

“ I could dust the bike off and plan a day to ride on the weekend. I would have to put some thought into it since we have moved, but there are a lot of riding trails nearby. Maybe the wife would come with me, even if she doesn’t ride. ”

“ Every problem has a solution. You just have to be creative enough to find it. ” (Travis Kalanick)

Putting Solution-Focused Problem Solving To Work For You

This is a lot to digest at once, so just remember to choose which question seems right for your situation.

Here are some reminders:

• Consider where you are in the change process – what stage are you in?
• Remember, this process helps you look for experience, strengths/skills, support, and resources you can use to solve the problem.
• Always start with the Exploring Change Question. Make a list of what you’ve already accomplished.
• The Coping Question is good to use when you are feeling overwhelmed or in crisis. Remember to dig deeper when necessary: ask yourself what, when, how, and why.
• The Scaling Question works with things you want to measure and/or compare. What is going on now? When it was better, what was happening? How can I do that again?
• The Miracle Question is not right for every situation. If you’re feeling overwhelmed, use the Coping Question. When you need to look at concrete information about things, use the Scaling Question.
• The Miracle Question requires a lot of work and some finesse to get to the realistic aspects of what is better. Why is it important to you? How are you or have you made this happen before? Can you do any of that now?
• Come up with your next steps and do it! If it doesn’t work, try again.

Try this solution-focused problem solving method with your next challenge and resolve your issue faster and with less stress!

“ Whatever the problem, be part of the solution. Don’t just sit around raising questions and pointing out obstacles. ” (Tina Fey)

Additional Resources

These are suggestions for those who wish to delve deeper into any of the above:

• Costs And Benefits Worksheet
• Inner Circle Of Support Worksheet
• Outer Circle Of Support Worksheet
• Stages Of Change Activity
• The Coping Question Activity
• The Exploring Change Question Activity
• The Miracle Question Activity
• The Scaling Question Activity

Holiday Reminder Alerts A service for print-on-demand businesses and entrepreneurs Featured Post Latest Posts Mental Health Discover The Power of Personal Transformation With These Tips For Better Living

• Nutrition & Health

25 Potential Causes Of Fatigue And Chronic Tiredness

Empower Your Wellness: Mastering Self-Advocacy In Your Healthcare

7 Solution-Focused Therapy Techniques and Worksheets (+PDF)

It has analyzed a person’s problems from where they started and how those problems have an effect on that person’s life.

Out of years of observation of family therapy sessions, the theory and applications of solution-focused therapy developed.

Let’s explore the therapy, along with techniques and applications of the approach.

Before you read on, we thought you might like to download our three Positive Psychology Exercises for free . These science-based exercises will explore fundamental aspects of positive psychology including strengths, values, and self-compassion, and will give you the tools to enhance the wellbeing of your clients, students, or employees.

This Article Contains:

5 solution-focused therapy techniques, handy sft worksheets (pdf), solution-focused therapy interventions, 5 sft questions to ask clients, solution-focused brief therapy (sfbt techniques), 4 activities & exercises, best sft books, a take-home message.

Solution-focused therapy is a type of treatment that highlights a client’s ability to solve problems, rather than why or how the problem was created. It was developed over some time after observations of therapists in a mental health facility in Wisconsin by Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg and their colleagues.

Like positive psychology, Solution Focused Therapy (SFT) practitioners focus on goal-oriented questioning to assist a client in moving into a future-oriented direction.

Solution-focused therapy has been successfully applied to a wide variety of client concerns due to its broad application. It has been utilized in a wide variety of client groups as well. The approach presupposes that clients have some knowledge of what will improve their lives.

The following areas have utilized SFT with varying success:

• relationship difficulties
• drug and alcohol abuse
• eating disorders
• anger management
• communication difficulties
• crisis intervention
• incarceration recidivism reduction

Goal clarification is an important technique in SFT. A therapist will need to guide a client to envision a future without the problem with which they presented. With coaching and positive questioning, this vision becomes much more clarified.

With any presenting client concern, the main technique in SFT is illuminating the exception. The therapist will guide the client to an area of their life where there is an exception to the problem. The exception is where things worked well, despite the problem. Within the exception, an approach for a solution may be forged.

The ‘miracle question’ is another technique frequently used in SFT. It is a powerful tool that helps clients to move into a solution orientation. This question allows clients to begin small steps toward finding solutions to presenting problems (Santa Rita Jr., 1998). It is asked in a specific way and is outlined later in this article.

Experiment invitation is another way that therapists guide clients into solution orientation. By inviting clients to build on what is already working, clients automatically focus on the positive. In positive psychology, we know that this allows the client’s mind to broaden and build from that orientation.

Utilizing what has been working experimentally allows the client to find what does and doesn’t work in solving the issue at hand. During the second half of a consultation with a client, many SFT therapists take a break to reflect on what they’ve learned during the beginning of the session.

Consultation breaks and invitations for more information from clients allow for both the therapist and client to brainstorm on what might have been missed during the initial conversations. After this break, clients are complemented and given a therapeutic message about the presenting issue. The message is typically stated in the positive so that clients leave with a positive orientation toward their goals.

Here are four handy worksheets for use with solution-focused therapy.

• Miracle worksheet
• Exceptions to the Problem Worksheet
• Scaling Questions Worksheet
• SMART+ Goals Worksheet

Download 3 Free Positive Psychology Exercises (PDF)

Enhance wellbeing with these free, science-based exercises that draw on the latest insights from positive psychology.

Download 3 Free Positive Psychology Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

Compliments are frequently used in SFT, to help the client begin to focus on what is working, rather than what is not. Acknowledging that a client has an impact on the movement toward a goal allows hope to become present. Once hope and perspective shift occurs, a client can decide what daily actions they would like to take in attaining a goal.

Higher levels of hope and optimism can predict the following desirable outcomes (Peterson & Seligman, 2004):

• achievement in all sorts of areas
• freedom from anxiety and depression
• improved social relationships
• improved physical well being

Mind mapping is an effective intervention also used to increase hope and optimism. This intervention is often used in life coaching practices. A research study done on solution-focused life coaching (Green, Oades, & Grant, 2006) showed that this type of intervention increases goal striving and hope, in addition to overall well-being.

Though life coaching is not the same as therapy, this study shows the effectiveness of improving positive behavior through solution-focused questioning.

Mind mapping is a visual thinking tool that helps structure information. It helps clients to better analyze, comprehend, and generate new ideas in areas they might not have been automatically self-generated. Having it on paper gives them a reference point for future goal setting as well.

Empathy is vital in the administration of SFBT. A client needs to feel heard and held by the practitioner for any forward movement to occur. Intentionally leaning in to ensure that a client knows that the practitioner is engaged in listening is recommended.

Speaking to strengths and aligning those strengths with goal setting are important interventions in SFT. Recognizing and acknowledging what is already working for the client validates strengths. Self-recognition of these strengths increases self-esteem and in turn, improves forward movement.

The questions asked in Solution-Focused Therapy are positively directed and in a goal-oriented stance. The intention is to allow a perspective shift by guiding clients in the direction of hope and optimism to lead them to a path of positive change. Results and progress come from focusing on the changes that need to be made for goal attainment and increased well being.

1. Miracle Question

Here is a clear example of how to administer the miracle question. It should be delivered deliberately. When done so, it allows the client to imagine the miracle occurring.

“ Now, I want to ask you a strange question. Suppose that while you are sleeping tonight and the entire house is quiet, a miracle happens. The miracle is that the problem which brought you here is solved. However, because you are sleeping, you don’t know that the miracle has happened. So, when you wake up tomorrow morning, what will be different that will tell you that a miracle has happened and the problem which brought you here is solved? ” (de Shazer, 1988)

2. Presupposing change questions

A practitioner of solution-focused therapy asks questions in an approach derived way.

Here are a few examples of presupposing change questions:

“What stopped complete disaster from occurring?” “How did you avoid falling apart.” “What kept you from unraveling?”

3. Exception Questions

Examples of exception questions include:

1. Tell me about times when you don’t get angry. 2. Tell me about times you felt the happiest. 3. When was the last time that you feel you had a better day? 4. Was there ever a time when you felt happy in your relationship? 5. What was it about that day that made it a better day? 6. Can you think of a time when the problem was not present in your life?

4. Scaling Questions

These are questions that allow a client to rate their experience. They also allow for a client to evaluate their motivation to change their experience. Scaling questions allow for a practitioner to add a follow-up question that is in the positive as well.

An example of a scaling question: “On a scale of 1-10, with 10 representing the best it can be and one the worst, where would you say you are today?”

A follow-up question: “ Why a four and not a five?”

Questions like these allow the client to explore the positive, as well as their commitment to the changes that need to occur.

5. Coping Questions

These types of questions open clients up to their resiliency. Clients are experts in their life experience. Helping them see what works, allows them to grow from a place of strength.

“How have you managed so far?” “What have you done to stay afloat?” “What is working?”

3 Scaling questions from Solution Focused Therapy – Uncommon Practitioners

The main idea behind SFBT is that the techniques are positively and solution-focused to allow a brief amount of time for the client to be in therapy. Overall, improving the quality of life for each client, with them at the center and in the driver’s seat of their growth. SFBT typically has an average of 5-8 sessions.

During the sessions, goals are set. Specific experimental actions are explored and deployed into the client’s daily life. By keeping track of what works and where adjustments need to be made, a client is better able to track his or her progress.

A method has developed from the Miracle Question entitled, The Miracle Method . The steps follow below (Miller & Berg, 1996). It was designed for combatting problematic drinking but is useful in all areas of change.

• State your desire for something in your life to be different.
• Envision a miracle happening, and your life IS different.
• Make sure the miracle is important to you.
• Keep the miracle small.
• Define the change with language that is positive, specific, and behavioral.
• State how you will start your journey, rather than how you will end it.
• Be clear about who, where, and when, but not the why.

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

A short selection of exercises which can be used

1. Solution-focused art therapy/ letter writing

A powerful in-session task is to request a client to draw or write about one of the following, as part of art therapy :

• a picture of their miracle
• something the client does well
• a day when everything went well. What was different about that day?
• a special person in their life

2. Strengths Finders

Have a client focus on a time when they felt their strongest. Ask them to highlight what strengths were present when things were going well. This can be an illuminating activity that helps clients focus on the strengths they already have inside of them.

A variation of this task is to have a client ask people who are important in their lives to tell them how they view the client’s strengths. Collecting strengths from another’s perspective can be very illuminating and helpful in bringing a client into a strength perspective.

3. Solution Mind Mapping

A creative way to guide a client into a brainstorm of solutions is by mind mapping. Have the miracle at the center of the mind map. From the center, have a client create branches of solutions to make that miracle happen. By exploring solution options, a client will self-generate and be more connected to the outcome.

4. Experiment Journals

Encourage clients to do experiments in real-life settings concerning the presenting problem. Have the client keep track of what works from an approach perspective. Reassure the client that a variety of experiments is a helpful approach.

17 Top-Rated Positive Psychology Exercises for Practitioners

Expand your arsenal and impact with these 17 Positive Psychology Exercises [PDF] , scientifically designed to promote human flourishing, meaning, and wellbeing.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

These books are recommended reads for solution-focused therapy.

1. The Miracle Method: A Radically New Approach to Problem Drinking – Insoo Kim Berg and Scott D. Miller Ph.D.

The Miracle Method by Scott D. Miller and Insoo Kim Berg is a book that has helped many clients overcome problematic drinking since the 1990s.

By utilizing the miracle question in the book, those with problematic drinking behaviors are given the ability to envision a future without the problem.

Concrete, obtainable steps in reaching the envisioned future are laid out in this supportive read.

Available on Amazon .

2. Solution Focused Brief Therapy: 100 Key Points and Techniques – Harvey Ratney, Evan George and Chris Iveson

Solution Focused Brief Therapy: 100 Key Points and Techniques is a well-received book on solution-focused therapy. Authors Ratner, George, and Iveson provide a concisely written and easily understandable guide to the approach.

Its accessibility allows for quick and effective change in people’s lives.

The book covers the approach’s history, philosophical underpinnings, techniques, and applications. It can be utilized in organizations, coaching, leadership, school-based work, and even in families.

The work is useful for any practitioner seeking to learn the approach and bring it into practice.

3. Handbook of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy (Jossey-Bass Psychology) – Scott D. Miller, Mark Hubble and Barry L. Duncan

It includes work from 28 of the lead practitioners in the field and how they have integrated the solution-focused approach with the problem-focused approach.

It utilizes research across treatment modalities to better equip new practitioners with as many tools as possible.

4. More Than Miracles: The State of the Art of Solution -Focused Therapy  (Routledge Mental Health Classic Editions) – Steve de Shazer and Yvonne Dolan

It allows the reader to peek into hundreds of hours of observation of psychotherapy.

It highlights what questions work and provides a thoughtful overview of applications to complex problems.

Solution-Focused Therapy is an approach that empowers clients to own their abilities in solving life’s problems. Rather than traditional psychotherapy that focuses on how a problem was derived, SFT allows for a goal-oriented focus to problem-solving. This approach allows for future-oriented, rather than past-oriented discussions to move a client forward toward the resolutions of their present problem.

This approach is used in many different areas, including education, family therapy , and even in office settings. Creating cooperative and collaborative opportunities to problem solve allows mind-broadening capabilities. Illuminating a path of choice is a compelling way to enable people to explore how exactly they want to show up in this world.

Thanks for reading!

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Positive Psychology Exercises for free .

• de Shazer, S. (1988). Clues: Investigating solutions in brief therapy. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Co.
• Green, L. S., Oades, L. G., & Grant, A. M. (2006). Cognitive-behavioral, solution-focused life coaching: Enhancing goal striving, well-being, and hope. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1 (3), 142-149.
• Miller, S. D., & Berg, I. K. (1996). The miracle method: A radically new approach to problem drinking. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Co.
• Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P., (2004).  Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Santa Rita Jr, E. (1998). What do you do after asking the miracle question in solution-focused therapy. Family Therapy, 25( 3), 189-195.

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

This was so amazing and helpful

excellent article and useful for applications in day today life activities .I will like at use when required and feasible to practice.

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

The Empty Chair Technique: How It Can Help Your Clients

Resolving ‘unfinished business’ is often an essential part of counseling. If left unresolved, it can contribute to depression, anxiety, and mental ill-health while damaging existing [...]

29 Best Group Therapy Activities for Supporting Adults

As humans, we are social creatures with personal histories based on the various groups that make up our lives. Childhood begins with a family of [...]

47 Free Therapy Resources to Help Kick-Start Your New Practice

Setting up a private practice in psychotherapy brings several challenges, including a considerable investment of time and money. You can reduce risks early on by [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (54)
• Coaching & Application (54)
• Compassion (23)
• Counseling (50)
• Emotional Intelligence (21)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (21)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (18)
• Mindfulness (41)
• Motivation & Goals (45)
• Optimism & Mindset (31)
• Positive CBT (30)
• Positive Communication (23)
• Positive Education (42)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (19)
• Positive Parenting (15)
• Positive Psychology (25)
• Positive Workplace (37)
• Productivity (17)
• Relationships (46)
• Resilience & Coping (38)
• Self Awareness (21)
• Self Esteem (38)
• Strengths & Virtues (33)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (37)
• Theory & Books (45)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (59)

• The Art & Science of Coaching Level 1 & 2
• NLP Practitioner Certification
• Team Coaching
• Master Your Coaching
• Tuition Fees
• Blogs, videos, downloadables
• Upcoming Webinars
• Global Course Finder
• Speak to an Advisor

Key Skills for Solution-Focused Problem-Solving

Imagine that you just received an unexpected complex problem and need to find a solution fast. You have never experienced this situation before. What is your approach? Most of us focus on the problem by asking questions such as: “Why do I have this problem? What shall I do to get rid of this problem? Are you sure this is my problem?” Before you know it, the challenge becomes bigger by the minute. Your attention and effort are fully focused on overcoming the problem and you begin to feel less resourceful to find an acceptable solution.

When you   focus on the problem   instead of the desired outcome, you get stuck in the depths of the problem, as if you are in quicksand. Some people walk into the quicksand with lead boots on. One of the most powerful frames you can use to achieve results is to shift from a problem approach (I don’t want X) to an outcome approach (What I want is Y). This immediately shifts your thinking and the way you feel.

Only when your frame of mind is changed to focusing on the desired result can you begin to move forward toward the desired outcome. Using the Solution-Focused approach, you will be surprised how competently you can tackle even the thorniest of problems and turn them into opportunities. 

Interested in becoming a coach? Discover how Solution-Focused coaching skills enable you to create transformational change in yourself and others. 

Solution-Focused communication magnetizes our attention toward getting the desired outcome, and so the outcome is held in mind as   the vision for the future . Others naturally tend to respond positively to our leadership because we hold the vision that serves everyone. Rather than dwelling on the difficulties or the setbacks, the idea of the solution becomes the road to results, and people feel cheered when they can see a strong pathway toward the solution and are inspired by the plan.    

Imagine running a race where there are hurdles every 100 yards. With problem framing, you are focused on the hurdles, “Oh my, how high they are! How hard will I have to work to jump them?” Such a focus, with little or no attention on the finish line, will not make you a champion—guaranteed! The hurdles symbolically (and in reality) stand in your way. When you are focused on the hurdles, you cannot see past them to the finish line that is your true aim. The hurdles loom large in your mind, and the race seems difficult (if not impossible) to run.

With a Solution-Focused approach to communication, your mind is galvanized by your purpose and you are able to see past the hurdles before you. Your purpose always leads you to the finish line, and the hurdles become less important and less of an obstacle. In fact, they may seem so unimportant that they become nonexistent and are just part of the journey. They are still the same height and you’ll still have to jump as high. Yet with the focus on the value of the goal and what is working to move forward towards it, jumping hurdles seems natural and easy. The end of the race is always drawing you onward. The race itself becomes a means to achieve the vision, and it’s the vision—who you are becoming and who you are contributing to—that looms large in your mind. This difference in your focus is the power that leads you to success.

Notice how efficient this approach is – Solution-Focused thinking is far more useful than problem-focused thinking because the focus is on getting the desired outcome, rather than dwelling on the difficulties or setbacks. Constantly operating from a solution perspective is a noticeable characteristic of high achievers.

Focusing on who you are becoming

One of the main ways of producing Solution-Focused results that serve the world is to focus the mind and heart on who you are becoming— and not what you are overcoming. Allowing yourself to go into the lower energies of an overcoming focus puts you into a very challenging and unpleasant hurdle race. People can spend most of their lives running such a race. As soon as you put your attention on what doesn’t work as a ‘reality,’ it is hard to explore what really could work. This is one reason why the Erickson   Solution-Focused method   is successful in moving people quickly beyond mindsets and models that ‘realistically’ start by focusing on the problem as the necessary aspects to deal with.

As a transformational communicator using the coaching approach, once you are secure in this skill for yourself, you will quickly discover the value of using it consistently in coaching conversations with others. This simple and subtle skill of flipping a problem or conflict into a Solution-Focused orientation may be the single most powerful characteristic of transformational coaches who become known as integral change maestros.

Declaring and visualizing outcomes

When outcomes are declared and visualized carefully, people move toward them naturally, almost effortlessly. What was once considered a problem is now little more than a pebble on the road! Having a strong, inspiring, value-based vision for the future cuts all other concerns down to size. We grow and our ‘problems’ diminish.

Once you, the transformational communicator, know how to consciously assist people to orient toward their larger purpose and goals, your clients will move consistently and more easily toward their desired outcomes. They will achieve their outcomes by choice, not by chance.

Creating a compelling future

Developing, holding, and feeling a vision of a compelling future is the single most important task for a person, in order to   achieve their goals   and dreams.

Without this vision and the process of consistently visualizing potential action steps to accomplish it, people move in a random, scattered fashion. They are likely to struggle and get frustrated and stuck.

When people make the choice to hold a specific outcome securely on the movie screen of their minds, they naturally begin to move toward making their vision a reality—no matter how large or small it is. Their chosen outcome becomes their future.

Who you are is the future you are moving into! What is in your mind becomes your reality. You have two choices. You can visualize how your problems continue, which will move you towards having even more problems. Or, you can visualize your outcome becoming real and move toward having it. Which do you prefer?

Other articles YOU MAY LIKE

A Fresh Approach to Performance Reviews: What Works Well and Even Better If

Ways to Stay Productive During the Holidays as a Coach

What is Erickson Teal 2.0?

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Simply effective? The differential effects of solution-focused and problem-focused coaching questions in a self-coaching writing exercise

1 Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

2 Department of Pediatrics, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children’s Hospital, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands

Jessie Koen

3 Department of Sustainable Productivity and Employability, Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research, Leiden, Netherlands

Annelies E. M. van Vianen

Tim theeboom.

4 School of Business and Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Bianca Beersma

5 Department of Organization Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Anne P. J. de Pagter

6 Department of Pediatrics, Willem-Alexander Children’s Hospital, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands

Matthijs de Hoog

Associated data.

Given restrictions from the ethics review board and considering that sensitive personal data are handled, it is not possible to make the data freely available. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, LS, [email protected] , upon request.

Coaching is a systematic and goal-oriented one-on-one intervention by a coach aimed to guide clients in their professional and personal development. Previous research on coaching has demonstrated effects on a number of positive outcomes, including well-being and performance, yet little is known about the processes that underlie these outcomes, such as the type of questions coaches use. Here, we focus on three different types of coaching questions, and aim to uncover their immediate and sustained effects for affect, self-efficacy, and goal-directed outcomes, using a between-subjects experiment. One hundred and eighty-three medical residents and PhD students from various medical centers and healthcare organizations in the Netherlands were recruited to participate in a self-coaching writing exercise, where they followed written instructions rather than interacting with a real coach. All participants were randomly allocated to one of three conditions: either one of two solution-focused coaching conditions (i.e., the success or miracle condition) or a problem-focused coaching condition. Self-report questionnaires were used to measure key outcomes of coaching, that is positive and negative affect, self-efficacy, goal orientation, action planning (i.e., quantity and quality) and goal attainment. Two follow-up measurements assessed if the effects of the self-coaching exercise led to problem-solving actions within an initial follow-up period of 14 days and a subsequent follow-up period of 10 days. Findings showed that participants experienced more positive affect, less negative affect, and higher approach goal orientation after the solution-focused coaching exercise compared to the problem-focused coaching exercise. In all conditions, goal attainment increased as a consequence of the self-coaching intervention. We discuss the implications of our findings for the science and practice of contemporary coaching.

Introduction

Problem talk creates problems, solution talk creates solutions – Steve de Shazer (Berg and Szabo, 2005).

In the past two decades, the field of psychology has largely shifted its focus from (curing) mental illness to (promoting) well-being. With that shift, a new field of research and practice has emerged, that of positive psychology. The field of positive psychology is, in essence, the study of positive human functioning or happiness as defined by the presence of positive emotions, engagement and meaning ( Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000 ). Instead of fixing what is broken, applied positive psychology highlights what is working well in people’s lives, and uncovers and amplifies people’s individual strengths, hopes, and positive virtues. The theory of positive psychology, through its strength-based approach to human functioning, is the basis of coaching research and practice ( Kauffman, 2006 ).

With a growing attention to individual well-being and thriving, professional coaching has become a popular intervention at both the workplace and the private domain. Coaching can be defined as “a result-oriented, systematic process in which the coach facilitates the enhancement of life experience and goal attainment in the personal and/or professional lives of normal, non-clinical clients” ( Grant, 2003 , p. 254). Given the continuous need of employees to adapt to the changing nature of work and organizations –which can be demanding and a risk factor for well-being and health ( George and Jones, 2001 ; van den Heuvel et al., 2013 ; Johnston, 2018 )– employees increasingly seek the support of a coach to help them deal with the many challenges that working life can present. With this uptake, coaching as a profession also continues to keep growing: The International Coach Federation, the most recognized governing body for coaches around the world, counts more than 40,000 members in 151 countries in 2021 ( International Coach Federation, 2021 ), but this is a very conservative estimate of the number of people actually working as coaches. Research on the effects of coaching supports its popularity: studies have repeatedly demonstrated the positive effects of coaching on both well-being (e.g., reducing stress and burnout) and performance outcomes (e.g., goal attainment; Theeboom et al., 2014 ; Jones et al., 2016 ; McGonagle et al., 2020 ; Solms et al., 2021 ).

Although research on coaching has accelerated in the past years, there is still a lot that we do not know. First, relatively little is known about the coaching techniques and psychological mechanisms underlying positive coaching outcomes. Here, we aim to uncover these mechanisms by focusing on the effects of three different questioning techniques that coaches can use ( Bozer and Jones, 2018 ; Fontes and Dello Russo, 2021 ; Jones et al., 2021 ). We employ a self-coaching intervention rather than a real-life coaching intervention to examine the effects of each questioning technique and isolate it from relational factors that might otherwise impact the outcomes of coaching. That is, in real-life coaching, coaches tend to use a blend of different questioning techniques, and relational factors such as similarity attraction (i.e., similarity between coach and client may increase liking for one another) may play a role in their effectiveness. Employing an experimental design with a self-coaching exercise allows us to eliminate such confounding, relational factors and uncover the unique effects of each coaching question on coaching outcomes and their underlying psychological mechanisms. Nevertheless, we note that self-coaching is different from real-life coaching where a professional coach guides the coachee in a systematic, and goal-oriented fashion to goal-attainment and personal change. Second, the majority of experimental studies have focused on the immediate effects of coaching questions ( Theeboom et al., 2014 ). Given that coaching is a temporary investment, it is important to investigate if coaching questions can foster goal-directed change (e.g., action planning) beyond such immediate effects. Here, we examine both the immediate effects of questioning techniques and their effects during a brief follow-up period. Third and finally, existing experimental research on the effectiveness of coaching –the method that supports drawing causal conclusions– has exclusively been conducted among undergraduates (e.g., Grant, 2012 ; Theeboom et al., 2016 ; Grant and O’Connor, 2018 ). This is unfortunate, given that the majority of coaching takes place within an organizational context. It is thus crucial to conduct experimental research among working individuals and in a context in which coaching normally takes place. Because we use an experimental design in which we test different self-coaching techniques among medical professionals, this study combines the advantage of experimental control with higher ecological validity, allowing stronger generalization of findings to real-life coaching of medical professionals.

Problem-focused and solution-focused coaching

Questions are an integral part of any coaching conversation ( Grant and O’Connor, 2010 ). Here, we distinguish between questioning techniques that have their roots in problem-focused coaching and questioning techniques that have their roots in solution-focused coaching . Problem-focused coaching approaches originate from more traditional, generally psychotherapy-inspired schools that tend to focus their questioning on the client’s problem. Although positive psychology provides a solid theoretical and practical backbone to the science and practice of coaching ( Kauffman, 2006 ; Seligman, 2007 ), numerous coaching practitioners are rooted in the therapeutic model which concentrates on repairing damage rather than boosting strengths ( Kauffman and Scoular, 2004 ; Kauffman, 2006 ). Consequently, these coaches tend to use questioning techniques that are aimed to understand (and eliminate) the client’s problem (i.e., problem-focused questioning techniques 1 ). These questions can for instance be focused on the origin of a problem: “How long has this been a problem? How did it start?” ( Grant, 2003 , p. 26). By analyzing the root cause of a problem and how it manifests in dysfunctional patterns and behavior, coach and client work toward a global understanding of the origin of the problem and its consequences ( Lee, 2010 ). In contrast, coaches with a deep rootedness in strength-based approaches tend to focus on nurturing clients’ positive skills and qualities. Consequently, and in line with the premises of positive psychology they tend to use questioning techniques that activate existing resources and prioritize solution building over problem solving (i.e., solution-focused questioning techniques; O’Connell et al., 2013 ). These questions can for instance be focused on exploring previous solutions (“Can you think of a time when you managed a similar problem well? What did you do?”) or exceptions to the problem (“Has there been a time where this problem was not present?”).

Stemming from Solution-Focused Brief Therapy ( De Shazer, 1988 ), solution-focused coaching represents a paradigm shift focusing on what is already working well in a client’s life ( O’Connell et al., 2013 ) rather than focusing predominantly on the problem and its origin. In practice, the problem that has brought the client to coaching in the first place will almost always be the starting point of any coach conversation and as such, problem-focused approaches play an important role especially at the beginning of the coaching process. While problem-focused coaching addresses solutions relatively late in the process, in Solution-Focused Brief Therapy and coaching, solutions are developed relatively quickly by focusing on strategies and behavior that has been proven helpful instead of focusing on a client’s dysfunctional behavior ( De Shazer, 1988 ). By identifying occasions in a client’s life where the problem could have occurred but did not (referred to as “exception times”), coach and client can work toward solutions without spending too much time on the problem itself. Research in various populations (e.g., university students, patients, managers) has shown that solution-focused approaches correlate with well-being and promote goal pursuit ( Green et al., 2006 ; Grant, 2014 ; Pakrosnis and Cepukiene, 2015 ; Zhang et al., 2018 ), a finding that has also been confirmed in a meta-analysis on coaching in organizational and educational settings ( Theeboom et al., 2014 ).

While problem-focused coaching centers around asking questions about the client’s problem, solution-focused coaching can use different types of questions: the miracle question or success question are prototypical examples. The miracle question lets clients imagine a situation in which the problem miraculously no longer exists ( De Shazer and Dolan, 2012 ). This questioning technique uses mental imagery to stir the conversation away from the problem toward a desired situation where the problem is absent. Applying this technique can be an eyeopener for clients who tend to focus primarily on the struggles they encounter, and consequently pave the way for change ( De Shazer and Dolan, 2012 ). The success question lets clients think back to previous situations in which they have successfully managed a problem. This questioning technique is based on the assumption that people have solved plenty of problems in the course of their life and are therefore able to generate successful strategies to solve their current problems ( De Shazer and Dolan, 2012 ). This idea strongly resembles Bandura’s (1991) concept of self-efficacy: a person’s belief in his or her capability to successfully perform a particular task. Such self-efficacy beliefs are strongly influenced by past experiences of success (i.e., mastery experiences). As such, the success question can make past mastery experiences salient to the client and increase their sense of competence.

Despite its strong roots in seminal theory (e.g., social cognitive theory; Bandura, 1991 ) and its frequent use in practice, the success question has not received much scientific attention. This is unfortunate, because a deeper understanding of the mechanisms through which specific questioning techniques can improve client outcomes would not only advance theory in the field of coaching but would also allow practitioners to resort to coaching techniques that are tailored to and more effective for their clients ( Grant, 2020 ). In this study, we will therefore examine the effects of the success question in addition to the miracle question and will compare these effects with those of the problem-focused question.

Theoretical background and hypotheses

In line with positive psychology theory and common definitions of coaching as a change process aimed at building personal strengths and attaining personal goals, here we focus on key variables relevant in the context of goal-directed self-regulation: affect, self-efficacy, goal-orientation, goal pursuit, and problem-solving actions.

Question focus and affect

Research comparing problem-focused with solution-focused questioning paints a more positive picture in favor of the solution-focused approach (e.g., Braunstein and Grant, 2016 ; Theeboom et al., 2016 ). Specifically, solution-focused questions (as compared to problem-focused questions) may increase positive affective states (e.g., feeling energetic) and may decrease negative affective states (e.g., feeling anxious; Theeboom et al., 2016 ; Grant and O’Connor, 2018 ). According to positive psychology theory ( Seligman et al., 2005 ), when people are encouraged to think about a desired outcome in the future or past successes –rather than directing their attention to the problem– they will likely experience positive emotions (such as feeling energetic or calm) that accompany these thoughts. This idea is supported by regulatory focus theory ( Higgins, 2002 ), proposing that goals aimed at achieving positive outcomes (rather than at avoiding negative outcomes) are linked to positive emotions ( Idson et al., 2000 ). In contrast, goals aimed at avoiding or overcoming negative outcomes are linked to negative emotions. Hence, when people focus on potential solutions, they will experience positive emotions, whereas when they mainly focus on their problem, they will feel increased discomfort and negative emotions ( Theeboom et al., 2016 ). Based on this theorizing, we generate our first hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1: Compared to problem-focused questioning, solution-focused questioning leads to (a) higher positive affect and (b) lower negative affect.

Question focus and self-efficacy

Coaches often seek to increase their clients’ self-efficacy to promote a sense of personal agency and goal attainment ( Grant, 2012 ). This idea is rooted in Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory that posits that past experiences guide people’s future actions and that people engage in actions that have proven useful in the past. In solution-focused coaching, self-efficacy is promoted by focusing on “what is going well” instead of “what is going wrong.” Under the tenet “If it works, do more of it” therapists and coaches encourage clients to engage in activities that have been proven useful. Small steps in the right direction will likely spark further steps, gradually leading the client to feel “better enough” to end therapy or coaching ( De Shazer and Dolan, 2012 , p. 2).

The miracle question is typically used by coaches to spark optimism of a hopeful future and break free from existing –often dysfunctional– cognitive patterns and beliefs ( Grant and O’Connor, 2010 , 2018 ; Braunstein and Grant, 2016 ). By encouraging the client to envision a world without the problem, people are reminded of their qualities and skills that have been overshadowed by the seeming incompetence to handle the problem successfully. Therefore, the miracle question (as opposed to a problem-focused coaching question) likely increases self-efficacy to solve a personal problem. Moreover, we expect that the solution-focused success question will result in even higher self-efficacy than the solution-focused miracle question, because the success question instructs clients to think about previous mastery experiences, which –according to Bandura’s social learning theory– should be particularly strongly related to self-efficacy ( Bandura, 1982 ).

Hypothesis 2a: Compared to problem-focused questioning, solution-focused questioning leads to higher self-efficacy.

Hypothesis 2b: Compared to the solution-focused miracle question, the solution-focused success question leads to higher self-efficacy.

Question focus and goal orientation

With goal pursuit lying at the heart of coaching interventions, coaches may seek to assist clients in formulating effective goals, that is, approach rather than avoidance goals ( Elliot and Church, 1997 ; Elliot et al., 1997 ). Solution-focused questioning can help to achieve this as it emphasizes a desired outcome that one aims to achieve (i.e., an approach goal) rather than a negative outcome that one aims to avoid (i.e., an avoidance goal). This is in line with the self-regulation model by Carver and Scheier (1998) proposing that behavioral regulation with negative reference points (i.e., an undesired end state) is less fruitful than behavioral regulation with positive reference points (i.e., a desired end state) because the former fails to provide clients with a clear direction. Instead of focusing on the things that are going wrong, solution-focused coaching rather emphasizes behaviors that proved beneficial for the client during times of improvement ( De Shazer and Dolan, 2012 ). Drawing on the hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation ( Elliot, 2006 ) we argue that solution-focused coaching –due to its strong focus on positive outcomes and how to attain them– is inherently associated with an approach rather than avoidance orientation. Specifically, both the miracle and the success question draw attention to a desired outcome that either has “magically” come about (i.e., the miracle question) or has previously been achieved (i.e., the success question). As such, we hypothesize that the solution-focused coaching questions will stimulate approach goal orientation and inhibit avoidance goal orientation.

Hypothesis 3: Compared to problem-focused coaching, solution-focused coaching leads to (a) higher approach goal orientation and (b) lower avoidance goal orientation.

Question focus and goal pursuit

Compared to problem-focused coaching, solution-focused coaching approaches are stronger future-focused and goal-directed ( De Shazer and Dolan, 2012 ): considerable time is spent on constructing solutions, presumably more than on analyzing the problem that brought a client to coaching in the first place. Consequently, clients can make goal progress relatively quickly ( Iveson, 2002 ). Drawing on hope theory –that emphasizes agency and pathway thinking as central to the process of goal attainment– ( Snyder, 2002 ), we argue that solution-focused coaching activates clients’ sense of agency (i.e., the belief in one’s capacity to initiate and sustain actions or “willpower”) and goal-directed or “pathway” thinking, which likely promotes goal-directed behavior (e.g., development of action plans) and goal attainment. Solution-focused as opposed to problem-focused coaching is expected to be superior in promoting goal progress (e.g., Grant and O’Connor, 2018 ; Grant and Gerrard, 2020 ). Based on this theorizing, research indeed found that participants who engaged in a solution-focused coaching exercise listed more action steps to solve a problem than participants in a problem-focused coaching exercise ( Grant, 2012 ). In line with hope theory and earlier empirical findings, we formulate the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: Compared to problem-focused questioning, solution-focused questioning will lead to (a) stronger increases in goal attainment and (b) more and higher quality action planning (i.e., number and quality of action steps) directly after the experimental coaching intervention.

Question focus and problem-solving actions

Although coaches can facilitate clients’ goal pursuit through formulation of action plans, clients still need to translate their goals and plans into actual behavior ( Theeboom et al., 2016 ). According to the theory of planned behavior ( Ajzen, 1991 ) behavioral intentions (action plans to solve the problem) will promote actual problem-solving behaviors. We therefore also investigate the effects of problem-focused and solution-focused questioning on reported problem-solving actions and actual problem-solving actions within a brief follow-up period. Specifically, we include an unobtrusive behavioral measure that captures whether participants actually take action to try and solve their problem. Given the previously described benefits of solution-focused questioning on affective (e.g., positive affect), cognitive (e.g., self-efficacy), and behavioral (i.e., action planning and goal attainment) outcomes, we expect that solution-focused (as opposed to problem-focused) questioning will have stronger effects on goal attainment and reported problem-solving actions within a follow-up period of 14 days, as well as on actual problem-solving actions within a subsequent follow-up period of 10 days.

Hypothesis 5: Compared to problem-focused questioning, solution-focused questioning leads to (a) higher reported problem-solving actions (i.e., extent of performing action steps), (b) higher goal attainment, and (c) higher actual problem-solving actions during follow-up.

Materials and methods

Participants and design.

Our sample comprised medical residents and MD/PhD students recruited from several medical centers and healthcare institutions throughout the Netherlands. In total, five medical centers as well as two umbrella training and education alliances that include more than 20 medical centers and several healthcare institutions were approached by the authors and shared the study invitation within their network of residents and MD/PhD students. Participants were invited by email to participate in a study on online coaching. Initially, a total number of 232 participants completed the self-coaching exercise that consisted of written instructions concerning a work-related problem.

In order to preclude any adverse effects of our manipulation on participants’ well-being and in line with coaching operationalized as an intervention for a healthy, non-clinical population, participants were screened at the start of the study on the emotional exhaustion component of the UBOS scale (UBOS; Schaufeli et al., 1996 ; Theeboom et al., 2016 ). Because we predicted more positive effects in the solution-focused than in the problem-focused condition, participants who reached a cut-off point of severe exhaustion (cut-off = 4.62; Schaufeli and Van Dierendonck, 2000 ) were automatically led into one of the two solution-focused coaching conditions. Additionally, these participants were notified at the end of the questionnaire that they scored above average on the exhaustion scale and were advised to seek support from their occupational physician or manager. We excluded their data ( n = 7) from our analyses. After applying a predetermined exclusion procedure (see Figure 1 for a CONSORT flowchart), our final sample comprised 183 medical residents and medical PhD students (159 residents, 145 females of which 61, 66, and 56 were assigned to the problem, miracle, and success condition, respectively). Their average age was 30.71 (SD = 3.30), ranging from 25 to 46 years.

CONSORT flowchart depicting screening and exclusion procedure at T1. EXCL refers to the exclusion of participants. Participants that spend 61 or more minutes on completing the experiment (i.e., extremes based on stem-and-leaf plot) were excluded, because the experimental design requires participants to complete the exercise at once.

The study consisted of an online self-coaching writing exercise and questionnaire (T1), a follow-up questionnaire (T2) and an unobtrusive behavioral measure (T3). The self-coaching writing exercise allowed us to test the effects of solution- and problem-focused coaching questions that were experimentally manipulated. Participants were randomly allocated to one of three conditions (problem-focused, solution-focused miracle, or solution-focused success). Including two different types of solution-focused coaching questions (i.e., miracle and success question) allowed us to compare their effects as well rather than merely contrasting solution-focused coaching with problem-focused coaching questions. While the follow-up questionnaire (T2) was used to measure the effects of the coaching exercise (i.e., reported problem-solving actions and goal-attainment) during a brief follow-up period of 14 days, the hidden behavioral measure (T3) aimed to assess actual problem-solving actions.

Procedure and manipulations

The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Review Board of the University of Amsterdam. Before starting the online coaching exercise (at T1), participants were informed about the study’s goal and procedure. They were also informed that all data would be handled confidentially, would not be shared with the organizations in which participants were employed, and that participation was completely voluntary. Finally, they read that the study consisted of a self-coaching exercise (T1) and a follow-up questionnaire (T2) they would receive 14 days later. See Figure 2 for details on the exclusion procedure at T2 and T3.

CONSORT flowchart depicting screening and exclusion procedure for T2 and T3 Follow-up. The sample at T1 consisted of 183 participants allocated to one of the three experimental conditions. Of the 183 participants, 1 participant did not indicate their email address and thus did not receive the T2 survey. Of the remaining 182 participants, 170 participants (response rate: 92.9%) filled in the T2 survey. Overall, 10 participants were excluded as they did not complete the survey, indicated that the steps reported were not correct or showed suspicious data entry. The final sample at T2 consisted of 160 participants. The final T3 sample that was analyzed consisted of 154 participants. 6 participants were excluded as they received the link for the website (T3) and the T2 survey simultaneously and this could potentially distort the answers on the T2 survey. *For exclusion procedure at T1, see Figure 1 . **Participants that didn’t answer items on effort to perform action steps (but on extent) were included in the sample although these answers were missing.

Manipulation: Self-coaching writing exercise (T1)

Participants completed the informed consent form, filled in a self-generated identification code to allow matching the T1 and T2 data, provided demographical information (i.e., gender, age, nationality, job position [i.e., medical resident, medical PhD student] and medical specialty, previous experience with coaching and email address for follow-up contact and compensation in the form of an online voucher), and completed the exhaustion screening measure. Participants then started the self-coaching writing exercise. The exercises with the solution-focused miracle or problem-focused questions were based on previous research ( Braunstein and Grant, 2016 ; Theeboom et al., 2016 ). The exercise with the solution-focused success question was added by the researchers and is based on Bandura’s concepts of self-efficacy and mastery ( Bandura, 1982 ; see the Supplementary material for a detailed description of the self-coaching exercises). As a first step, participants were asked to identify and describe a personal work-related problem that they would like to address during coaching. In order to guarantee a certain degree of standardization of the problems described, we asked participants to describe a problem that related to their job, career or work-life balance that they would like to address in a coaching session. Furthermore, they were asked to report the extent to which the problem was causing discomfort (on a 10-point scale, from 1 [ no discomfort at all ] to 10 [ heavy discomfort ]), and how the problem influenced thoughts and feelings or interfered otherwise with their functioning at work or in their private life. Finally, they were asked to indicate on a scale from 1 ( solution not reached at all ) to 10 ( solution reached ) to what extent they currently had reached the solution to their problem. Hereafter, the manipulation started.

In the problem condition, participants were asked to think back to a day where their problem had been strongly present. Hereafter, they were asked to describe the first thing they had noticed on that day, how they had behaved, thought, and felt in that situation, and how other people had noticed that their problem was strongly present.

In the miracle condition, participants were asked to imagine a situation in which their problem had magically disappeared overnight. They were then asked to describe what they would notice the next morning, how they would behave, think and feel in that situation, and how other people would notice that the problem had disappeared.

In the success condition, participants were asked to think of a situation in the past in which they had experienced the same problem but had been able to manage it successfully. They were asked to describe the first thing they had noticed that day, how they behaved, thought and felt in that situation, and how other people had noticed that they had successfully dealt with the problem.

Figure 3 presents the experimental procedure as well as the corresponding measures. See the Supplemental Material for information on additional measures.

Summary of study design.

At T1, participants filled out questionnaires to assess their positive and negative affect, self-efficacy, and goal orientation. Next, their own responses to the self-coaching exercise (i.e., what they had noticed, how they had felt, thought, and behaved) were presented to them and they were asked to list future action steps that would bring them closer to solving their problem. Hereafter, they were asked again about their goal attainment (i.e., how close they felt to the solution of their problem). Finally, participants answered the manipulation check questions, and were thanked for their participation.

At T2, 14 days after completion of the coaching exercise, participants who had completed T1 and had provided their email address received the invitation to the follow-up survey by e-mail. Participants reported their problem-solving actions (i.e., the extent to which participants had performed their action steps described at T1) and goal attainment. At T3, after completion of the T2 measures, they received an invitation to a website providing information on dealing with work-related stress, such as time management and mindfulness. Using a click-through measure, we assessed the number of visits during the upcoming 10 days as an unobtrusive behavioral indicator of participants’ actual (objective) problem-solving actions.

Our measures were derived from validated scales and have been used in previous studies in the context of coaching, and beyond. Below, we report reliability indices of our measures, Cronbach’s alpha and McDonalds omega ( McNeish, 2018 ).

Emotional exhaustion (T1)

Participants’ emotional exhaustion was measured with the emotional exhaustion subscale of the Dutch version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory adapted for human services such as healthcare (UBOS; Schaufeli et al., 1996 ; Schaufeli and Van Dierendonck, 2000 ). The eight items were answered on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 ( never ) to 7 ( always ). An example item is: “Working with people all day is a heavy burden for me” (α = 0.86; ω = 0.86).

Goal attainment (T1)

Goal attainment, the extent to which participants had reached the solution to their problem, was measured with a 10-point scale ranging from 1 ( solution not obtained at all ) to 10 ( solution obtained ; see Grant, 2012 ; Theeboom et al., 2016 ). Goal attainment was measured before and after the experimental manipulation. The following item was used: “On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent have you at this point achieved the solution to this problem?”

Positive and negative affect (T1)

Participants’ positive and negative affect were measured with the hedonic tone (e.g., “satisfied”; α = 0.89; ω = 0.90), energetic arousal (e.g., “active”; α = 0.82; ω = 0.79), and the tense arousal (e.g., “nervous”; α = 0.90; ω = 0.90) subscales (8 items each) of the UWIST Mood Adjective Checklist (UMACL; Matthews et al., 1990 ). Participants were asked to indicate on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 ( not applicable at all ) to 7 ( fully applicable ) to what extent these adjectives currently applied to them when thinking about the situation they had just described (i.e., the coaching manipulation).

Self-efficacy (T1)

Self-efficacy was measured with the following four items that are based on the Core Self-Evaluations Scale and were adapted to fit the context of the study (CSES; Judge et al., 2004 ): (1) “I am confident that I can solve my problem”; (2) “If I try my best, I will be able to solve my problem”; (3) “I am full of doubts about my abilities to master my problem”; (4) “I am able to handle my problem well” (α = 0.70; ω = 0.71). The items were answered on a five-point scale ranging from 1 ( completely disagree ) to 5 ( completely agree ).

Approach and avoidance goal orientation (T1)

Approach and avoidance goal orientation were measured with three items each, that were based on the Achievement Goal Questionnaire (AGQ; Elliot and Murayama, 2008 ). We adapted the items to fit the context of the self-coaching exercise. The items were answered on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 ( completely disagree ) to 7 ( completely agree ). Example items of approach and avoidance goal orientation, respectively, are: “I strive to solve my problem as soon as possible” (α = 0.74; ω = 0.74) and “I am going to focus on preventing the problem from getting worse” (α = 0.61; ω = 0.62).

Action planning (T1)

Action planning was assessed by asking participants to describe the first steps they would take in the near future to achieve the situation they wished for (i.e., solution of the problem; Grant, 2012 ). The following item was used: “Can you describe what first small steps you will take in the near future to achieve the desired situation (solution of the problem)?” Fifteen text fields were provided for potential responses. We recorded the number and quality of action steps of each participant by means of four indicators: specificity , uniqueness , behavior (i.e., action steps reflect behavior rather than cognitions) , and approach goal orientation . In pairs of two, the authors conducted the coding of the quality indicators based on a coding scheme. See the Supplementary material for a detailed description of the quality criteria and the coding process and scheme.

Manipulation check (T1)

With six items that described the nature of the coaching instructions people had received, we assessed whether the manipulation had been successful. Participants rated on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 ( not applicable at all ) to 7 ( fully applicable ) whether the statements were applicable to them. Example items of the problem, miracle, and success conditions, respectively, are: “In this study, I was asked to think about a situation where my problem was very present” (α = 0.71), “In this study I was asked to imagine a situation in which my problem suddenly disappeared.” (α = 0.95), and “In this study, I had to think about what I had done in the past to solve the problem” (α = 0.76).

Problem-solving actions (T2)

Participants were shown the personal problem and the action steps they had described during the coaching exercise (at T1). They were asked to indicate to what extent they had performed these steps (on a scale ranging from 1 [ not at all ] to 7 [ completely ]) and how much effort they had spent to do so (on a scale from 1 [ not much ] to 7 [ much ]). Participants then could list additional action steps that had not been listed before. We used the following item: “For each step, indicate to what extent you have performed this step and how much effort you have put into taking this step.”

Goal attainment (T2)

Participants indicated on a 10-point scale ranging from 1 ( solution not obtained at all ) to 10 ( solution obtained ) to what extent they had currently reached the solution to their previously described problem. We used the same measure as at T1.

Actual problem-solving actions (T3)

Participants received an email with the link to a website providing information that could be useful for dealing with work-related problems (e.g., time management and mindfulness). As an indicator of objective (as opposed to self-reported) problem-solving actions, we used a click-through measure to assess if participants visited the website during a period of 10 days. The specific content displayed on the website can be requested from the first author.

Analytical approach

Data were analyzed in SPSS (version 25) using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with condition as between-subjects factor. Significant main effects were followed up with planned contrasts between the problem-focused (coded as −2) and the two solution-focused conditions (coded as 1 each), and –for H2b– between the solution-focused miracle (coded as 1) and the solution-focused success condition (coded as −1). Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of the key variables in all three conditions. Table 2 presents the correlations of the variables at T1. Table 3 displays a summary of the hypotheses and their results.

Means and standard deviations of the key study variables in all three conditions.

Study variables	Problem condition ( = 61)	Miracle condition ( = 66)	Success condition ( = 56)
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)
Problem items	6.07 (0.85)	3.30 (1.70)	4.54 (1.63)
Miracle items	1.44 (0.73)	6.37 (1.15)	1.71 (1.09)
Success items	3.64 (1.43)	3.00 (1.58)	5.81 (1.18)
PA: hedonic tone	3.85 (1.04)	4.64 (1.22)	4.84 (1.29)
PA: energetic arousal	4.24 (0.92)	4.81 (1.09)	4.83 (0.98)
NA: tense arousal	4.06 (1.15)	3.54 (1.32)	3.52 (1.19)
Self-efficacy	3.48 (0.70)	3.45 (0.73)	3.62 (0.66)
Approach goal orientation	4.77 (1.22)	5.13 (1.02)	5.31 (0.98)
Avoidance goal orientation	5.25 (1.24)	5.38 (1.12)	5.50 (1.02)
Goal attainment pre	4.59 (1.81)	4.77 (1.59)	4.89 (1.89)
Goal attainment post	5.74 (1.77)	5.59 (2.00)	6.14 (2.04)
Number action steps:	3.80 (1.76)	3.89 (1.61)	3.79 (1.59)
Specificity	1.62 (0.61)	1.72 (0.66)	1.45 (0.66)
Uniqueness	0.73 (0.24)	0.72 (0.25)	0.68 (0.23)
Behavior	0.77 (0.30)	0.75 (0.30)	0.80 (0.21)
Approach goal orientation	0.90 (0.19)	0.93 (0.14)	0.95 (0.13)
Goal attainment	5.71 (1.92)	5.55 (1.74)	5.85 (1.61)
Extent action initiation	3.75 (1.36)	3.72 (1.35)	3.73 (1.34)
Effort action initiation	3.66 (1.74)	3.47 (1.26)	3.11 (1.20)
Website visit in %	48.10	57.40	58.70

PA, positive affect, NA, negative affect; Goal attainment pre, before the experimental instructions; Goal attainment post, after the experimental instructions.

a Based on n = 58, n = 66, n = 55 for problem condition, miracle condition, and success condition, respectively.

b Based on n = 55, n = 58, n = 47 for problem condition, miracle condition, and success condition, respectively, for the goal attainment measure; n = 53, n = 58, n = 46 for problem condition, miracle condition, and success condition, respectively, for the extent measure; n = 45, n = 48, n = 38 for problem condition, miracle condition, and success condition, respectively, for the effort measure.

c Based on n = 54, n = 54, n = 46 for problem condition, miracle condition, and success condition, respectively.

d Reflects the percentage of participants visiting the website once or more.

Means, standard variations, intercorrelations, and reliabilities of the study variables across the three conditions at T1.

		SD	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10.	11.	12.	13.
1. PA: hedonic tone	4.44	1.25
2. PA: energetic arousal	4.63	1.03	0.71
3. NA: tense arousal	3.71	1.24	−0.68	−0.63
4. Self-efficacy	3.51	0.70	0.30	0.29	−0.27
5. Approach goal orientation	5.07	1.10	0.18	0.16	−0.15	0.35
6. Avoidance goal orientation	5.37	1.13	–0.00	–0.00	0.09	0.10	0.38
7. Goal attainment pre	4.75	1.75	0.23	0.23	−0.23	0.46	0.11	0.03
8. Goal attainment post	5.81	1.94	0.19	0.12	−0.17	0.54	0.16	0.02	0.68
9. Number action steps	3.83	1.65	–0.02	–0.02	0.16	–0.04	–0.08	–0.06	0.03	0.08
Action steps: quality criteria
10. Specificity	1.61	0.65	0.02	0.03	0.03	0.09	–0.03	–0.01	–0.02	0.07	0.13
11. Uniqueness	0.71	0.24	0.06	0.03	–0.11	0.06	0.14	–0.11	0.07	0.03	−0.26	–0.02
12. Behavior	0.77	0.28	–0.08	–0.14	0.09	–0.02	–0.01	–0.06	0.02	–0.02	0.03	0.16	–0.07
13. Approach goal orientation	0.93	0.16	–0.00	–0.04	0.05	0.05	0.06	–0.06	–0.06	0.03	0.10	0.14	–0.08	0.28

N = 183 for variables 1–9. N = 179 for variables 10–13. Cronbach’s alpha reliability indices are displayed on the diagonal between brackets.*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.

Summary of hypotheses and results.

Hypothesis	Description	Result
H1a	Compared to problem-focused questioning, solution-focused questioning leads to higher positive affect
H1b	Compared to problem-focused questioning, solution-focused questioning leads to lower negative affect
H2a	Compared to problem-focused questioning, solution-focused questioning leads to higher self-efficacy
H2b	Compared to the solution-focused miracle question, the solution-focused success question leads to higher self-efficacy
H3a	Compared to problem-focused coaching, solution-focused coaching leads to higher approach goal orientation
H3b	Compared to problem-focused coaching, solution-focused coaching leads to lower avoidance goal orientation
H4a	Compared to problem-focused questioning, solution-focused questioning will lead to stronger increases in goal attainment
H4b	Compared to problem-focused questioning, solution-focused questioning will lead to more and higher quality action planning (i.e., number and quality of action steps) directly after the experimental coaching intervention
H5a	Compared to problem-focused questioning, solution-focused questioning leads to higher problem-solving actions (i.e., extent of performing action steps) during follow-up
H5b	Compared to problem-focused questioning, solution-focused questioning leads to higher goal attainment during follow-up
H5c	Compared to problem-focused questioning, solution-focused questioning leads to higher problem-solving actions during follow-up

See the main text for a description of the statistical results.

Manipulation check

Results showed that the experimental manipulation was successful. First, participants in the problem-focused condition scored higher on the degree to which the experiment had instructed them to imagine their problem being strongly present than participants in the solution-focused conditions ( F (2, 180) = 58.12, p < 0.001, see Table 1 ). Second, participants in the miracle condition scored higher on the degree to which the experiment had instructed them to image a situation in which their problem had suddenly disappeared than participants in other two conditions ( F (2, 180) = 479.45, p < 0.001). Finally, participants in the success condition scored higher on the degree to which the experiment had instructed them to image what they had done before to solve the problem than participants in the other two conditions ( F (2, 180) = 63.99, p < 0.001). Post hoc testing confirmed that differences between conditions were significant (all p ’s < 0.001).

Hypothesis testing

H1a predicted that the two solution-focused conditions (miracle and success) would elicit higher positive affect (i.e., hedonic tone, energetic arousal) than the problem-focused condition. Results yielded a significant main effect of condition for hedonic tone, F (2, 180) = 11.85, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.12: participants in the solution-focused conditions reported significantly higher hedonic tone than participants in the problem-focused condition, t (180) = 4.81, p < 0.001. Similarly, results showed a significant main effect of condition for energetic arousal, F (2, 180) = 6.81, p = 0.001, η p2 = 0.07: participants in the solution-focused conditions reported significantly higher energetic arousal than participants in the problem-focused condition, t (180) = 3.69, p < 0.001. Thus, H1a was supported.

H1b predicted that the two solution-focused conditions would elicit lower negative affect (i.e., tense arousal) than the problem-focused condition. Results showed a significant main effect of condition for tense arousal, F (2, 180) = 3.78, p = 0.025, η p2 = 0.04: participants in the solution-focused conditions reported significantly lower tense arousal than participants in the problem-focused condition, t (180) = −2.75, p = 0.007. Thus, H1b was supported.

H2a predicted that the two solution-focused conditions would elicit higher self-efficacy than the problem-focused condition and H2b predicted that the success condition would elicit higher self-efficacy than the miracle condition. These hypotheses were not supported, F (2, 180) = 1.00, p = 0.368, η p2 = 0.01.

H3a predicted that the two solution-focused conditions would elicit higher approach goal orientation than the problem-focused condition. Results showed a significant main effect of condition for approach goal orientation, F (2, 180) = 3.83, p = 0.024, η p2 = 0.04: participants in the solution-focused conditions reported significantly higher approach goal orientation than participants in the problem-focused condition, t (180) = 2.65, p = 0.009. Thus, H3a was supported. H3b predicted that the two solution-focused conditions would elicit lower avoidance goal orientation than the problem-focused condition, but was not supported, F (2, 180) = 0.71, p = 0.494, η p2 = 0.01.

H4a predicted that the two solution-focused conditions would yield a stronger increase in participants’ goal attainment after the coaching exercise than the problem-focused condition. Repeated measures analyses with time as within-subject variable and condition as between-subject variable revealed a significant main effect of time, F (1, 180) = 95.63, p < 0.001, η p2 = 0.35. In all three conditions, participants reported higher goal attainment after the self-coaching exercise than before, all p ’s < 0.001. The time x condition interaction was not significant, F (2, 180) = 1.45, p = 0.237, η p2 = 0.02, indicating that participants’ increase in goal attainment did not differ between conditions. Results furthermore showed that there were no differences between conditions in participants’ goal attainment at the start of the manipulation nor in the severity of the problem they had described, both p ’s > 0.05. Thus, H4a was not supported.

H4b predicted that the two solution-focused conditions would lead to more and higher-quality action planning than the problem-focused condition. The average number of action steps was the same in all conditions, F (2, 180) = 0.08, p = 0.926, η p2 = 0.01 2 and there was no difference between conditions for any of the four quality indicators ( specificity : F (2, 176) = 2.63, p = 0.075, η p2 = 0.03; uniqueness : F (2, 176) = 0.69, p = 0.505, η p2 = 0.01; behavior : F (2, 176) = 0.59, p = 0.557, η p2 = 0.01; approach goal orientation : F (2, 176) = 1.18, p = 0.309, η p2 = 0.01). Thus, H4b was not supported.

H5a predicted that the two solution-focused conditions would lead to higher reported problem-solving actions within the period of 14 days after the experimental coaching intervention than the problem-focused condition. Results showed no differences between conditions in formulated action steps, F (2, 154) = 0.01, p = 0.992, η p2 = 0.00, nor in the amount of effort spent on performing those action steps, F (2, 128) = 1.53, p = 0.221, η p2 = 0.02. Additionally, a Pearson Chi-Square test showed that the proportion of participants who reported additional action steps ( n = 22; 13.8%) did not differ as a function of condition X 2 (2, N = 160) = 3.96, p = 0.138. Thus, H5a was not supported. H5b predicted that participants in the two solution-focused conditions would report higher goal attainment than participants in the problem-focused condition. We found no support for this hypothesis, F (2, 157) = 0.375, p = 0.688, η p2 = 0.01.

H5c predicted that participants in the two solution-focused conditions would show higher actual problem-solving actions (i.e., website visits). We found no support for this hypothesis: a Pearson Chi-Square test indicated that participants from all three conditions 3 visited the website equally, X 2 (2, N = 154) = 1.39, p = 0.499.

Despite the popularity of coaching for increasing well-being and thriving at both the workplace and the private domain, research has lacked behind in uncovering the mechanisms behind coaching effectiveness. Specifically, only little is known about the effectiveness of specific type of coaching questions, and it has remained unclear if the positive effects of such questions can be sustained outside of coaching sessions. The current study therefore examined the immediate effects of solution-focused and problem-focused coaching techniques in an experimental setting and investigated if these questions led to goal-directed changes during a brief follow-up period of 14 days. We showed that when implemented in a self-coaching writing exercise, solution-focused questioning –a popular approach to the practice of coaching– fosters affective self-regulation relatively more than problem-focused questioning. That is, solution-focused questioning promotes positive emotions, hampers negative emotions, and increases people’s motivation to solve their problem (i.e., approach goal motivation). Yet, solution-focused questioning was not more effective than problem-focused questioning in reducing avoidance goal orientation or in promoting self-efficacy, action planning, problem solving and goal attainment. In fact, both solution- and problem-focused questioning increased perceptions of goal attainment right after the writing exercise and after a period of 14 days. Below, we will discuss our findings and their implications in more detail.

Our results show that thinking about solutions rather than problems makes people not only feel good, but also motivates them to strive for gains while keeping an eye on potential losses. That is, solution-focused questioning stimulated approach motivation but did not simultaneously inhibit avoidance motivation. A possible explanation for this finding might be that approach and avoidance motivation are relatively independent concepts ( Elliot and Covington, 2001 ), and are therefore influenced through different systems. It might also be possible that investing in solutions for complex problems –that often are systemic and not entirely within one’s control– is only adaptive when the problem will not get worse. In that case, adopting a prevention strategy (i.e., concerned with assuring safety and avoiding negative outcomes) can provide some degree of control ( Higgins, 1997 ).

Contrary to our expectations and earlier empirical findings, we did not find that solution-focused questioning was more effective than problem-focused questioning in increasing people’s self-efficacy beliefs, nor did we find any differences between the miracle and the success question in that regard. This is surprising, given that previous success experiences are deemed the most important source of self-efficacy ( Bandura, 1977 ). We see two explanations for this unexpected finding. First, it is possible that the success experiences made salient during the coaching exercise were too broad to be a credible source for solving one’s current problem. While mastery experiences in one domain can lead to spill-over effects to other domains, meaning that previous successes and associated positive experiences for example at work may boost motivation and positive affect to approach problems in private life, this is only the case if the same skills are required (e.g., general self-management strategies, Bandura, 2006 ). The skills that participants recalled during the coaching exercise may thus not have fully matched the skills needed to solve their current problem. It is particularly important for solution-focused coaches to not blindly focus on clients’ strengths but to enable clients to transfer the right prior experienced skills to the current problem. Second, the problems that participants expressed were complex and at least partly contextual (see the Supplementary material ), which may mean that participants may have had situational restrictions in mind when reflecting on their ability to solve the problem. Indeed, Table 1 shows moderate self-efficacy beliefs and relatively low variance among participants in all three conditions.

Another unexpected finding was that problem-focused questioning was equally successful as solution-focused questioning in promoting goal attainment (i.e., how close people felt to solving their problem). Interestingly, this was still evident in all groups 14 days later. Although ruminating on problems can be damaging to clients’ immediate affective states, taking time to reflect on one’s problem may still feel like progress. According to the Transtheoretical Model of Change ( Prochaska et al., 2015 ), people need to become aware of their problem, its causes and consequences, before they are ready to act. Although the awareness of a problem can be uncomfortable (reduced positive affect – a finding we also see in our study), it is a crucial first step on the road to change and may facilitate rather than impede problem-solving actions when one stops digging into the problem in time.

Lastly, the results showed no differences between problem-focused and solution-focused questioning with regard to people’s immediate action planning (i.e., number and quality of action steps), and their reported and actual problem-solving actions. In other words, thinking about solutions rather than problems did not make people actually do more to solve their problem. Our self-coaching writing exercise, in which participants were asked to describe a problem and reflect on it, may have been a push to start acting on the problem, irrespective of the experimental condition they were in. Thus, raising the salience of a problem may already trigger action planning and subsequent actions. Alternatively, the effects of problem-focused and solution-focused questioning techniques may outweigh each other in promoting or hampering action taking. While problem-focused questioning may cause deep reflection but also deactivating negative moods such as sadness and weariness (see Kreemers et al., 2020 ), solution-focused questioning may cause divergent thinking but also unrealistic fantasies that hinder the planning of concrete actions. Unlike concrete goals, positive fantasies lack a clear commitment to behavior ( Oettingen, 2012 ). When indulging in positive thoughts, one can easily forget that this positive future has not been realized yet, which ultimately hinders goal striving and pursuit.

Theoretical implications

The results of the present study provide a better understanding of the effects of questioning techniques in coaching and advance the literature in several ways. First, we answered to the call for a broader understanding of the psychological mechanisms that render positive coaching outcomes ( Bachkirova and Kauffman, 2009 ). We shed light on the most essential tool that coaches have: asking questions. We showed that solution-focused questions are more effective than problem-focused questions when the goal of coaching is to make people feel good, and to help people strive toward solving their problem (rather than preventing it from getting worse). For factors deemed essential for goal-directed self-regulation, the type of questioning made no difference.

Second, by examining the effects of questioning techniques on participants’ problem-solving actions during a brief follow-up period, we uncovered their differential potential to alter behavior – the ultimate goal for many clients and their coaches. Specifically, we showed that solution-focused and problem-focused questioning did not lead to different behavioral outcomes during this period. Thus, although a strength-based approach in coaching seems particularly useful in stages in the coaching process where clients get lost in complex rumination and feelings of despair, this approach may be insufficient for sustaining behavioral change. More theory development and research are needed to better understand which interventions have which effects in the different temporal stages of coaching (see also Theeboom et al., 2017 ).

Finally, while prior research with university students showed that individuals benefited more from solution-focused than problem-focused questioning, this finding was only partly replicated in our study with medical residents. This can be explained by the differences in samples: the type of problems that medical residents face in their job may fundamentally differ from those of students (e.g., study-related stress, Theeboom et al., 2016 ) in magnitude and complexity. First, the problems of employees and students may differ in magnitude . Theeboom et al. (2016) speculated that students’ problems might not be pressing enough. For example, students were instructed to think about problems that were “frustrating for them” or were posing a “dilemma […] where [they] feel caught between two or more possible courses of action” (e.g., Grant and Gerrard, 2020 ). These types of problems were probably less severe than the problems mentioned by the healthcare workers in our sample. Second, the problems of employees and students may differ in complexity. Healthcare workers are part of large organizational systems in which they can have limited autonomy and control in their work. The work-related problems they face may often involve structural organizational factors (hindrance stressors) and significant others (e.g., colleagues, supervisors or patients), which can significantly impact their perception of behavioral control, motivation and options for problem-solving actions ( Yang and Li, 2021 ). At the same time, the job demands (e.g., high workload, emotional demands) faced by the residents in this study might at least partly overlap with the experience of employees from relevant other settings (e.g., education). Consequently, we expect the findings to be generalizable across other professions outside of healthcare. All in all, it is possible that both the severity and complexity of the problems that coaching clients aim to solve influence the effectiveness of coaching questions for outcomes such as self-efficacy, goal attainment, and action planning and behavior. Therefore, as experimental studies encompass only a one-time and short (although controlled) intervention, future research could further improve its ecological validity by examining the effects of coaching questioning techniques in real coaching sessions. After all, coaching is a process.

Practical implications

Asking (the right) questions is an essential part of coaching. Our results show that not all types of questions are equally effective. Coaching questions that convey a positive outcome make the client feel good and motivate them to pursue their goals whereas “problem talk” goes along with unpleasant feelings. In coaching practice, it would be neither desirable nor constructive to eliminate the problem from the coaching conversation altogether. However, if coaches –in a specific stage of the coaching process– aim to reinforce positive feelings and inspire optimism and hope for the future, they might do well to ask solution-focused questions. This may help clients to temporarily detach from their problem and develop a different and broader view on their situation.

Second, our results suggest that feeling good is a “nice-to-have” rather than a “must-have” for clients to pursue and achieve their goals: with positive outcomes in mind, people feel better in the short run, but these immediate affective reactions may not translate into goal-directed behaviors in the long run. Thus, asking solution-focused questions is not necessarily helpful in every stage of the coaching process. Given that coaching clients enter a coaching session with a description of what brought them to seek support in the first place (the preparatory contemplation stage of the coaching process), focusing on the problem at hand often is the logical first step. Especially when clients want to talk about their problems –which can be a cathartic experience– coaches should meet this need and not counter it with a rigid focus on solutions ( Theeboom et al., 2016 ). Coaching is typically a blend of solution-focused and problem-focused techniques ( Grant, 2012 ), and not one or the other.

Finally, we recognize that effective questioning is only one pillar of successful coaching conversations. While skillfully asked questions can fundamentally set the tone of a coaching conversation by provoking thinking and self-awareness, the ultimate goal of coaching is client development and change. Therefore, coaches need to assist their clients in setting concrete and attainable goals and turning intentions into actions – one of the biggest challenges for many clients.

Limitations and future research

Our study is not without limitations. First, the experimental design of our study did not allow us to capture the coaching process in all its complexity. However, it afforded experimental control by which we could compare the pure effects of different questions techniques unaffected by relational (and other) factors that influence coaching outcomes in real-life. It is important to note that participants engaged in a short, online self-coaching exercise rather than a real coaching session with a professional coach. Real-life coaching is a joint and complex behavioral change process together with a professional that is different in many ways from self-coaching where such a professional is absent. While our design allowed us to disentangle the effects of coaching questions from other factors that play a role during coaching, a necessary next step is to investigate and extend the current findings using more ecologically valid procedures. Having said this, we are confident that our participants took the online exercise seriously as became clear from their serious and extensive responses to the open questions. Additionally, given that coaches regularly use (written) homework exercises for their clients between sessions, our results stress the (potential) benefits of such practice.

Second, we realize that the distinction between solution- and problem-focused questioning is in part artificial, and that real-life coaching is a mixture of many different approaches –of which solution- and problem-focused coaching are merely two– rather than the strict following of one single approach. Yet, disentangling the effects of both coaching approaches, can inform coaching practitioners of the unique effects that different types of questions may have on their clients.

We suggest some promising directions for future research. Based on the finding that a short self-coaching writing exercise could already increase perceptions of goal-directed change over time, it would be interesting to explore to what extent these perceptions are related to concrete behaviors (e.g., action planning and execution). Given that coaching tends to be an expensive enterprise, shortcuts to goal attainment could allow clients with fewer financial resources to benefit from coaching as well. Finally, as to gain an in-depth understanding of what happens in and leads to successful coaching, extensive process studies are needed that combine coach- and client perspectives and ultimately relate them to coaching outcomes. Such insights into the process of coaching will not only advance the theory of coaching but will also inform coaching practice in important ways. If coaching as a profession is seeking to move beyond an “anyone can coach” – approach, it is important to know which (trained) coaching skills –including question techniques– are essential in which stage of the coaching process for attaining coaching goals.

In this study we compared the effectiveness of solution-focused and problem-focused questions in driving positive outcomes of coaching. Our study shows that thinking about solutions rather than problems during a self-coaching writing exercise increases both people’s immediate affective states and their goal-directed motivation. Both approaches, however, are equally effective for immediate action planning and execution during a brief follow-up period. Further research is needed that examines the variety and effectiveness of coaching questions in different stages of the coaching process.

Data availability statement

Ethics statement.

The study involving human participants was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Review Board of the University of Amsterdam (2020-WOP-12154). The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

LS, AV, JK, TT, and BB coded the qualitative data. LS, AV, and JK analyzed the data. LS drafted the manuscript. All authors were involved in the conception and design of the study as well as the collection and interpretation of the data, reviewed and approved the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

We thank Ronald Flohil for his help in developing the study materials.

1 We are aware that the term problem-focused coaching is used primarily by advocates of solution-focused coaching. Real-life coaching often uses a blend of solution- and problem-focused techniques ( Grant, 2012 ) but since we are interested in the effects of specific coaching questions, we separate them in our study design.

2 Log-transformation of the data showed comparable results.

3 For 9 participants, it was not possible to retrieve if they had visited the website within the set period of 10 days. Because exclusion of these participants did not lead to changes in the results, we included their data in the final analyses.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.895439/full#supplementary-material

• Ajzen I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 179–211. 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bachkirova T., Kauffman C. (2009). The blind men and the elephant: using criteria ofuniversality and uniqueness in evaluating our attempts to define coaching [Editorial]. Coach. Int. J. Theory Res. Pract. 2 95–105. 10.1080/17521880903102381 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice-Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am. Psychol. 37 122–147. 10.1037/0003-066x.37.2.122 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 248–287. 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-l [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. (2006). “ Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales ,” in Self-Efficacy Beliefs ofAdolescents , Vol. 5 eds Pajares F., Urdan T. (Greenwich, CT: Information Age; ), 307–337. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bozer G., Jones R. J. (2018). Understanding the factors that determine workplace coachingeffectiveness: a systematic literature review. Eur. J. Work Organ.Psychol. 27 342–361. 10.1080/1359432x.2018.1446946 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Braunstein K., Grant A. M. (2016). Approaching solutions or avoiding problems? The differential effects of approach and avoidance goals with solution-focused and problem- focused coaching questions. Coach. Int. J. Theory Res. Pract. 9 93–109. 10.1080/17521882.2016.1186705 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carver C. S., Scheier M. F. (1998). On The Self-Regulation Of Behavior. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Shazer S. (1988). Clues: Investigating Solutions In Brief Therapy. New York, NY: W.W.Norton and Co. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Shazer S., Dolan Y. (2012). More Than Miracles: The State Of The Art Of Solution-Focusedbrief Therapy. Abingdon: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliot A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motiv. Emot. 30 111–116. 10.1007/s11031-006-9028-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliot A. J., Church M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidanceachievement motivation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 72 218–232. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliot A. J., Covington M. V. (2001). Approach and avoidance motivation. Educ. Psychol.Rev. 13 73–92. 10.1023/a:1009009018235 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliot A. J., Murayama K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: critique, illustration, and application. J. Educ. Psychol. 100 613–628. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliot A. J., Sheldon K. M., Church M. A. (1997). Avoidance personal goals and subjectivewell-being. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 23 915–927. 10.1177/0146167297239001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fontes A., Dello Russo S. (2021). An experimental field study on the effects of coaching: themediating role of psychological capital. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 70 459–488. 10.1111/apps.12260 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• George J. M., Jones G. R. (2001). Towards a process model of individual change in organizations. Hum. Relat. 54 419–444. 10.1177/0018726701544002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant A. M. (2003). The impact of life coaching on goal attainment, metacognition and mentalhealth. Soc. Behav. Pers. Int. J. 31 253–263. 10.2224/sbp.2003.31.3.253 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant A. M. (2012). Making positive change: a randomized study comparing solution focused vs.problem-focused coaching questions. J. Syst. Ther. 31 21–35. 10.1521/jsyt.2012.31.2.21 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant A. M. (2014). The efficacy of executive coaching in times of organizational change. J. Chang. Manag. 14 258–280. 10.1080/14697017.2013.805159 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant A. M. (2020). “ An integrated model of goal-focused coaching: an evidence-based frameworkfor teaching and practice ,” in Coaching Researched: A Coaching Psychology Reader , eds Passmore J., Tee D. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; ), 115–139. 10.1002/9781119656913.ch7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant A. M., Gerrard B. (2020). Comparing problem-focused, solution-focused and combinedproblem-focused/solution-focused coaching approach: solution-focused coachingquestionsmitigate the negative impact of dysfunctional attitudes. Coach. Int. J. Theory Res. Pract. 13 61–77. 10.1080/17521882.2019.1599030 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant A. M., O’Connor S. A. (2018). Broadening and building solution-focused coaching: feeling good is not enough. Coach. Int. J. Theory Res. Pract. 11 165–185. 10.1080/17521882.2018.1489868 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant A. M., O’Connor S. A. (2010). The differential effects of solution-focused andproblem- focused coaching questions: a pilot study with implications for practice. Ind. Commer. Train. 42 102–111. 10.1108/00197851011026090 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Green L. S., Oades L. G., Grant A. M. (2006). Cognitive-behavioral, solution-focused lifecoaching: enhancing goal striving, well-being, and hope. J. Posit. Psychol. 1 142–149. 10.1080/17439760600619849 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Higgins E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. Am. Psychol. 52 1280–1300. 10.1037/0003-066x.52.12.1280 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Higgins E. T. (2002). How self-regulation creates distinct values: the case of promotion andprevention decision making. J. Consum. Psychol. 12 177–191. 10.1207/153276602760335031 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Idson L. C., Liberman N., Higgins E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses andlosses from nongains: a regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. J. Exp. Soc.Psychol. 36 252–274. 10.1006/jesp.1999.1402 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• International Coach Federation (2021). Membership And Credentialing Fact Sheet March 2021. Available online at: https://coachingfederation.org/app/uploads/2021/03/March2021_FactSheet.pdf [Accessed January 6, 2022]. [ Google Scholar ]
• Iveson C. (2002). Solution-focused brief therapy. Adv. Psychiatr. Treat. 8 149–156. 10.1192/apt.8.2.149 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnston C. S. (2018). A systematic review of the career adaptability literature and futureoutlook. J. Career Assess. 26 3–30. 10.1177/1069072716679921 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones R. J., Woods S. A., Guillaume Y. R. (2016). The effectiveness of workplace coaching:A meta-analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 89 249–277. 10.1111/joop.12119 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones R. J., Woods S. A., Zhou Y. (2021). The effects of coachee personality and goalorientation on performance improvement following coaching: a controlled fieldexperiment. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 70 420–458. 10.1111/apps.12218 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Judge T. A., Van Vianen A. E., De Pater I. E. (2004). Emotional stability, core self- evaluations, and job outcomes: a review of the evidence and an agenda for futureresearch. Hum. Perform. 17 325–346. 10.1207/s15327043hup1703_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kauffman C. (2006). “ Positive psychology: the science at the heart of coaching ,” in Evidencebased Coaching Handbook: Putting Best Practices To Work For Your Client , eds Grant A. M., Stober D. R. (Hoboken, NY: Wiley; ), 219–253. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kauffman C., Scoular A. (2004). “ Toward a positive psychology of executive coaching ,” in Positive Psychology In Practice , eds Linley A., Josephs S. (Hoboken, NY: Wiley; ), 287–302. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kreemers L. M., Van Hooft E. A., Van Vianen A. E., Sisouw de Zilwa S. (2020). Testing a self-compassion intervention among job seekers: self-compassion beneficiallyimpacts affect through reduced self-criticism. Front. Psychol. 11 : 1371 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01371 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee G. (2010). “ The psychodynamic approach to coaching ,” in The Complete Handbook Ofcoaching , eds Cox E., Bachkirova T., Clutterbuck D. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; ), 23–36. 10.1080/09540261.2016.1208162 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Matthews G., Jones D. M., Chamberlain A. G. (1990). Refining the measurement ofmood: the UWIST mood adjective checklist. Br. J. Psychol. 81 17–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• McGonagle A. K., Schwab L., Yahanda N., Duskey H., Gertz N., Prior L., et al. (2020). Coaching for primary care physician well-being: a randomized trial and follow-upanalysis. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 25 : 297 . 10.1037/ocp0000180 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McNeish D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychol. Methods 23 412–433. 10.1037/met0000144 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Connell B., Palmer S., Williams H. (2013). Solution Focused Coaching In Practice. Abingdon: Routledge, 10.4324/9780203111734 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oettingen G. (2012). Future thought and behaviour change. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 23 1–63. 10.1080/10463283.2011.643698 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pakrosnis R., Cepukiene V. (2015). Solution-focused self-help for improving universitystudents’ well-being. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 52 437–447. 10.1080/14703297.2014.930352 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prochaska J. O., Redding C. A., Evers K. E. (2015). “ The transtheoretical model andstages of change ,” in Health Behavior: Theory, Research, And Practice , 4th Edn, eds Glanz K., Rimer B. K., Viswanath K. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; ), 97–121. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaufeli W. B., Van Dierendonck D. (2000). Maslach Burnout Inventory: Nederlandseversie [Maslach Burnout Inventory: Dutch Version]. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaufeli W. B., Leiter M. P., Maslach C., Jackson S. E. (1996). “ The maslach burnoutinventory-general survey ,” in Maslach Burnout Inventory: Manual , 3rd Edn, eds Maslach C., Jackson S. E., Leiter M. P. (Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; ), 19–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Seligman M. E. (2007). Coaching and positive psychology. Aust. Psychol. 42 266–267. 10.1080/0005006070164823 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seligman M. E., Csikszentmihalyi M. (2000). Positive psychology: an introduction. Am. Psychol. 55 5–14. 10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seligman M. E., Steen T. A., Park N., Peterson C. (2005). Positive psychology progress:empirical validation of interventions. Am. Psychol. 60 410–421. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Snyder C. R. (2002). Hope theory: rainbows in the mind. Psychol. Inq. 13 249–275. 10.1207/s15327965pli1304_01 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Solms L., van Vianen A., Koen J., Theeboom T., de Pagter A. P., De Hoog M. (2021). Turning the tide: a quasi-experimental study on a coaching intervention to reduceburn-outsymptoms and foster personal resources among medical residents and specialists in theNetherlands. BMJ Open 11 : e041708 . 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041708 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Theeboom T., Beersma B., van Vianen A. E. (2014). Does coaching work? A meta-analysis onthe effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context. J. Posit. Psychol. 9 1–18. 10.1080/17439760.2013.837499 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Theeboom T., Beersma B., Van Vianen A. E. (2016). The differential effects of solution- focused and problem-focused coaching questions on the affect, attentionalcontrol andcognitive flexibility of undergraduate students experiencing study- related stress. J. Posit.Psychol. 11 460–469. 10.1080/17439760.2015.1117126 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Theeboom T., Van Vianen A. E. M., Beersma B. (2017). A temporal map of coaching. Front. Psychol. 8 : 1352 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01352 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van den Heuvel M., Demerouti E., Bakker A. B., Schaufeli W. B. (2013). Adapting to change: the value of change information and meaning-making. J. Vocat. Behav. 83 11–21. 10.1016/j.jvb.2013.02.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang Y., Li X. (2021). The impact of challenge and hindrance stressors on thriving at workdouble mediation based on affect and motivation. Front. Psychol. 12 : 613871 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.613871 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang A., Franklin C., Currin-McCulloch J., Park S., Kim J. (2018). The effectiveness ofstrength-based, solution-focused brief therapy in medical settings: a systematic review andmeta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Behav. Med. 41 139–151. 10.1007/s10865-017-9888-1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

The Effect of Solution-Focused Versus Problem-Focused Questions: A Replication

Affiliations.

• 1 University of Miguel Hernandez of Elche.
• 2 Public University of Navarra.
• PMID: 26387987
• DOI: 10.1111/jmft.12140

In therapeutic conversations, questions can be considered as interventions in their own right. This study is a cross-cultural replication of Grant (Journal of Systemic Therapies, 2012, 31, 2, 21) study on the effects of different types of questions on various clinically relevant variables. A total of 204 students of a Spanish university described a real-life problem that they wanted to solve and were then randomly assigned to either a solution-focused or a problem-focused questions condition. Before and after answering the questions, they completed a set of measures that assessed positive and negative affect, self-efficacy, and goal attainment. Solution-focused questions produced a significantly greater increase in self-efficacy, goal approach, and action steps than problem-focused questions, and a significantly greater decrease in negative affect, providing further empirical support to solution-focused practices.

© 2015 American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Simply effective? The differential effects of solution-focused and problem-focused coaching questions in a self-coaching writing exercise. Solms L, Koen J, van Vianen AEM, Theeboom T, Beersma B, de Pagter APJ, de Hoog M. Solms L, et al. Front Psychol. 2022 Aug 18;13:895439. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.895439. eCollection 2022. Front Psychol. 2022. PMID: 36059772 Free PMC article.
• Questioning and reading goals: information-seeking questions asked on scientific texts read under different task conditions. Ishiwa K, Sanjosé V, Otero J. Ishiwa K, et al. Br J Educ Psychol. 2013 Sep;83(Pt 3):502-20. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02079.x. Epub 2012 Sep 27. Br J Educ Psychol. 2013. PMID: 23822534 Clinical Trial.
• Efficacy of written modeling and vicarious reinforcement in increasing use of problem-solving methods by distressed individuals. Coates C, Malouff JM, Rooke SE. Coates C, et al. J Psychol. 2008 Jul;142(4):413-25. doi: 10.3200/JRPL.142.4.413-426. J Psychol. 2008. PMID: 18792652 Clinical Trial.
• Advancing complex explanatory conceptualizations of daily negative and positive affect: trigger and maintenance coping action patterns. Dunkley DM, Ma D, Lee IA, Preacher KJ, Zuroff DC. Dunkley DM, et al. J Couns Psychol. 2014 Jan;61(1):93-109. doi: 10.1037/a0034673. J Couns Psychol. 2014. PMID: 24447060
• Solution-focused therapies. Barker P. Barker P. Nurs Times. 1998 May 13-19;94(19):53-6. Nurs Times. 1998. PMID: 9653256 Review.
• Bibliometric Differences Between WEIRD and Non-WEIRD Countries in the Outcome Research on Solution-Focused Brief Therapy. Beyebach M, Neipp MC, Solanes-Puchol Á, Martín-Del-Río B. Beyebach M, et al. Front Psychol. 2021 Nov 17;12:754885. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.754885. eCollection 2021. Front Psychol. 2021. PMID: 34867649 Free PMC article.
• Search in MeSH

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• Newsletters
• Best Industries
• Business Plans
• Home-Based Business
• The UPS Store
• Customer Service
• Black in Business
• Your Next Move
• Female Founders
• Best Workplaces
• Company Culture
• Public Speaking
• HR/Benefits
• Productivity
• All the Hats
• Digital Transformation
• Artificial Intelligence
• Bringing Innovation to Market
• Cloud Computing
• Social Media
• Data Detectives
• Exit Interview
• Bootstrapping
• Crowdfunding
• Venture Capital
• Business Models
• Personal Finance
• Founder-Friendly Investors
• Upcoming Events
• Inc. 5000 Vision Conference
• Become a Sponsor
• Cox Business
• Verizon Business
• Branded Content
• Apply Inc. 5000 US

Inc. Premium

The 4 Types of Problem-Solvers (and Why Knowing Which One You Are Will Make You More Successful)

There is more to motivation than ambition and work ethic. learn how to recognize and maximize key drivers for business success..

Entrepreneurs are typically highly motivated individuals . Driven and ambitious, they see the reward in taking less predictable approaches and embracing routines that stray from the standard 9 to 5 in pursuit of the big break.

When you are solely responsible for your own success, removed from the safety net of corporate infrastructure and hierarchical team structures, you have an immense need for self-motivation . The motivations of others also become more impactful. But motivation is far more complex than we often realize. Different minds are stimulated in different ways--it's this intricate blend of psyches that makes work culture so fascinating. Through diverse approaches, even those that conflict with one another, we land on solutions that are far more interesting than those we would if everyone were programed to think the same way.

However, these mindsets don't necessarily work in synergy, and so maximizing them--both our own and others'--is as much about acknowledging them as it is about displaying them in the first place. I've found that people operate on extreme motivations that fall into four distinct categories, and while this is not a judgmental spectrum it does offer some insight into how individuals operate and how to get the best out of them. It's about various ways we can think about who we are in the world of business and invention.

1. You're either problem-oriented, focused on a challenge, or solution-oriented, focused on resolution.

There are two ways to tackle a problem. First, you can zone in on the issue at hand and explore appropriate responses that will lead to an effective end result. There is an absence of reality here, and it can have the potential to be too narrowly focused as you become embroiled in the issue at hand. Alternatively, you can look beyond the problem itself and picture the positive outcome you want to work toward. By focusing on this, you allow for change and fluidity, adapting the individual solutions along the way.

Think about it in the context of setting up a new business. A leader who is problem-oriented will consider the steps needed to reach the short-term goal of making money--the number of clients required, the budgets required, and so on. A solution-oriented individual will consider the bigger picture--long-term business growth, acquisition, diversification--and create a route to resolution based on that. Through a more future-focused lens, incremental solutions can be found along the journey to this goal.

2. You're either task-oriented, focused on progress, or goal-oriented, focused on accomplishment.

Project management typically falls into two schools of thought. There are those who break the work down into tasks that are assigned to different groups, who then work step by step like a symphony as they pursue measured progress. Work becomes highly processed, with each achievement being accomplished in methodical and ordered ways. On the other hand, we see individuals who focus on the end goal and allow for change and adaptation along the way. By prioritizing the anticipated accomplishment, these people can be more fluid and flexible, allowing for unanticipated changes along the way.

3. You're either competitively oriented, focused on being the best, or collaboratively oriented, focused on working together.

In the U.S., in particular, we are constantly fed messages that pertain to achievement and winning. The American dream is built on prosperity and success, and from an early age we are encouraged to idealize being the best. Competitively oriented people are motivated to pursue individual excellence--they want to be number one. Yet there are others who are no less driven but instead seek satisfaction through collaboration and shared ambition: connecting with others, mining group intelligence, and maintaining unity among the group. When working with such individuals, it's critical to maintain contact and assign roles, in contrast to competitively oriented people who perform best when given a task and are met at the other end.

4. You're either self-identity oriented, focused on personal identity, or collective-identity oriented, focused on belonging or the sense of team. 

The final categorization is perhaps the most intriguing and applies to a deeper personal impulse. While the other characteristics apply to an individual's approach to his or her work and professional attainment, motivations around identity are indicative of a more intrinsic desire. Those focused on self-identity are motivated by activities that will further their personal brand. Decisions are made on the basis of the value they offer to furthering oneself, with each achievement considered a steppingstone to self-promotion. Alternatively, a possibly more intuitive group favors collective identity, shared values, and ambitions combined for a more holistic definition of success.

So, what does this mean for your business?

No single approach is better than the other. Instead, recognizing and understanding these motivational drivers will yield the best results. As individuals, we benefit from self-awareness and exploration. Spend time considering your motivations, and you can build a working environment that will encourage a higher success rate. When considering clients and colleagues, use motivational drivers like a tool; celebrate the diversity and show empathy toward the ways in which you can work best with each approach. Flexibility is key to maximizing these innate characteristics--doing this can help you and your business thrive.

The Daily Digest for Entrepreneurs and Business Leaders

Privacy Policy

• Time & Money
• Celebrations
• Special Sections

Are you problem-focused or solution-focused?

Life is a spectrum. Introverts vs. Extroverts. Optimists vs. Pessimists. Jocks vs. Nerds. And all but a few of us fall somewhere between the two extremes.

Another, though less often discussed spectrum, is related to problem solving. The two extremes here are whether you are problem-focused or solution-focused.

Problem-focused individuals are really good at identifying what the problems are and where they are causing difficulties. They have the capacity to analyze a situation, and figure out where the breakdown is occurring.

But what happens to individuals who are at the extreme end of the problem-focused spectrum? You probably know some of these individuals. They tend to see only the problems, and some see problems where there are none.

Solution-focused individuals, on the other hand, are better at solving problems. They are really good at identifying interventions or strategies for resolving issues that are at the root of the problem.

But too much of this can be a problem as well. When all you can see are solutions, you often fail to see the real problem. If the check engine light is on and it is annoying you, the easy solution is to remove the bulb. But, of course, this does not solve the real problem, it only solves your immediate discomfort.

The differences between problem-focused and solution-focused individuals often arise in our relationships. If both partners are somewhere in the middle of the problem vs. solution spectrum, they are good at finding AND solving problems. But if one or both are at either end of the spectrum, difficulties can arise.

Consider a couple where one of them only see only the problems. Every day, she talks about that day’s problems. Every day, she complains about the problems and ruminates over the distress caused by the problems. Yet, when her partner attempts to identify a solution, all she can see are the problems associated with that possible solution. It is a never-ending cycle filled with “yeah, but” and “nope, that won’t work.”

On the other hand, perhaps one of the partners is only solution-focused. In this case, he is always offering a solution. Although this may, at first, sound good, there are times when the other person just wants a chance to vent her frustrations or to share her feelings about something. But to the solution-focused person, every problem she brings up must have a solution. Instead of offering an understanding ear (and heart), he offers solutions.

In either scenario, the relationship is strained and sometimes buckles under the weight of stress and discord. Neither partner is having his or her needs met and both are becoming increasingly frustrated. If you are in such a situation, talk with your partner. Share with him/her that there is a problem with how you — as a couple — manage problems. Talk openly about your differences. These differences are not easily recognized, because they are rooted in your life experiences. Quite often, they are also gender-based. Women are more apt to discuss the problem and how it makes them feel. Men don’t care, they just want to solve the problem and move on. If she wants to explain how she feels, he becomes impatient. If he just wants to solve it, she becomes impatient.

These differences are not easy to recognize or to change. So seek help from a professional if you cannot work it out together. There is a solution to this problem, but we must first identify the problem and accept that there is a solution. Both sides of this spectrum have to come together to resolve these issues.

— Dr. Berney, a licensed psychologist with Psychological Associates of Central Florida in Lakeland, is a national speaker and the co-author of "Handbook for Raising an Emotionally Healthy Child." You can hear Dr. Berney on his podcasts, "The Mental Breakdown” and “The Paedeia Education Podcast” on iTunes.

Obstacles vs. Resources - Comparing the Effects of a Problem-Focused, Solution-Focused and Combined Approach on Perceived Goal Attainability and Commitment

• Research Paper
• Open access
• Published: 11 November 2020
• Volume 6 , pages 175–194, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Adam Abdulla   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3162-664X 1 &
• Ruth Woods 1  

15k Accesses

7 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Previous research suggests that solution-focused (SF) questions may be superior to problem-focused (PF) alternatives for a range of practical and psychological outcomes. However, a great deal remains unknown regarding the effects of specific SF (or PF) approaches and the mechanisms through which they occur. The aim of this pre-registered study was to investigate the extent to which SF questions targeting resources have a more positive effect on perceived goal attainability (PGA) and goal commitment than PF questions targeting obstacles or a combination of PF & SF questions targeting both resources and obstacles. 115 students aged 15–16 were randomly assigned to either (i) a SF condition targeting resources, (ii) a PF condition targeting obstacles or (iii) a combined-approach condition targeting both. All participants were asked to identify a challenging area of study before answering condition-specific questions. Although not all statistically significant, results indicated that the SF group had higher mean PGA and goal commitment than both the PF and combined PF & SF group. Effect size estimates were small-to-medium for PGA and small for goal commitment. Results of a mediation analysis suggested that condition had an indirect effect on goal commitment through enhanced PGA. Qualitative data analysis suggested that the PF question was more likely than the SF question to elicit thoughts of self-regulation, whereas the SF question was more likely to elicit thoughts of tools and resources. These findings are consistent with those from previous research and broaden our understanding of SF (vs PF) questions.

Similar content being viewed by others

The mediating role of solution focused thinking in relation between mindfulness and psychological well-being in university students

Downgrading goal-relevant resources in action crises: The moderating role of goal reengagement capacities and effects on well-being

Exploring the regulation of need-satisfying goals: a baseline model.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

1.1 background and prior research.

Solution-focused (SF) coaching and therapy are very much aligned with positive psychology. Rather than asking about weaknesses, obstacles or difficulties in goal attainment, SF coaches (and therapists) ask about strengths, resources and previous success (e.g. Iveson et al. 2012 ; Greene and Grant 2003 ; O'Connell et al. 2012 ). The SF approach was developed in the 1980s by family therapists including Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg who observed that focusing on “problems” was often ineffective (for more details see O’Connell and Palmer 2008 ). In the popular literature, SF approaches are often touted as superior to problem-focused (PF) alternatives for adults, children and adolescents (e.g. Franklin et al. 2018 ; Jackson and McKergow 2007 ; Taylor 2019 ).

Despite the wide appeal of SF coaching/therapy, it has been suggested that SF approaches are “more art than science” whereas positive psychology as a whole is “more science than art” (Bannink and Jackson 2011 , p. 18). The SF approach has been most frequently investigated in the form of solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT). A number of meta-analyses and reviews of SFBT suggest that the approach is effective in various settings including health (Zhang et al. 2017 ) and education (Kim and Franklin 2009 ). Nevertheless, there are numerous problems with the existing evidence base. For example, Gingerich and Eisengart ( 2000 ) found that five well-controlled studies of SFBT reported significant benefits. However, the authors point out that four of those studies “did not compare SFBT with another psychotherapeutic intervention” and conclude that it is therefore impossible to determine whether the positive results “were due specifically to the SFBT intervention as opposed to general attention effects” (p. 493). Had the studies compared SFBT with a problem -focused intervention, therefore, different results might have been obtained. Unfortunately, there have been only a handful of studies that explicitly compare SF and PF approaches.

For example, in a randomised controlled study Grant ( 2012 ) found that SF prompts and questions were more effective than PF alternatives in helping students generate action steps and (subjectively) approach their goals. Students asked SF questions also reported a statistically significant increase in positive affect and perceived self-efficacy as well as a statistically significant reduction in negative affect. PF questions, on the other hand, did not have a statistically significant effect on affect or perceived self-efficacy. Although Grant ( 2012 ) does not report effect sizes, these can be calculated from the data in his paper. Using Morris’s ( 2007 ) formula for pretest-posttest control group designs, the estimated effect sizes are 0.44 for perceived self-efficacy, 0.21 for goal approach, 0.35 for positive affect and 0.24 for negative affect. According to Cohen ( 1988 ), these would all be considered small effects.

In a cross-cultural replication using the same procedure, variables and measures, Neipp et al. ( 2016 ) also found that SF questions were more effective than PF counterparts in enhancing perceived self-efficacy and goal approach and in reducing negative affect. Effect size estimates were again not provided by the authors but these can be calculated using their data. Like Grant ( 2012 ), Neipp and colleagues obtained small effects for all variables, according to Cohen’s ( 1988 ) thresholds. Other studies further support the superiority of SF questions. For example, Braunstein and Grant ( 2016 ) found that relative to PF alternatives, SF questions led to a statistically significantly greater increase in positive affect, perceived self-efficacy and perceived goal progress and a statistically significantly greater reduction in negative affect, regardless of whether participants had approach or avoidance goals. Once again effect size estimates can be calculated using the data presented by the authors and Morris’ ( 2007 ) recommendations. Estimated effect sizes were small for perceived goal progress ( d  = 0.26 and d  = 0.42), small-to-medium for perceived self-efficacy ( d  = 0.44 and d  = 0.60), and medium-to-large for positive affect ( d  = 0.60 and d  = 0.80).

Finally, Grant and Gerrard ( 2019 ) once again found that SF questions were more effective than the PF alternatives in reducing negative affect and enhancing perceived goal attainment, self-efficacy and positive affect. In terms of enhancing perceived self-efficacy and reducing negative affect, SF questions were also more effective than a combined PF and SF approach. If Grant and Gerrard’s ( 2019 ) SF condition is compared with the PF condition, effect size estimates are small-to-medium for perceived goal attainment ( d  = 0.48), large for perceived self-efficacy ( d  = 0.89), medium for positive affect ( d  = 0.68) and medium for negative affect ( d  = 0.66). If the SF condition is compared with the combined PF & SF condition, effect size estimates are small for perceived goal attainment ( d  = 0.25), medium for perceived self-efficacy ( d  = 0.69), small for positive affect ( d  = 0.30) and medium for negative affect ( d  = 0.64).

The aforementioned studies collectively suggest that certain SF questions are more effective than PF alternatives in terms of enhancing various goal-related or affect-related outcomes. Nevertheless, there are several limitations in the existing evidence-base. One limitation relates to the nature and number of questions. The studies discussed above all compared a battery of SF prompts and questions with a battery of PF alternatives. Table 1 illustrates this point by presenting the questions and prompts used in Grant’s ( 2012 ) study. Very similar batteries of questions were used in the other studies mentioned above (e.g. Neipp et al. 2016 ). When all of these questions are included in a single experimental condition it is impossible to determine the effect of any one question (or prompt) in particular.

However, SF techniques and questions (like PF alternatives) come in many varieties. They include the “Miracle Question” (de Shazer 1988 ), scaling questions (e.g. Berg and Szabó 2005 ), questions about resources (e.g. Jackson and McKergow 2007 ), and questions about past success (e.g. Iveson et al. 2012 ). For both theoretical and practical reasons it would be helpful to examine these questions individually. In addition, there is the matter of ecological validity. There may be some doubt as to how frequently the questions in Table 1 are asked in “real life” or at least outside therapy and coaching.

Another limitation of previous studies is that the mechanisms of SF techniques have been largely unexplored. Whilst several different dependent variables were measured in the aforementioned studies (e.g. Grant 2012 ; Grant and Gerrard 2019 ; Neipp et al. 2016 ) the researchers did not examine mediators of effects. Indeed, mediational analyses are extremely rare in SF research (for an exception see Theeboom et al. 2016 ). Previous studies of SF (vs PF) questions have also included only quantitative analyses. A proper understanding of the mechanisms of SF techniques may also require analysis of qualitative data, i.e. a “mixed methods” approach. Responses in coaching/therapy are almost invariably qualitative in nature. That is, individuals generally reveal their thoughts in words and sentences. These should be examined if we are truly to understand the effects of SF and PF questions.

A fourth limitation in previous research is the absence of a measure of motivation or commitment. Speaking of SF coaching in a group context, O’Connell et al. ( 2012 , p.105) write that “[t]he focus on solutions (not problems) and simple steps, and on utilisation of all the resources within the group, naturally builds energy levels and commitment to action” (italics added). Many other SF texts emphasise the importance of goal commitment and suggest that SF approaches may enhance it (e.g. Greene and Grant 2003 ; Jackson and McKergow 2007 ). However, previous studies of SF (vs. PF) questions have not measured effects on commitment.

The present study sought to address the limitations outlined above. Rather than employing a battery of SF/PF questions rarely asked in “real life”, this study compared a single SF approach (focusing on resources) with a natural PF alternative (focusing on obstacles). In addition, a plausible mediational hypothesis was advanced and qualitative data were analysed to shed further light on potential mechanisms. Finally, goal commitment was included as a dependent variable. Each of these features is now explained.

1.2 Perceived Goal Attainability and Goal Commitment

In the present study the dependent variables were perceived goal attainability (PGA) and goal commitment. Participants were asked to identify an area of study that was proving challenging. The “goal” was to improve in that area. There are several reasons for focusing on PGA and goal commitment.

In Locke and Latham’s ( 2013 ) edited book on goal-setting and task performance, an entire chapter is devoted to goal commitment (Klein et al. 2013 ). Meta-analyses assessing the relationship between goal commitment and task performance have found an average effect size of .23 (Klein et al. 2013 ). The positive effect of commitment on performance is supported by a large number of studies across a range of settings. Research indicates that high levels of commitment to educational goals are associated with several important benefits including greater academic adjustment (Germeijs and Verschueren 2007 ) and greater perseverance and effort (Tang et al. 2019 ). Higher levels of goal commitment have also been positively associated with enhanced strategy development (Earley et al. 1992 ) and positive affect and satisfaction with work (Roberson 1990 ).

Perceived goal attainability (PGA) is another crucial variable for achievement and wellbeing. First, PGA is one of the main determinants of goal commitment (Klein et al. 2013 ). Several studies indicate that commitment to a goal declines as that goal becomes subjectively more difficult to attain (see Locke et al. 1988 ). Conversely, higher levels of PGA are associated with enhanced commitment, particularly in the early stages of goal pursuit (Huang et al. 2017 ). PGA also has associations with wellbeing, interacting with goal commitment. Brunstein ( 1993 ) found that when students were highly committed to personal goals, higher PGA was associated with greater subjective wellbeing. On the other hand, when students were highly committed to goals but considered those goals (almost) impossible to attain, their wellbeing was adversely affected. In addition, goal commitment significantly predicted goal progress only when PGA was high.

More recent studies corroborate Brunstein’s ( 1993 ) findings. Boudrenghien et al. ( 2012 ) examined the effects of goal commitment and PGA in students who had received secondary school leaving qualifications. They found that “the positive effect of goal commitment on subjective well-being….disappeared or even changed direction when the educational goal was perceived as unattainable” (Boudrenghien et al. 2012 , p.158). In their study of goals and mental health, Gamble et al. ( 2020 ) found that PGA was not only the strongest predictor of subsequent goal progress but also an extremely strong predictor of positive mental health and lower depressive symptoms.

In summary, research suggests that commitment and PGA are both extremely important for wellbeing and goal pursuit. Studies of SF (vs PF) approaches should therefore explore effects on both of these variables. Moreover, given that greater PGA is associated with greater commitment, any SF questions enhancing PGA may thereby also enhance commitment. In other words, the following mediational hypothesis should be investigated: SF (vs. PF) questions ➔ enhanced PGA ➔ enhanced commitment.

1.3 Focusing on “Obstacles” - Solution-Focused vs. Problem-Focused Perspectives

PF and SF approaches differ fundamentally in their treatment of “obstacles,” making this an important dimension to explore. As already noted, SF approaches discourage a focus on obstacles. For example, Dierolf et al. ( 2009 , p.32) suggest that “examining the obstacle is not important.” Many other SF-oriented authors similarly argue that it is counterproductive to focus on obstacles (e.g. George and Ratner 2012; Jackson and McKergow 2007 ; Ratner and Yusuf 2015 ).

On the one hand, it might be thought that drawing attention to obstacles could lower PGA and commitment. As Ajzen ( 1991 ) notes, individuals can attend to only a limited number of beliefs at a given moment. According to the Theory of Planned Behaviour, therefore, whatever is most salient exerts the greatest influence on a person’s attitudes. PF questions such as “What’s preventing you from getting better grades?” may increase the salience of perceived obstacles (“I’m too easily distracted,” “The textbook is terrible”). By making obstacles (temporarily) salient, PF questions may (temporarily) lower perceived behavioural control (“I can’t study properly”), which may in turn lower PGA (“I’m unlikely to achieve better grades”). If asking students about obstacles lowers PGA, it may thereby undermine their commitment. Although this is only a theoretical possibility, research does suggest that questions that bias attention towards “negatives” subsequently affect people’s judgements. For example, Lee et al. ( 2016 ) found that individuals (with deceased parents) reported lower life expectancy if they had just been asked whether their parents were still alive and (if not) at what age they had died. Similarly, students may report lower goal attainment expectancy if they have just been asked whether they are succeeding in achieving their goals and (if not) what is “holding them back.”

On the other hand, drawing attention to obstacles may not lower PGA or goal commitment. For example, Artistico et al. ( 2013 ) examined the effect of a problem-solving session on individuals’ PSE for exercise. The problem-solving session involved identifying daily obstacles to exercise and generating solutions to overcome them. Student participants assigned to the problem-solving condition reported greater increases in PSE for exercise than students assigned to the control groups. The authors do not report posttest PSE means for the control conditions, making it impossible to calculate effect sizes. However, they note that students in the problem-solving condition (focusing on obstacles) reported a mean increase in PSE of almost one standard deviation. Thus it seems that some PF approaches targeting obstacles may in fact enhance PSE, which is similar to PGA (Klein et al. 2013 ). In addition, research on “mental contrasting” indicates that focusing on obstacles can enhance commitment provided that individuals consider themselves capable of overcoming those obstacles (e.g. Oettingen et al. 2000 , 2001 , 2005 ).

In summary, there are reasons for thinking that focusing on obstacles may negatively bias judgements, which might subsequently reduce PGA and commitment. On the other hand, some research suggests that focusing on obstacles can (in some cases) enhance PSE and commitment. Whether PF questions about obstacles lower PGA and commitment is therefore an open question.

1.4 Focusing on Resources - a Wholly Solution-Focused Approach

Whereas SF practitioners tend to eschew “obstacles,” they readily embrace talk of “resources.” O’Connell et al. ( 2012 , p.16) say that the SF coach “highlights and reinforces the coachee’s strengths and resources”. They also suggest that individuals should be encouraged to write down what resources they have as “[t]his process helps the development of self-efficacy” (O'Connell et al. 2012 , p.16). Iveson et al. ( 2012 , p.3) say that “[t]he essence of solution focused brief therapy, and solution focused coaching” is (amongst other things) “to look for resources rather than deficits.”

Research very much supports the SF emphasis on resources. In a series of studies Schnelle et al. ( 2010 ) found that students who perceived themselves as having a large number of goal-relevant resources committed themselves to more approach-goals than students who perceived themselves as having fewer resources. In addition, in one of their studies outcome expectancy (almost identical to PGA) was found to mediate the effect of perceived resources on goal adoption. Students with greater resources had higher outcome expectancies (i.e. higher PGA), which apparently made them more likely to commit to approach-goals. In other words, there was evidence for the following causal chain: more resources ➔ higher PGA ➔ greater commitment. Other studies also suggest that the generation of goal-relevant resources raises commitment by raising PGA. In one such study participants were asked to list a number of means or resources that they believed would help them to achieve their goals (Kruglanski et al. 2011 ). The researchers found that the positive effect of the number of means or resources on goal commitment was mediated by both goal importance and the “perceived likelihood of goal attainment” (p.348). The latter variable is of course PGA. Studies such as these suggest that SF questions highlighting resources might enhance goal commitment by enhancing perceived goal attainability.

Other research highlights the importance of perceived resources in motivating behaviour. Zhang and Gutierrez ( 2007 ) investigated the factors influencing use of information technology (IT). They found that perceived resources enhanced perceived behavioural control (PBC), which in turn led to stronger intentions to use IT. Kenny et al. ( 2003 ) explored the antecedents of high school students’ engagement and vocational attitudes. They found that perceived support from family (an important resource) predicted greater commitment to school and higher expectations for achieving career goals (i.e. higher PGA). McWhirter et al. ( 1998 ) found that the more Mexican American high school girls perceived support from teachers and parents the more committed they were to future careers. Finally, in two classroom experiments Destin ( 2017 ) found that making young adolescents aware of financial resources enhanced their school motivation.

In summary, many studies suggest that helping students become aware of resources (e.g. supportive parents, helpful teachers etc.) may enhance both PGA and goal commitment. Research also suggests that the effect of perceived resources on goal commitment may be mediated by changes in PGA (e.g. Kruglanski et al. 2011 ; Schnelle et al. 2010 ). SF questions about resources may therefore strengthen commitment by enhancing PGA.

1.5 Obstacles vs. Resources vs. Obstacles and Resources

One of the putative advantages of the SF approach is that of brevity. Indeed, many SF commentators explicitly include the word “brief” when referring to SF coaching or therapy (e.g. Berg and Szabó 2005 ; Ratner and Yusuf 2015 ). They argue that by skipping “obstacle analysis” and focusing immediately on solutions, coaches can help individuals attain their goals more quickly (e.g. Dierolf et al. 2009 ). Some strictly solution-focused commentators argue that SFC is a stand-alone model that should never be combined with PF approaches, which only have an undermining effect (e.g. Ratner and Yusuf 2015 ). If these intuitions are correct, then a SF approach should be more effective than both a PF and combined PF & SF approach. Grant and Gerrard ( 2019 ) found some support for this hypothesis: in terms of enhancing perceived self-efficacy (PSE) and reducing negative affect, SF questions were more effective than (i) PF questions alone and (ii) a combination of PF and SF questions.

2 The Present Study

The present study compared the effects of a PF approach targeting obstacles, a SF approach targeting resources, and a combined PF & SF targeting both obstacles and resources on perceived goal attainability and goal commitment. More specifically, the present study was designed to shed light on the following question: to what extent is a SF approach targeting resources more effective than (i) a PF approach targeting obstacles and (ii) a combined PF & SF approach targeting both obstacles and resources? An opportunity sample of students from a UK school were recruited to participate. Amongst educational psychologists in the UK, solution-focused approaches have been popular for many years (e.g. Stobie et al. 2005 ). A school in the UK therefore seemed to be an excellent location for the current investigation.

The following hypotheses were investigated in the present study:

Students asked to identify and think of ways to use resources experience greater perceived goal attainability (PGA) than (a) students asked to identify and think of ways to overcome obstacles, and (b) students asked both to identify and think of ways to overcome obstacles and to identify and think of ways to use resources.

H2 (Goal commitment):

Students asked to identify and think of ways to use resources experience greater goal commitment than (a) students asked to identify and think of ways to overcome obstacles and (b) students asked both to identify and think of ways to overcome obstacles and to identify and think of ways to use resources.

PGA is itself a major determinant of goal commitment. Thus the following hypothesis was also advanced:

H3: PGA is positively associated with goal commitment.

Finally, a mediational hypothesis was investigated. If SF questions about resources enhance PGA, and PGA is positively associated with commitment, then SF questions about resources might enhance commitment via enhanced PGA. Moreover, previous research does indeed suggest that the positive effect of perceived resources on goal commitment is mediated by enhanced PGA (e.g. Kruglanski et al. 2011 ; Schnelle et al. 2010 ). The following hypothesis was therefore also investigated:

H4: The effect of condition on goal commitment (see H2 above) is mediated by altered PGA.

The hypotheses above are expressed in the all-or-nothing (effect or no effect) language associated with null hypothesis significance testing (NHST). There are good reasons, however, to adopt a more nuanced approach, namely “estimation thinking” (e.g. Cumming 2012 ). Adopting this approach means asking not “is there an effect?” but rather “ how large is the effect likely to be, given the data obtained?” In order to answer the latter question, more attention is paid to effect sizes and confidence intervals than to p -values and NHST.

3.1 Participants

115 female students aged 15–16 (M = 16.02; SD = 0.44) participated. Students attended an independent all-female secondary school in London. All participants gave informed consent. No participants opted out. The study was approved by the School of Applied Social Studies Ethics Committee at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, Scotland (RGU). The largest possible sample size (within the given school) was recruited in order to increase the accuracy of estimated effect sizes.

3.2 Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to either the PF condition targeting obstacles ( n  = 39), the SF condition targeting resources ( n  = 38), or the combined PF & SF condition targeting both obstacles and resources ( n  = 38). Students in each condition were sent a link to the corresponding survey, which they completed through Google Forms. Participants were asked to complete their surveys during a non-teaching slot between lessons. After reading the participation information and giving consent, students were asked to identify an area of study in which their performance was (to them) unsatisfactory. Subsequent questions differed according to condition. In order to control for the number of ideas generated participants in each condition were asked to list 1–2 obstacles/resources. In all conditions, the goal was presented as “improving” in the area they had identified.

In the PF condition, students were initially given the following prompt: “Please list 1-2 things that (might) hold you back in the area you identified.” They were then provided with space to list their obstacles. The next prompt was as follows: “Think about how you could overcome the things you just listed. What could you do? Please list 1-2 things.” Once again, they were provided with some space to write down their ideas. This two-step PF approach (i.e. 1) identifying obstacles and then 2) thinking of ways to overcome them) is widely recommended in the personal development literature (e.g, Bowkett and Percival 2011 ; Canfield and Chee 2013 ; Kets de Vries 2006 ; Madrid and Quick 2007 ). It is also commonly endorsed in texts about students (e.g. Mazza et al. 2016 ; Wolraich 2008 ).

The layout in the SF condition was identical except that the two prompts/questions were: “Please list 1-2 things that (might) help you in the area you identified” and “Think about how you could use the things you just listed. What could you do? Please list 1-2 things.” Thus students in the PF and SF conditions were both asked a pair of questions. The first question in the pair asked students to identify obstacles/resources, and the second question asked students how they might overcome/use those obstacles/resources. In the combined PF & SF condition, participants answered first the PF pair (concerning obstacles) and then the SF pair (concerning resources).

After answering condition-specific questions, all participants were presented with the questions for the dependent measures (i.e. PGA and commitment). Participants were given up to 10 min to complete their surveys and were told that they could stop at any point. When all participants had submitted their answers they were debriefed as to the purpose of the study.

4.1 Perceived Goal Attainability (PGA)

This was assessed using a three-item measure derived from Huang et al. ( 2017 ). For each item participants were asked to give a number between 0 and 10 (e.g. “On a scale from 0 to 10, how likely is it that you will improve in this area?”). Higher scores indicated higher PGA. Internal consistency was high ( α  = 0.83).

4.2 Goal Commitment

This was measured using the four-item KUT commitment measure developed by Klein and colleagues (see Klein et al. 2014 ). For each item, a 7-point response scale was used (e.g. “On a scale from 1 to 7, how committed are you to improving in this area?”). Higher scores indicated higher goal commitment. Internal consistency was extremely high ( α  = 0.91).

4.3 Analytical Strategy

In order to examine the effect of condition on PGA and commitment, two ANOVAs were conducted - one for each variable. Although PGA is a determinant of commitment, the two variables are conceptually distinct. The interest in the present study lay in the effects of condition on each variable separately (and a subsequent mediation analysis). There was therefore no interest in a linear composite of the variables. In such a situation, separate ANOVAs (rather than a single MANOVA) are appropriate (Huberty and Morris 1989 ).

Alpha was set at 0.05 for each test. Although some commentators recommend a Bonferroni correction when more than one ANOVA is performed, this can severely reduce the power required to detect important effects (e.g. Gelman et al. 2012 ). Readers may of course apply their own alpha adjustment. As already indicated, however, in the present study more attention was paid to effect sizes and confidence intervals than to p -values and NHST. Estimated effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d .

In order to investigate whether any effect of condition on commitment was mediated by PGA, the approach originally recommended by Hayes and Preacher ( 2014 ) was applied, using Hayes’ PROCESS macro. Two relative indirect effects were calculated, one for the influence of the SF condition relative to the PF condition ( a 1 b ), and one for the influence of the SF condition relative to the PF & SF condition ( a 2 b ). According to H4, the effect of condition on goal commitment is mediated by changes in PGA. In the present analysis the SF condition was coded as the reference group. The PF and PF & SF groups were expected to have lower commitment than the SF group as a result of reduced PGA. Negative relative indirect effects were therefore anticipated.

Following the statistical tests, qualitative data were coded and analysed in order to see whether they might help to explain the quantitative findings. Specifically, we wondered whether PF and SF questions might elicit different types of thoughts, which might influence PGA and commitment. Analysis of students’ written responses might therefore clarify how or why SF and PF questions have differential effects on the dependent variables.

The assumptions for ANOVA and multiple regression (e.g. normality, homoscedasticity) appeared to have been met in all cases. One extreme score was identified in the PF group. Analyses were conducted both with and without this outlier to test for any differences in results.

All students completed the surveys and there were no missing data. Group means and standard deviations for PGA and goal commitment are displayed in Table 2 .

5.1 The Effect of Condition on Perceived Goal Attainability

A one-way between-subjects ANOVA was conducted with condition as the independent variable and PGA as the dependent variable. With the outlier included, the effect of condition on PGA was on the borderline of statistical significance: F (2, 112) = 2.90, p  = .059, η 2  = .05. Planned comparisons using Fisher’s LSD indicated that the PGA mean of the SF condition was statistically significantly higher than that of the PF condition ( p  = .04) and combined PF & SF condition ( p  = .04). If Cohen’s ( 1988 ) criteria are applied, the estimated effect of the SF intervention on PGA was small-to-medium when compared with either the PF condition ( d  = 0.48, 95% CI [0.026, 0.933]) or PF & SF condition ( d  = 0.51, [0.051, 0.965]).

When the outlier was removed, the p value for the overall ANOVA was raised but the effect of condition on PGA was still close to statistical significance: F (2, 111) = 2.71, p  = .07, η 2  = .05. Planned comparisons using Fisher’s LSD indicated that the PGA mean of the SF group was still statistically significantly higher than that of the combined PF & SF group (p =  .03). However, the difference between the PGA mean for the SF group and the new PGA mean for the PF group (M = 5.59) was now just above the threshold for statistical significance ( p =  .08). If Cohen’s ( 1988 ) criteria are applied, the estimated effect of the SF intervention when compared with the PF condition might now be described as small rather than small-to-medium but the difference was only slight ( d  = 0.43 [−0.031, 0.879]).

5.2 The Effect of Condition on Goal Commitment

A one-way between-subjects ANOVA was conducted with condition as the independent variable and goal commitment as the dependent variable. Effect size estimates were scarcely affected by the outlier and NHST conclusions were identical in each case. Only the analysis excluding the outlier is reported.

The effect of condition on goal commitment was not statistically significant: F (2, 111) = 0.80, p  = .45, η 2  = .01. However, mean goal commitment was higher in the SF group (M = 5.16) than in the PF (M = 4.85) or PF & SF (M = 4.84) groups. When compared with either the PF or PF & SF condition the estimated effect of the SF condition was small ( d  = 0.26, [−0.197, 0.706]).

5.3 The Association between Perceived Goal Attainability and Goal Commitment (Controlling for Condition)

Multiple regression was used to investigate the association between PGA and goal commitment (controlling for condition). Two dummy variables were created to code the three conditions. Goal commitment was then regressed on PGA and the two dummy variables. The overall regression was statistically significant: F (3,110) = 8.22, p  < .001, R 2  = .18. The association between PGA and goal commitment was also statistically significant: b  = .38, [.22, .53], t  = 4.77, p  < .001. The standardised beta coefficient was .42.

5.4 The Indirect Effect of Condition on Goal Commitment through Perceived Goal Attainability

The first relative indirect effect ( a 1 b ) was estimated as −0.2113, which suggests that when compared with the SF condition the PF condition lowered commitment by 0.2113 units as a result of reducing PGA (which in turn affected commitment). A 95% bootstrap confidence interval (CI) for this indirect effect based on 5000 bootstrap samples was entirely negative [−0.4721, −0.0008], implying that the indirect effect was statistically different from zero.

The second relative indirect effect ( a 2 b ) was estimated as −0.2576, which suggests that when compared with the SF condition, the combined PF & SF condition lowered commitment by 0.2576 units as a result of reducing PGA (which in turn affected commitment). A 95% bootstrap confidence interval for this indirect effect based on 5000 bootstrap samples was entirely negative [−0.5891, −0.0240]. Since both relative indirect effects were statistically different from zero, it is assumed that there was good evidence for mediation (Hayes 2018 ). That is to say, condition appeared to have an indirect effect on commitment through PGA. However, the partially standardised effect sizes were − 0.1702 and − 0.2075, suggesting fairly small effects.

Estimates for the two relative direct effects ( c 1 and c 2 ) were also obtained from the regression output. Both estimates were extremely small and confidence intervals were wide and included zero: c 1  = 0.098 [−0.427, 0.622] and c 2  = 0.040 [−0.478, 0.557]. The p -values were also far from statistical significance ( p  = .71 and p  = .88, respectively). In addition, the omnibus test of the direct effect was not statistically significant ( p  = .93). There was therefore no good evidence to suggest that condition had a (meaningful) direct effect on commitment (independent of PGA).

5.5 Analysis of Qualitative Data

The quantitative analysis reported above suggested that condition had a small-to-medium effect on PGA and a small effect on commitment (through altered PGA). It was suspected that the PF and SF questions elicited different types of thoughts, which might help to explain group differences on the dependent variables. Students’ qualitative responses were therefore analysed in order to explore this possibility.

Students in the SF group were not expected to identify any “obstacles” to goal attainment since no questions in their condition concerned obstacles. However, students in all conditions were asked at least one question that could have elicited “solutions.” Note that even PF students were asked such a question since the second question in the PF pair asked how they might overcome their obstacles. Attention was therefore focused on what students wrote in answer to the second question in the PF/SF pair. Answers were analysed in terms of suggested solutions. A “solution” was defined as any proposed measure that might facilitate goal attainment.

In the first stage of the analysis (conducted by the first author), all student comments were coded for solutions regardless of condition. At this stage the approach was predominantly inductive as codes were largely suggested by the data themselves. For example, “do more practice” was coded as “practice.” There were 222 comments in total, which resulted in a large number of codes. In the second stage of the analysis, similar or related codes were merged, following discussion between the first and second authors. For example, “practice” and “revision” became “Practice/Revision.” In addition, codes with a similar theme were subsumed under one overarching code. For example, “meet with my teacher,” “asking friends for advice” and “talking with Spanish people” were all coded as “social support.”

The two authors eventually established a set of 6 codes: 1) Practice/Revision, 2) Self-regulation, 3) Social Support, 4) Resources and Tools, 5) Personal Notes, 6) Unusual Approach. The last category was used for proposed solutions that did not fit into any of the other categories. In establishing, naming and defining this highest level of codes the authors drew on their knowledge of the literature and on certain predefined concepts. For example, the term “self-regulation” was proposed to cover comments such as “concentrate more in lessons,” and “being more motivated.” Thus a top-down approach was applied (in some instances) at this stage. Following construction of a coding scheme (which provided guidelines for use of each code), the two co-authors independently coded the entire set of comments, applying one of the 6 codes to each student comment. Inter-rater agreement was high (Cohen’s κ  = 0.85, p  < .001).

Table 3 reveals the number of times each type of solution was proposed within each group. Comments within the PF&SF condition were divided into comments made in response to the PF question (about obstacles) and comments made in response to the SF question (about resources). The numbers reflect the first author’s coding but the second author’s was almost identical.

Inter-rater agreement was low for “Unusual Approach” and so this category was disregarded. Table 3 suggested two potentially meaningful between-question differences. First, it appeared that the PF question evoked more thought of “Self-regulation” (SR) than the SF question. When the PF condition was compared with the SF condition, it was observed that SR was mentioned almost three times more often in the former than in the later (22 vs 8). Similarly, when the PF and SF questions were isolated within the PF&SF condition, it was observed that SR was mentioned twice as frequently following the former (14 vs 7). For “Resources & Tools” (R&T), the pattern was reversed. There were almost twice as many mentions of R&T in the SF condition as there were in the PF condition (10 vs 6). Similarly, within the PF&SF condition, R&T occurred almost three times more often following the SF question than the PF question (14 vs 5).

In order to arrive at a more accurate estimate of each question’s tendency to elicit particular “solutions”, totals were calculated for the PF and SF questions, collapsing across conditions. That is, the numbers in the first and third columns of Table 3 were added together as were the numbers in the second and fourth. “Unusual Approach” was omitted due to low inter-rater agreement. Table 4 displays the resulting totals.

The data in Table 4 were submitted to a chi-square test of independence. There was a statistically significant association between type of question (PF/SF) and type of solution: χ 2 (4) = 13.85, p  < 0.08. Examination of adjusted residuals within the Self-regulation (SR) and Resources & Tools (R&T) cells revealed that the differences in response frequencies for SR and R&T were statistically significant ( p  < 0.05). Calculation of odds ratios revealed that the odds of obtaining a self-regulation solution were 2.89 times greater if students were asked the PF rather than the SF question. Conversely, the odds of obtaining a Resources & Tools solution were 2.78 greater if students were asked the SF rather than the PF question.

6 Discussion

The primary aim of the present study was to investigate the extent to which SF questions addressing resources have a more positive effect on perceived goal attainability and goal commitment than PF questions addressing obstacles (or a combination of PF and SF questions addressing both). In addition, the study sought to shed light on the mechanisms through which effects may occur. In what follows, more attention is paid to effect sizes and confidence intervals than to p -values, since the latter can be extremely volatile and unreliable (e.g. Cumming 2008 ).

As predicted by H1(a), H1(b) and solution-focused thinking, PGA was higher in the SF condition than in the PF and PF & SF conditions. After removal of an outlier, the estimated effect of the SF condition was small-to-medium when compared with the PF condition ( d  = 0.43, [−0.031, 0.879]) and of medium size when compared with the PF & SF condition ( d  = 0.51, [0.051, 0.965]). Admittedly, the CIs are wide and range from very small (or even slightly negative) to fairly large. This highlights the needs for replications - with precision in planning - and ultimately a meta-analysis (Cumming 2012 ). However, the most plausible (point) estimates are in the small-to-medium range. In practical terms, this suggests that when students have identified an unsatisfactory area of study, asking them about resources rather than obstacles (or resources and obstacles) may have a somewhat positive impact on the extent to which they believe they can improve in that area. Given the benefits of PGA for both wellbeing and goal pursuit (e.g. Boudrenghien et al. 2012 ; Gamble et al. 2020 ; Huang et al. 2017 ), this may be an important finding.

The small-to-medium effect on PGA is also consistent with previous research. At the beginning of this paper, effect size estimates were calculated for other studies of PF/SF questions. The formula recommended by Morris ( 2007 ) for pretest-posttest control group designs was used. If estimates are recalculated on the basis of posttest data alone (to make them compatible with the present study), the similarities in findings remain. For example, in Cohen’s ( 1988 ) terms, Neipp et al. ( 2016 ) found that relative to PF questions SF questions had small positive effects on perceived self-efficacy (PSE) and (perceived) goal approach. PSE and (perceived) goal approach are close to PGA as measured in the present study. Similarly, Grant ( 2012 ) found that relative to PF questions, SF questions had a small positive effect on PSE and a small-to-medium effect on perceived goal approach. Finally, Grant and Gerrard ( 2019 ) found that relative to either PF questions or PF & SF questions, SF questions (alone) had a small positive effect on perceived goal attainment and a medium-sized effect on perceived self-efficacy. Thus the findings of the present study are consistent with prior research.

However, the present study also broadens our understanding. Whereas previous studies had used a whole battery of PF and SF questions, the present study narrowed the focus to a single dimension: obstacles versus resources. The apparent superiority of the SF approach was observed even in this narrower contrast. Moreover, unlike previous studies (which included elaborate prompts not normally used outside coaching/therapy), the present study compared simpler and more “natural” questions. Thus it would appear that the advantage of the SF approach may extend to everyday contexts.

It would be reasonable to ask why the SF condition had higher mean PGA than the other two conditions. Of course sampling error remains a possibility. However, the likelihood of that explanation is undermined by the consistency of the present results with previous research. Moreover, analysis of qualitative data suggests that the PF and SF question may have elicited different types of thoughts, which may in turn have affected PGA.

The PF question was much more likely to elicit thoughts of self-regulation than the SF question. In addition, the SF question was much more likely to elicit thoughts of resources and tools. The latter finding was not surprising given that the SF question explicitly asked about resources. However, the former finding (concerning self-regulation) was not anticipated and would need to be replicated in future studies. Nevertheless, the combination of these findings may help to explain group differences in PGA. The “self-regulation” code was defined so as to include time management, concentration in class, self-motivation, ignoring distractions and the exercise of self-discipline. The definition was based on widely accepted views of self-regulation in learning (e.g. Usher and Pajares 2008 ). Research suggests that perceived self-efficacy for self-regulation declines throughout high school and adolescence (e.g. Caprara et al. 2008 ). Students who are reminded of self-regulation issues may come to doubt whether they can attain their goals. Specifically, PF questions targeting obstacles may draw attention to self-regulation failures, which may in turn lower PGA. On the other hand, as noted, the SF question in the present study appeared to elicit more thoughts of tools and resources (i.e. external solutions) than the PF question. The perception of goal-relevant resources is associated with higher PGA (e.g. Schnelle et al. 2010 ). Relative to the PF group, therefore, the SF group may have benefitted from (largely) bypassing self-regulation issues and focusing on resources and tools. Although the PF&SF group would also have had the “benefit” of the question about resources, thoughts of self-regulation (evoked by the PF question) may have outweighed or undermined that benefit.

The present study also introduced a new variable into research on PF and SF questions - goal commitment. On the basis of SF thinking it was hypothesised that relative to PF and PF & SF questions, SF questions (alone) have a positive effect on goal commitment (H2a and H2b). Moreover, it was hypothesised that this effect is mediated by altered PGA (H4), assuming that PGA and goal commitment are related (H3). Evidence was indeed found for a positive association between PGA and goal commitment. Although the effect of condition on goal commitment was not statistically significant, mean commitment was indeed slightly higher in the SF group than in the PF or PF & SF groups. In addition, results of the mediation analysis suggested that the effect of condition on commitment is indeed mediated by enhanced PGA. Thus if questions about (i) obstacles, (ii) resources and (iii) obstacles and resources do have differing effects on goal commitment, then PGA may be a likely mechanism.

7 Conclusion

Previous studies suggest that compared to PF questions (as a whole) SF questions (as a whole) may have positive effects on variables such as perceived self-efficacy and perceived goal approach (e.g. Grant 2012 ; Neipp et al. 2016 ). This study builds on and extends previous research by conducting a narrower and more ecologically valid comparison: questions about obstacles vs. questions about resources. Individuals are frequently asked about barriers to goal attainment (e.g. “What’s holding you back?”). Alternatively, they may be asked about resources that facilitate goal attainment (e.g. “What could help you move forward?”). The results of this study suggest that the latter type of question may be somewhat more effective in making goals appear attainable and raising commitment to attaining them. Effects on PGA apparently approach a medium-size whilst those on commitment are probably small.

It should not be concluded from this study that attending to obstacles is invariably counterproductive. Research on mental contrasting and implementation intentions (MCII) has shown that reflecting on obstacles can facilitate goal pursuit provided that individuals (i) have previously imagined the benefits of goal attainment, (ii) have faith in their ability to overcome the obstacles, and (iii) make specific plans to do so (e.g. Oettingen and Gollwitzer 2010 ). Future studies could therefore pit a solution-focused approach against MCII.

Like all studies, the present study has its limitations. The absence of baseline measures or a neutral control group makes it impossible to determine whether the SF condition raised PGA (and commitment) or whether the PF and PF + SF condition lowered it (or both). Researchers seeking to replicate this study may wish to include a neutral control group or measure variables both before and after the intervention. In addition, future research should investigate potential moderators. For example, it might be the case that individuals with a high sense of self-efficacy are motivated by the perception of obstacles whilst individuals with lower perceived self-efficacy are discouraged by it. Researchers may also wish to test whether PF questions about obstacles do indeed lower students’ perceived self-efficacy for self-regulation (SR) and, if so, whether this mediates the effect of the PF question on PGA.

It is also important to consider the generalisability of the findings. The most conservative approach would be to limit the population about which generalisations are made to female UK secondary school students aged 15–16. According to UK government figures, there were over 420,000 such students in 2019 (Department for Education 2019 ). Thus even if an extremely conservative approach is adopted, the findings of this study could be applied to almost half a million individuals. In reality however, there are good reasons to assume that they extend much further than this. As already observed, the results reported here are highly consistent with those of previous studies which involved older participants (male and female) and different nationalities (e.g. Grant and Gerrard 2019 ; Neipp et al. 2016 ). The effect of SF questions may therefore be quite similar across students of different ages and genders. However future studies will need to explore whether gender and age moderate effects.

In conclusion, (as far as we are aware) this is the first study to compare the effects of a single SF approach (“resources”) against a single PF alternative (“obstacles”). Since its inception, positive psychology has focused on what people have rather than what they lack, on what they may use rather than what they must “repair” (e.g. Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 2000 ). Adopting this philosophy, the present study suggests that an approach based on resources may be more effective than one based on obstacles in terms of increasing expectations of goal attainment and (thereby) enhancing goal commitment. If these results can be replicated, this would constitute a very important finding within applied positive psychology.

Data Availability

Data are available on request from the first author.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50 , 179–211.

Article   Google Scholar  

Artistico, D., Pinto, A. M., Douek, J., Black, J., & Pezzuti, L. (2013). The value of removing daily obstacles via everyday problem-solving theory: Developing an applied novel procedure to increase self-efficacy for exercise. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00020 .

Bannink, F. P., & Jackson, P. Z. (2011). Positive psychology and solution focus – Looking at similarities and differences. InterAction The Journal of Solution Focus in Organisations, 3 (1), 8–20.

Google Scholar  

Berg, I. K., & Szabó, P. (2005). Brief coaching for lasting solutions . New York: Norton.

Boudrenghien, G., Frenay, M., & Bourgeois, É. (2012). Unattainable educational goals: Disengagement, reengagement with alternative goals, and consequences for subjective well-being. European Review of Applied Psychology, 62 , 147–159 ezproxy.rgu.ac.uk/10.1016/j.erap.2012.04.002 .

Bowkett, S., & Percival, S. (2011). Coaching emotional intelligence in the classroom . Hove: Routledge.

Braunstein, K., & Grant, A. M. (2016). Approaching solutions or avoiding problems? The differential effects of approach and avoidance goals with solution-focused and problem-focused coaching questions. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 9 (2), 93–109.

Brunstein, J. C. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol, 65 , 1061–1070.

Canfield, J., & Chee, P. (2013). Coaching for breakthrough success: Proven techniques for making impossible dreams possible . New York McGraw-Hill Education.

Caprara, G. V., Fida, R., Vecchione, M., Del Bove, G., Vecchio, G. M., Barbaranelli, C., & Bandura, A. (2008). Longitudinal analysis of the role of perceived self-efficacy for self-regulated learning in academic continuance and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 , 525–534.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Cumming, G. (2008). Replication and p intervals: P values predict the future only vaguely, but confidence intervals do much better. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3 (4), 286–300.

Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis . New York: Routledge.

de Shazer, S. (1988). Clues: Investigating solutions in brief therapy . New York: Norton.

Department for Education. (2019). Schools, pupils and their characteristics: January 2019. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/schools-pupils-and-their-characteristics-january-2019

Destin, M. (2017). An open path to the future: Perceived financial resources and school motivation. Journal of Early Adolescence, 37 , 1004–1031.

Dierolf, K., Meier, D., & Szabo, P. (2009). Coaching Plain & Simple: Solution-focused brief coaching essentials . New York: W.W. Norton & Co..

Earley, P. C., Shalley, C. E., & Northcraft, G. B. (1992). I think I can, I think I can…processing time and strategy effects of goal acceptance/rejection decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53 , 1–13.

Franklin, C., Streeter, C. L., Webb, L., & Guz, S. (2018). Solution focused brief therapy in alternative schools . New York: Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Gamble, B., Tippett, L. J., Moreau, D., & Addis, D. R. (2020). The futures we want: How goal-directed imagination relates to mental health. [PDF file]. Retrieved from: https://bc8c6d88-a2e4-417e-a6cc-72d924b295cf.filesusr.com/ugd/aaa34a_1ea4acc76c30481eb366a961c778783f.pdf  .

Gelman, A., Hill, J., & Yajima, M. (2012). Why we (usually) don't have to worry about multiple comparisons. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5 , 189–211.

Germeijs, V., & Verschueren, K. (2007). High school students’ career decision-making process: Consequences for choice implementation in higher education. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70 , 223–241.

Gingerich, W. J., & Eisengart, S. (2000). Solution-focused brief therapy: A review of the outcome research. Family Process, 39 (4), 477–498.

Grant, A. (2012). Making positive change: A randomized study comparing solution-focused vs. problem-focused coaching questions. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 31 (2), 21–35.

Grant, A. M., & Gerrard, B. (2019). Comparing problem-focused, solution-focused and combined problem-focused/solution-focused coaching approach: Solution-focused coaching questions mitigate the negative impact of dysfunctional attitudes. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2019.1599030 .

Greene, J., & Grant, A. M. (2003). Solution-focused coaching . Harlow: Pearson Education.

Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67 (3), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12028 .

Huang, S.-C., Jin, L., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Step by step: Sub-goals as a source of motivation. Organ Behav Human Decision Processes, 141 , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.05.001 .

Huberty, C. J., & Morris, J. D. (1989). Multivariate analysis versus multiple univariate analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 105 , 302–308.

Iveson, C., George, E., & Ratner, H. (2012). Brief coaching: A solution focused approach . London: Routledge.

Jackson, P. Z., & McKergow, M. (2007). The solutions focus: Making coaching and change simple . London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Kenny, M. E., Blustein, D. L., Chaves, A., Grossman, J. M., & Gallagher, L. A. (2003). The role of perceived barriers and relational support in the educational and vocational lives of urban high school students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50 (2), 142–155.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2006). The leadership mystique (2nd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.

Kim, J. S., & Franklin, C. (2009). Solution focused brief therapy in schools: A review of the outcome literature. Children and Youth Services. 31 , 464–470.

Klein, H. J., Cooper, J. T., Molloy, J. C., & Swanson, J. A. (2014). The assessment of commitment: Advantages of a unidimensional, target-free approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99 , 222–238.

Klein, H. J., Cooper, J. T., & Monahan, C. A. (2013). Goal commitment. In E. A. Locke & G. P. Latham (Eds.), New developments in goal setting and task performance (pp. 65–89). New York: Routledge.

Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., & Sheveland, A. (2011). How many roads lead to Rome? Equifinality set-size and commitment to goals and means. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41 , 344–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.780 .

Lee, S., McClain, C., Webster, N., & Han, S. (2016). Question order sensitivity of subjective well-being measures: Focus on life satisfaction, self-rated health, and subjective life expectancy in survey instruments. Quality of Life Research, 25 , 2497–2510.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (Eds.). (2013).  New developments in goal setting and task performance . Routledge:Taylor & Francis Group.

Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P., & Erez, M. (1988). The determinants of goal commitment. Academy of Management Review 13 , 23–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/258352 .

Madrid, J., & Quick, J. (2007). Get over it and get on with it: Using the ten principles of entelechy to conquer change and create abundance . Bloomington: Authorhouse.

Mazza, J. J., Dexter-Mazza, E. T., Miller, A. L., Rathus, J. H., & Murphy, H. E. (2016). DBT skills in schools: skills training for emotional problem solving for adolescents . New York: Guilford Publications.

McWhirter, E. H., Hackett, G., & Bandalos, D. L. (1998). A causal model of the educational plans and career expectations of Mexican American high school girls. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45 , 166–181.

Morris, S. B. (2007). Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group. Designs. Organizational Research Methods, 11 , 364–386.

Neipp, M. C., Beyebach, M., Nuñez, R. M., & Martínez-González, M. C. (2016). The effect of solution-focused versus problem-focused questions: A replication. Journal of marital and family therapy, 42 (3), 525–535.

O’Connell, B., & Palmer, S. (2008). Solution-focused coaching. In S. Palmer & A. Whybrow (Eds.), Handbook of coaching psychology: A guide for practitioners (pp. 278–292). New York: Routledge.

O'Connell, B., Palmer, S., & Williams, H. (2012). Solution-focused coaching in practice . Hove: Routledge.

Oettingen, G., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2010). Strategies of setting and implementing goals: Mental contrasting and implementation intentions. In J. E. Maddux & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Social psychological foundations of clinical psychology (pp. 114–135). New York: Guilford Press.

Oettingen, G., Hönig, G., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2000). Effective self-regulation of goal attainment. International Journal of Educational Research, 33 , 705–732.

Oettingen, G., Mayer, D., Thorpe, J. S., Janetzke, H., & Lorenz, S. (2005). Turning fantasies about positive and negative futures into self-improvement goals. Motivation and Emotion, 29 , 237–267.

Oettingen, G., Pak, H., & Schnetter, K. (2001). Self-regulation of goal setting: Turning free fantasies about the future into binding goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 , 736–753.

Ratner, H., & Yusuf, D. (2015). Brief coaching with children and young people: A solution-focused approach . New York: Routledge.

Roberson, L. (1990). Prediction of job satisfaction from characteristics of personal work goals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11 (1), 29–41.

Schnelle, J., Brandstätter, V., & Knöpfel, A. (2010). The adoption of approach versus avoidance goals: The role of goal-relevant resources. otivation and Emotion, 34 , 215–229.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5 .

Stobie, I., Boyle, J., & Woolfson, L. (2005). Solution-focused approaches in the practice of UK educational psychologists: A study of the nature of their application and evidence of their effectiveness. School Psychology International, 26 (1), 5–28.

Tang, X., Wang, M.-T., Guo, J., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2019). Building grit: The longitudinal pathways between mindset, commitment, grit, and academic outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48 , 850–863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-00998-0 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Taylor, E. R. (2019). Solution-focused therapy with children and adolescents: Creative and play based approaches . NY: Routledge.

Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2016). The differential effects of solution-focused and problem-focused coaching questions on the affect, attentional control and cognitive flexibility of undergraduate students experiencing study-related stress. The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to Furthering Research and Promoting Good Practice, 11 , 460–469.

Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning: A validation study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68 (3), 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164407308475 .

Wolraich, M. (2008). Developmental-behavioral pediatrics: Evidence and practice . Philadelphia: Mosby/Elsevier.

Zhang, A., Franklin, C., Currin-Mcculloch, J., Park, S., & Kim, J. S. (2017). The effectiveness of strength-based, solution-focused brief therapy in medical settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 41 (2), 139–151.

Zhang, W., & Gutierrez, O. (2007). Information technology acceptance in the social services sector context: An exploration. Social Work, 52 (3), 221–231.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the help of Kevin Hallgren, Kilem Gwet and Donald Sharpe who provided extremely useful feedback on the qualitative data analysis.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Applied Social Studies, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland

Adam Abdulla & Ruth Woods

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam Abdulla .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest/competing interests.

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Abdulla, A., Woods, R. Obstacles vs. Resources - Comparing the Effects of a Problem-Focused, Solution-Focused and Combined Approach on Perceived Goal Attainability and Commitment. Int J Appl Posit Psychol 6 , 175–194 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-020-00044-6

Download citation

Accepted : 16 October 2020

Published : 11 November 2020

Issue Date : July 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-020-00044-6

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Solution-focused
• Problem-focused
• Perceived goal attainability
• Goal commitment
• Perceived obstacles
• Perceived resources
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

+ (65) 90615844 

Mon – Fri: 9:00AM – 5:00PM

[email protected]

Solution-Focused Approaches to Problem Solving and Empowering Conversations Workplace Problem Identification - TGS-2020504245

Adopt a solution-focused mindset and apply solution-focused techniques to empower and overcome challenges and life problems.

Course Description

In a world where effective communication is key to resolving conflicts and fostering growth, our course on Solution-Focused Approaches offers practical tools to empower conversations and enhance problem-solving skills. Drawing from Solution-Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT), these techniques focus on identifying and leveraging strengths to create positive change. By concentrating on solutions rather than problems, you will learn to inspire constructive conversations and develop a proactive, resilient mindset.

Course Outline

Principles of solution-focused approaches.

Understanding Solution-focused approaches and their application in real-world scenarios. Engage in practical exercises to develop innovative and effective problem-solving strategies

Techniques for Empowering Conversations

Learn the OSKAR model and use it to power a conversation focusing on solutions and outcomes. Apply the techniques from solution-focused brief therapy to move conversations forward. 

Decision Making Mastery: Making the Right Choices

Learn how to understand the decision-making process, weigh options, and make sound decisions that will lead to successful outcomes. Imagine the feeling of empowerment and confidence as you navigate any situation and make decisions with certainty.

Learning Outcomes

At the end of the workshop, participants will be able to:

• Gain a deep understanding of solution-focused techniques.
• Improve their ability to lead empowering and effective conversations.
• Enhance their problem-solving capabilities.
• Develop strategies to maintain a positive and solution-oriented mindset.

17.5 hours classroom learning and assessment

Upcoming Schedule

--> --> -->

September 2024	12 Sep (9 AM – 5 PM), 13 Sep (9 AM – 5 PM) – Blended Concept Classroom
October 2024	21 Oct (9 AM – 6 PM), 23 Oct (9 AM – 6 PM) – On Zoom
November 2024	21 Nov (9 AM – 6 PM), 22 Nov (9 AM – 6 PM) – Blended Concept Classroom

Course Fees and Subsidies

Course support period: 01 Jul 2020 – 04 Aug 2024

Employer-sponsored (SME)

Nett Fee after training grant subsidy: $225.00

Employer-sponsored (non-SME, Age<40 yr old)

Nett Fee after training grant subsidy: $375.00

Employer-sponsored (non-SME, Age>40 yr old)

Self-sponsored (age<40 yr old), self-sponsored (age>40 yr old), non-singaporean.

Full fee: $750.00

Other Course Information

Target audience.

Professionals from various fields who want to improve their critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making abilities. This includes managers, entrepreneurs, sales and marketing professionals, engineers, human resource or professionals. It is suitable for anyone who wants to achieve success in all areas of life and improve their ability to make sound judgments and decisions.

Certification

Learners who have successfully completed and passed the assessment will receive a Statement of Attainment (SOA) in Problem Identification and Solving issued by SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG).

What to Expect

Participants can expect an interactive and exciting learning experience to learn how to develop their critical mind for success. Additionally, participants will have the opportunity to work on real-life scenarios, and apply their new skills in a practical setting. They will also have the opportunity to collaborate with other participants and learn from their experiences. 

For Self-sponsored individuals not applying on SkillsFuture Credit, instalment payments are available via Atome and Grab Paylater. Please contact our administrator during sign-up.

We are a social enterprise registered with raiSE Singapore and courses listed are WSQ accredited

Follow us on our social media for news about our latest courses.

This course is organised by Environiche LLP, an approved training organisation under Singapore Workforce Skills Qualificatio n (WSQ).

UEN T12LL1245D

Our Featured Courses

Solution-Focused Approaches to Problem Solving and Empowering Conversations

Unleash your full potential using coaching and reflexive self-discovery techniques

Coaching Young People for Positive Difference

Coaching and Counselling Techniques to Build Mental Wellness and Resilience