problem solving and solution focused

• The Art & Science of Coaching Level 1 & 2
• The Art & Science of Coaching Level 3
• Team Coaching
• Master Your Coaching
• Tuition Fees
• Blogs, videos, downloadables
• Upcoming Webinars
• 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

How Coaching Benefits Leaders and Managers

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.

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.

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.

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.

• 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.

What Is Solution Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT)?

Heather Murray

Counsellor & Psychotherapists

B.A.C.P., B.A.M.B.A

Heather Murray has been serving as a Therapist within the NHS for 20 years. She is trained in EMDR therapy for treating trauma and employs a compassion and mindfulness-based approach consistently. Heather is an accredited member of the BACP and registered with the HCPC as a Music Therapist. Moreover, she has been trained as a Mindfulness Teacher and Supervisor by BAMBA and is a senior Yoga Teacher certified by the British Wheel of Yoga.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Take-home Messages

• Solution-Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) is a therapeutic approach that emphasizes clients’ strengths and resources to create positive change, focusing on present and future goals rather than past problems. It’s brief, goal-oriented, and emphasizes solutions rather than delving into underlying issues.
• The focus is on the client’s health rather than the problem, strengths rather than weaknesses or deficits, and skills, resources, and coping abilities that would help reach future goals.
• Clients describe what they want to happen in their lives (solutions) and how they will use personal resources to solve their problems.
• Clients are encouraged to believe that positive changes are always possible and are encouraged to increase the frequency of current useful behaviors.
• Research has shown SFBT effectively decreases marital issues and marital burnout in women (Sanai et al. 2015). Research on children has shown an improvement in classroom behavioral problems in children with special educational needs after 10 SFBT sessions (Franklin et al. 2001).

What is Solution-Focused Therapy?

Solution-Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT), also referred to as Solution-Focused Therapy (SFT), is a form of psychotherapy or counseling.

This form of therapy focuses on solutions to problems or issues and discovering the resources and strengths a person has rather than focusing on the problem like more traditional talking therapies do.

Thus, instead of analyzing how the issue arose or interpretations of it and why it is there and what it really means for the person, SFBT instead concentrates on the issue in the here and now and how to move forward with a solution for it (De Shazer, 1988; De Shazer & Dolan, 2012).

Solution-Focused Therapy was created in the late 1970s and early 1980s in the Brief Family Therapy Center in Milwaukee by De Shazer and Berg (De Shazer et al. 1986).

The reason for its creation was that De Shazer and Berg noticed that clients would often speak about their problems and issues, seeming unable to notice their own inner resources for overcoming these problems and focusing on the future.

They also noticed that the client’s problems or issues showed inconsistency in the way that sometimes they were present and other times they were not, as the person did have moments in life where they could function without the problems being there.

Thus it was important to think about and explore these exceptions when the problem is not affecting the person (Iveson, 2002).

What is Solution-Focused Therapy used for?

Solution-Focused Therapy is currently used for most emotional and mental health problems that other forms of counseling are used to treat, such as:

• Self-esteem
• Personal stress and work-related stress
• Substance abuse/ addiction
• Relationship problems

SFBT is best used when a client is trying to reach a particular goal or overcome a particular problem.

While it is not suitable to use as a treatment for major psychiatric conditions such as psychosis or schizophrenia, it could be used in combination with a more suitable psychiatric treatment/ therapy to help alleviate stress and bring awareness to the person’s strengths and internal resources.

Research has shown that after a one-year follow-up, SFBT was effective in reducing depression, anxiety, and mood-related disorders in adults (Maljanen, et al., 2012).

A study on substance abuse in adults showed SFBT to be just as effective as other forms of talking therapy (problem-focused therapies) in treating addiction and decreasing addiction severity and trauma symptoms (Kim, Brook, & Akin, 2018).

A literature review showed SFBT to be most effective on child behavioral problems when it was used as an early intervention before behavioral issues became very severe (Bond et al. 2013).

Solution-Focused Therapy Techniques

In a solution-focused therapy session, the practitioner and client will work collaboratively to set goals and find solutions together, to overcome the problem or issue.

The practitioner will ask questions to gain an understanding of the client’s strengths and inner resources that they might not have noticed before.

The practitioner will also use complimentary language to bring awareness to and to support the strengths that the client does have, to shift the client’s focus to a more solution-oriented, positive outlook, rather than ruminating on the problem, unaware of the strengths and abilities that they do have.

Sessions usually will last between 50 – 90 minutes, but can be as brief as 15 – 20 minutes, usually once per week, for around 6 – 12 weeks, but are also given as one-off, stand-alone sessions.

There are lots of techniques used in SFBT to shift the client’s awareness onto focusing on the future and on a solution.

These techniques include the miracle question, coping questions, exceptions to the problem, compliments, and using scales, which are explained in more detail below:

1. The Miracle Question

This is where the practitioner will ask the client to imagine that they have gone to sleep and when they wake up in the morning, their problems have vanished.

After this visualization, they will ask the client how they know that the problems or issues have gone and what is in particular that is different.

For example:

‘Imagine that when you next go to sleep, a miracle occurs during the night, so that when you wake up feeling refreshed, your problem has vanished. I want to ask you how do you know that your problem has gone? What is different about this morning? What is it that has disappeared or changed in your life?’

This question can help to identify and gain a greater understanding of what the problem is and how it is affecting the person and can provide motivation to want to move forward and overcome it after imagining what it could be like to wake up without it (De Shazer et al., 1986).

2. Coping Questions

Coping questions are questions that the practitioner will use to gain an understanding of how the person has managed to cope.

When someone has been suffering from depression or anxiety for a long time, it often begs the question of how they have continued in their life despite the potentially degrading or depleting effects of such mental and emotional health problems.

Examples of coping questions include:

‘After everything you have been through, I am wondering what has helped you to cope and keep you afloat during all this?”;

‘I feel to ask you, what it is exactly that has helped you through this so far?’.

These questions cause the client to identify the resources they have available to them, including noticing the internal strength that has helped them make it thus far, which they might not have been consciously aware of before (De Shazer et al., 1986).

3. Exceptions to the Problems

Solution-focused therapy believes that there are exceptions or moments in a person’s life when the problem or issue is not present, or the problem is there; however, it does not cause any negative effects (De Shazer et al., 1986).

Thus, raising the question of what is different during these times. The practitioner can investigate the exceptions to the problem by asking the client to think about and recall moments in their life when the problem was not an issue; they can then inquire as to what was different about these moments.

This could lead to clues for helping to create a solution for the problem. It also will help the client to know that there are times when they are not affected by the problem, which could help lessen the power it has over their emotional and mental state.

As we can often be ‘clouded’ or consumed by our problems, it can be empowering to notice or be reminded of times when we were not.

4. Compliments

This involves the practitioner actively listening to the client to identify and acknowledge their strengths and what they have done well, then reflecting them back to the client whilst also acknowledging how difficult it has been for them.

This offers encouragement and values the strengths that the client does have. The practitioner will use direct compliments (in reaction to what the client has said), for example, ‘that’s amazing to hear!’, ‘wow, that’s great.’

Indirect compliments are also used to encourage the client to notice and compliment themselves, such as coping questions or using an appreciatively toned voice to dive deeper into something highlighting the positive strengths of the client.

For example, ‘How did you manage that?!’ with a tone of amazement and happy facial expressions.

The practitioner will ask the client to rate the severity of their problem or issue on a scale from 1-10. This helps both the practitioner and client to visualize whereabouts they are with the problem or issue.

Examples of scaling questions include:

• ‘On a scale of 1 to 10, where would you rate your current ability to achieve this goal?’;
• ‘From 1-10, how would you rate your progress towards finding a job?’;
• ‘Can you rate your current level of happiness from 1-10?’;
• ‘From 1-10, how much do you attribute your level of alcohol consumption to be one of the main obstacles or sources of conflict in your marriage?’.

They can be used throughout sessions to compare where the client is now, in comparison to the first or second session, and also to rate how far from or near their ideal way of being or to complete their goal.

This can help both practitioner and client notice if something is still left to be done to reach a 9 or 10, and can then start exploring what that is.

Scaling helps to give clarity on the client’s feelings, it also helps to give sessions direction and highlights if something is holding back the client’s ability to solve the problem still or not.

Critical Evaluation

• SFBT is a short-term therapy; on average, sessions will last for 6-10 weeks but can even be one stand-alone session, which helps it be more cost-effective compared to longer-term therapy that lasts for months or years (Maljanen et al. 2012).
• It can help clients to identify their problems and then find a goal to overcome them; the practitioner also offers the client support through compliments which gives them the motivation to notice their strengths, increase their self-esteem, and keep striving to achieve their goals.
• It is future-oriented, so it helps to motivate the client to move forward in life and not to feel stuck in their past; also, SFBT is positive in nature, so it gives the client the optimism needed to move forward into the future.
• It is non-judgmental and compassionate in its approach; the client chooses their own goals, not the therapist, and they are praised/ complimented for their strengths no matter how small; even if they fail at achieving their set goal, they are praised for showing their strengths in other ways in life, helping them not to lose sight of their inner resources and still feel encouraged.

Disadvantages

• Because it is short term, it is not a good fit for everyone, for example, clients with more severe problems that need more time and clients who are withdrawn or struggle to speak and open up fully to the therapist, who would naturally need more time to gain trust and feel comfortable, before being able to work towards a solution with the help of the practitioner.
• Has less importance placed on past traumas, giving less room during sessions to explore these significant events (sometimes of great complexity), and help the client to understand why something in their past happened and why it is still affecting them today.
• As it is solution-focused, it could minimize the client’s pain, making them feel like their past traumas have not been heard or felt by the counselor, which can and does affect the therapeutic alliance, as you are more likely to openly and honestly speak about something traumatic, if you feel the other person deems it important as well, and if they give you space for it. It is also a reason some people choose to see a counselor because they have not had the opportunity to speak about their problems or traumas with other people in their life.
• As the therapy is client-led, this could lead to a few problems. For example, if the client wishes to talk about and explore a past trauma or gain an understanding of a past issue, despite cues from the practitioner to focus on the near future in a solution-focused way, then it will be difficult for the practitioner to actually use this method at all with the client, as SFBT requires the client to actively be ready and want to find a solution and focus towards their near future.
• Also, the client-led approach means that the client can decide when their goals have been sufficiently reached. Therefore, they can end the therapy sessions early if they feel it’s enough, even if the practitioner is concerned about this.

Bond, C., Woods, K., Humphrey, N., Symes, W., & Green, L. (2013). Practitioner review: The effectiveness of solution focused brief therapy with children and families: A systematic and critical evaluation of the literature from 1990–2010 . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54 (7), 707-723.

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

De Shazer, S., Berg, I. K., Lipchik, E., Nunnally, E., Molnar, A., Gingerich, W., & Weiner-Davis, M. (1986). Brief therapy: focused solution development. Family Process , 25(2): 207–221.

De Shazer, S., & Dolan, Y. (2012). More than miracles: The state of the art of solution-focused brief therapy . New York: Haworth Press

Franklin, C., Biever, J., Moore, K., Clemons, D., & Scamardo, M. (2001). The Effectiveness of Solution-Focused Therapy with Children in a School Setting. Research on Social Work Practice, 11 (4): 411-434.

Iveson, C. (2002). Solution-focused brief therapy . Advances in Psychiatric Treatment , 8(2), 149–157.

Kim, J, S., Brook, J., Akin, B, A. (2018). Solution-Focused Brief Therapy with Substance-Using Individuals: A Randomized Controlled Trial Study . Research on Social Work Practice, 28 (4), 452-462.

Maljanen, T., Paltta, P., Härkänen, T., Virtala, E., Lindfors, O., Laaksonen, M. A., Knekt, P., & Helsinki Psychotherapy Study Group. (2012). The cost-effectiveness of short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy and solution-focused therapy in the treatment of depressive and anxiety disorder during a one-year follow-up. Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics. 15 (1), 13–23.

Sanai, B., Davarniya, R., Bakhtiari Said, B., & Shakarami, M. (2015). The effectiveness of solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) on reducing couple burnout and improvement of the quality of life of married women. Armaghane danesh, 20 (5), 416-432.

Further Information

Solution-Focused Therapy Treatment Manual.

De Shazer, S., & Berg, I. K. (1997). ‘What works?’Remarks on research aspects of solution‐focused brief therapy. Journal of Family therapy, 19(2), 121-124.

Dermer, S. B., Hemesath, C. W., & Russell, C. S. (1998). A feminist critique of solution-focused therapy. American Journal of Family Therapy, 26(3), 239-250.

Trepper, T. S., Dolan, Y., McCollum, E. E., & Nelson, T. (2006). Steve De Shazer and the future of solution‐focused therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32(2), 133-139.

De Shazer, S., Berg, I. K., Lipchik, E. V. E., Nunnally, E., Molnar, A., Gingerich, W., & Weiner‐Davis, M. (1986). Brief therapy: Focused solution development. Family process, 25(2), 207-221.

Problem vs. Solution Focused Thinking

Every person approaches a problem in a different way. Some focus on the problem or the reason why a problem emerged (problem focused thinking). Others prefer to think about possible solutions that help them to solve a problem (solution focused thinking).  Problem Oriented Thinking:  Approaching a difficult situation problem-oriented might be helpful if we attempt to avoid similar problems or mistakes in the future, but when it comes to solving the problem we simply waste large amounts of our precious time! Problem-focused thinking does not help us at all to solve difficult situations, which is especially necessary in times where one must find quick solutions to an upcoming problem. Furthermore, the problem focused approach can have negative effects on one’s motivation, but more on this later.

The whole “problem vs. solution oriented thinking” – approach does not only apply when a person faces a problem or a difficult situation (as previously mentioned), but is also being applied in one’s everyday life, when we have to face a challenging task or when having to perform several duties. In fact: if we really focus our attention on this topic we can discover that the majority of our decisions and our attitudes towards tasks, problems and upcoming situations will either be problem or solution oriented. In order to demonstrate you the problem and solution focused approach I have chosen to give you the example of a college student:

Let’s say there is a college student that really does not like math at all (it doesn’t matter what subject he does not like, but I do not like math as well) . Just like every other college student, he will have to do some homework for math and if he wants to pass the exams he will have to study a lot, whether he likes math or not. The student would be approaching the subject math problem-oriented if he would continuously imagine all the negative aspects of math that he does not like and might ask himself the question, “Why do I have to study for math? For what kind of reason?” . The college student would be talking with his fellow students about the pointlessness of math, which will only strengthen his negative opinion about math. Rather than focusing his energy on studying for math he will get uptight and spends large amounts of his time in an ineffective way, that won’t help him to pass the exams.

When I was in school I heard similar questions whole the time, especially when it came to subjects that the majority of my classmates did not like. To be honest, when I was younger I was asking myself these questions as well, especially in subjects that I knew were pointless for the profession I wanted to become. When I grew older I started to scrutinize this behavior and noticed how senseless it was to focus all my attention on problem focused thinking, especially as this only decreased my motivation and strengthened my resentment towards these subjects.

Discovering that one is majorly approaching tasks and challenges problem focused can be really difficult, but once we are aware of this we can start to change our focus from the problem towards the solution and make use of the solution-focused thinking.

Let us come back to the example of the college student that was thinking problem oriented. In order to think solution oriented, he would need to completely accept the fact that math is a part of his schedule and will, therefore, be tested in his exams, whether he likes math or not. By accepting this fact he will easily destroy the root cause for questions that focus on the reason for something (“Why?”) and that only waste his time.

We start to think solution oriented once we are aware that we cannot change certain facts/problems and will only spend our time in an inefficient way when we seek for the possible reasons for these situations. By clarifying the reasons why the task we have to face (e.g. math) might be important, for example, to get accepted to a good university or to increase our GPA, we can bring the solution focused thinking to a further level.

It is really astounding to see how many people are thinking problem oriented, especially as this behavior starts in school and can be found in the professional world as well, for example when an employee has to face a new task that he is not familiar with, or has little to no knowledge about. Those that think problem-oriented would be imagining all the negative consequences they might have to face or all the mistakes they might commit when trying to solve the task. The employee will talk about his difficult situation with different colleagues, his partner or friends, which will only increase his fear of the upcoming task.

When you focus only on the problem, you might miss a new path.

The employee that quite in the contrary knows of the benefits of solution focused thinking does not struggle with the new task for a second, as he is too busy to take necessary preparations to solve it. He will completely accept the new task as a challenge, or even consider the task as a chance to prove his boss that he is capable of solving even the more advanced tasks.

How to avoid problem focused thinking?

#1 self-knowledge:.

In order to avoid problem focused thinking and to replace it with solution-oriented thinking we firstly need to discover that we approach different tasks, problems, challenges, etc. in a problem-oriented way. This is the utmost important step to do. You can identify whether you approach tasks problem-oriented by paying attention towards the questions that arise when you have to face a task that you do not like, which might be indicators for problem focused thinking:

• Why do I have to perform this task?
• What is the reason that I have to study this subject?
• Why do I even spend time with this?

#2 Fight problem-oriented questions:

The very first step to approach problems with solution focused thinking is to avoid questions that mainly focus on the reason or the problem in general. You need to clarify yourself that the question for the “WHY” will only waste important time that you could have invested to solve a given problem.

#3 Clarity:

When you come to the conclusion that a task needs to be done you will see the pointlessness of further evaluating the usefulness or non-usefulness of a task. So when you have to face a task that you dislike you could ask yourself the question, “Has this task to be fulfilled?” and when you conclude that the answer is “Yes”, then you know that every further attempt to evaluate the reasons and the “Why’s” is a waste of time.

#4 Why is it important to solve this task?

Questioning and clarifying the importance of a task will finally erase the root cause of every problem-oriented question. By clarifying the reasons why a task needs to be performed we can effectively change our focus from the problem to possible solutions.

#5 Think about the solution:

The final step to profit from solution focused thinking the most is to ask yourself different questions on how you can solve a given task or problem:

• How can I solve this task?
• How can I address this problem?
• What would be the first step to solving this problem?
• What kind of preparations will be necessary for this task?

Why does problem focused thinking decrease motivation?

Just imagine yourself having to study for an upcoming test (whether it is for school or a professional development is unimportant). While you are sitting in front of your table you start thinking about the exam and how much you dislike the whole subject. Questions that address the reason why you have to study for this subject start to arise and will ensure that you lose even the slightest interest in your task. Without being interested and a dozen of different questions that start to arise we finally lack the motivation to study for the exam !

Problem vs. Solution oriented thinking was presented by our Personality Growth Website. What is your preferred way of thinking? We’re excited to hear about your experiences in the comments section below.

About Author

Steve is the founder of Planet of Success , the #1 choice when it comes to motivation, self-growth and empowerment. This world does not need followers. What it needs is people who stand in their own sovereignty. Join us in the quest to live life to the fullest!

Related Posts

The entj personality type analyzed, the istp personality type analyzed, the esfj personality type explained, 24 comments.

Just saying Problem focused approach wastes time is ridiculous. It depends on what situation you’re in. If you’re preparing for an exam like olympiads, Problem focused approach is Best whereas while in actual exam, a solution focused approach might be better. You’re not going to learn and understand anything unless you ask yourself the questions like Why, What and How. But I can’t expect the same fro someone who has disliked Maths.

Did you read the first part of this? They specifically mentioned that starting with a problem oriented perspective is fine, but to eventually “fight it” by answering those questions so that you can get to a solution oriented perspective. Essentially, the big picture here is to not get stuck in problem orientation — it’s quite simple.

The issue of stress is ignored here. Tolerance for ambiguity is reduced by stress. When stressed, any additional requirement is a “problem.” This starts a downward spiral. A willingness to reduce our personal stress (with good diet, aerobic exercise, adequate sleep, etc.) can allow us to acknowledge our willingness (and culpability) in accepting new challenges, which can then take us away from an “Everything is a problem” attitudes.

Hello Jane, this is an incredibly important remark you make here. Thank you for sharing it. I hadn’t considered it from this perspective, but you are absolutely right.

I hate to be offensive, but I also don’t like to say, “No offense”, so I will tell you something that will probably offend you, Steve. But if you hadn’t considered it from that perspective, then you probably aren’t fully qualified to be writing articles like this. You obviously haven’t studied the full depths and ramifications of the issue.

Furthermore, you are telling people to ignore emotions which are a signal to them that something is wrong. Certainly, people can become TOO overtaken by those emotions, but just ignoring those emotions pushes them aside and suppresses them. Ultimately, it is those reactions and emotions that are the barometer of everything that we do. I’m not saying that there isn’t merit to what you are saying, but putting it in such black and white terms ignores so many factors that people deal with.

Finally, there is a strong value to considering problems, and even dwelling on them. It is a natural psychological process. The “why” is often crucial. It also leads to critical thinking and evaluating. Maybe there is a better process that could be undertaken to do the set of tasks much more efficiently, which leads to innovating thinking. It allows for questioning of morality, efficiency, ramifications and consequences. Even visceral reactions to problems can be an indicator of a deeper problem that needs to be addressed. Shutting any these down can cause numerous problems down the road.

I’m not saying that the article doesn’t provide merit, but the fact that you haven’t brought up many of the innumerable other factors to be considered really makes me think that you shouldn’t be writing articles like this, because you simply have only cursory knowledge of the psychology involved.

I’m sorry if that stings, but I think you may be doing more harm than good by saying these things.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. No offense taken.

Wonderful Steve. I so agree that a person’s success depends on their ability to be solution oriented. I am a follower of Dr. Wayne Dyer, and your philosophy sounds fully compatible.

Thanks Sherwin. I am glad someone agrees.

The only reason one (stakeholder) would recognize a situation and label it as a problem is when it demands a solution. Thus problem and solution co-exist – the latter waiting to be discovered. Difficult for me to understand what a problem oriented approach would be.

“Why should I do this task?” simply means that one is not a stakeholder. If so, the problem simply does not exist!

My intention behind writing this article was to point out that some people only focus on the problem, whereas other people take notice of the problem but more eager to find a solution. The first approach involves complaining, but does not lead anywhere. The second approach is not so prone to complaining, but actively seeks for solutions to the problem.

The key term here is orientation not exclusivity. I consider myself to be a solution-oriented person and also know that it is essential that I define what a problem actually entails before I set about trying to resolve it. Sometimes this process is met with a significant amount of resistance due to the emotional discomfort that can arise during my search to define something. Logic dictates that it is seldom a black and white scenario. Acceptance of a problem can be a bigger challenge than we initially realise. Also over-simplifying issues around problem-solving will not do justice to the sometimes complex nature of any problem and/or solution. I do believe the concept of being solution-oriented is a health directed approach and leaves less room for unhealthy manipulation. That is where I see the value in this kind of orientation. Mental and physical health always come into any equation (yes, I said that) involving problems and solutions that need attention to improve health and well being. Thanks for your thoughts and intentions Steve. I believe you are on the right track.

Thank you Louise for sharing your brilliantly articulated thoughts on this subject. I absolutely agree with you.

I’d like to add a comment as an observer of my own behavior. I notice that I complain more when I’m more physically and mentally fatigued which drains me even more. And like an earlier commenter mentioned stress plays a factor in how we choose to spend our time and what we focus on in our thoughts. All the feel good endorphins and the dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin produced in our brains has a huge effect on how we think. I agree that diet and exercise plays a huge part in how we view the world and the obstacles that are placed in front of us everyday.The more of those chemicals produced the more positive thoughts and the less fatigued you feel. I love this article BTW.

What a clearly written and extremely helpful/useful article! I thank you for it.

You’re welcome. Thanks for your feedback.

The mentality in this article is common in business management etc, but unfortunately, it is not so simple as it would have you believe. The described solution-driven thinking implies falling in line with the current power structure and establishment, and naturally is promoted wide and far.

I consider problem-oriented thinking closely linked with critical thinking, and that we have too little of today. If you don’t ask questions like “what?” and “why?”, and instead simply accept the circumstances you’re in, then you also strip away important aspects of participating in society. Circumstances can and do change, and just accepting them means someone else will change it in your stead.

Sure, sometimes you need to stay focused on solving the task at hand. Knowing the difference I’d argue is part of what critical thinking is about, which the world is in dire need of.

Excellent argumentation. Thanks for your contribution.

problems were not here without any solution. There should always be one answer for it, no matter how big or small the problem is. always think on the positive side and you’ll see the solution is just always in front of you or just within your grasp.

Nice words for to understand about the problems. How to be aware in problems. Thank you

While trying to focus on solutions to a couple of problems currently plaguing my empire, I have no choice but to consider the problems, and considering the problems makes me more and more angry and totally distracts me from finding the solution :-/

Lovely topic I was recently faced with a challenge of getting my little daughter back on track after she suddenly took a 360 degree turn in personality and this was the exact debate the edu psych at school and I were having . Do I molicottle the situation and just over compliment her to improve self esteem or do i use the problem solution way of thinking which I agre with and he disagrees with ,wow tough one but I feel equip a young impressionable mind with so many negative influences in her way ,the best approach as a mom in help in my child succeed in her future is the solution based technique and in order for us to find solutions we need to identify the problem else the word solution lol would never have been invented as an antonym ….hahhah

Very good article. When you linger too long on problem, it makes you stressful whereas solution focused approach brings up your dormant resources. Although the situation is same the way your brain chemistry works is very different with these two different approach.

When presented with a problem my instinct is to find a way to fix it, I’m led to believe this is more a male trait than a female trait.

Males are tunnel vision, females periphery vision.

Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

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.

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 (49)
• Coaching & Application (57)
• Compassion (26)
• Counseling (51)
• Emotional Intelligence (24)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (21)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (20)
• Mindfulness (45)
• Motivation & Goals (45)
• Optimism & Mindset (34)
• Positive CBT (28)
• Positive Communication (20)
• Positive Education (47)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (18)
• Positive Parenting (4)
• Positive Psychology (33)
• Positive Workplace (37)
• Productivity (16)
• Relationships (46)
• Resilience & Coping (36)
• Self Awareness (21)
• Self Esteem (38)
• Strengths & Virtues (31)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (34)
• Theory & Books (46)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (64)

Ayisha Amatullah

• December 18, 2023

14 Solution-Focused Techniques for Therapy and Coaching

Solution-focused techniques are a transformative approach in therapy and coaching. It emphasizes the client’s potential and resources for change. Instead of focusing on problems, these techniques prioritize the desired future and the steps to achieve it. The goal is to foster a solution-focused mindset and promote resilience, optimism, and self-efficacy. 

This guide will explore 14 techniques commonly used in solution-focused therapy and coaching. It will include practical applications and examples.

Solution-focused techniques are effective, but they’re not a one-size-fits-all solution. Take into account each client’s unique needs. Seek professional guidance and tailor techniques accordingly. Exercise caution when working with individuals who have experienced severe trauma. Prioritize their well-being and readiness for solution-focused work. Seek professional supervision when working with this client group.

In This Post

• 1 Problem-Free Talk
• 2 Strength-Based Questions
• 3 Future Perfect
• 4 Miracle Question
• 6 Counter Finding
• 7 Exception Questions
• 8 Coping Questions
• 9 Reframing Questions
• 10 Externalization
• 11 Affirming and Complementing
• 12 Feedback
• 13 Goal Setting and Action Planning
• 15 Takeaway

Problem-Free Talk

Problem-Free Talk is a technique in solution-focused therapy that involves steering the conversation toward topics unrelated to the client’s problem.

Purpose: The purpose of Problem-Free Talk is to provide a breather from problem-oriented discussions, encouraging clients to explore areas of their life where they experience success, satisfaction, or competence.

Benefits: The benefits of Problem-Free Talk include reducing stress associated with the problem, igniting hope, and fostering a positive therapeutic relationship. It also assists in uncovering resources and strengths that might be useful in addressing the problematic areas.

When to use it: In solution-focused sessions , start with Problem-Free Talk to establish a positive and relaxed tone. This builds rapport and trust, allowing clients to approach problem-solving confidently and openly. It’s also helpful when clients feel overwhelmed or when shifting the conversation to a more positive direction is beneficial.

How to use it: To implement Problem-Free Talk, a therapist or coach can divert the conversation to non-problematic areas such as hobbies, interests, or positive experiences.

A potential question: “Let’s talk about something you enjoy doing during your free time. How does engaging in this activity make you feel?”

Such conversations facilitate a more positive and hopeful outlook, which can be beneficial in the solution-building process.

Strength-Based Questions

Strength-based questions are a key tool in solution-focused therapy and coaching, designed to help clients identify and utilize their personal strengths and resources.

Purpose: Strength-based questions shift the client’s focus from problems to abilities, fostering empowerment and self-efficacy. They help clients recognize their strengths and potential for growth. This approach promotes resilience and the belief in one’s ability to navigate challenges successfully.

Benefits: The benefits of strength-based questions are manifold. They foster positive self-perception, enhance self-confidence, boost resilience, and encourage clients to leverage their strengths to overcome challenges. Additionally, they promote a positive attitude, foster resilience, and facilitate personal growth and self-improvement.

When to use it:   Strength-based questions are used to help clients identify their strengths and personal resources to achieve their goals. These questions can be used at the beginning of a session, throughout the process, and during goal setting and action planning. It can be used when clients struggle with self-esteem, feel overwhelmed by problems, or appear stuck in a negative mindset. However, they are not suitable for individuals in severe crisis or trauma who may require a different therapeutic approach.

How to use it: To employ strength-based questions, the therapist or coach may ask the client to reflect on instances where they successfully handled a difficult situation and what personal strengths enabled them to do so. This approach helps clients recognize their abilities, boosting their confidence and motivation to navigate current challenges.

Examples of strength-based questions

Here are a few examples of strength-based questions:

• “Can you tell me about a time when you faced and overcame a similar challenge?”
• “What personal strengths or skills did you utilize to overcome past challenges?”
• “What’s going well in your life right now, and how have you contributed to making that happen?”
• “What strengths do you have that can be applied to the current situation or challenge?”
• “Can you recall an experience where you felt proud of yourself? What strengths could you draw from that experience?”
• “What have you done that has helped in similar situations?”
• “Can you describe a time when you felt most alive or fulfilled? What skills or strengths were you using at that time?”

These questions are designed to highlight an individual’s resources, abilities, and skills, encouraging them to draw upon these strengths to devise solutions.

Future Perfect

The Future Perfect is a solution-focused technique that primarily encourages clients to visualize a desirable future where their issues are resolved.

Purpose: This technique aims to help clients identify their goals and desired outcomes in a tangible and concrete manner. It promotes optimism, fosters motivation, and provides a clear direction for the therapy or coaching process .

Benefits: The benefits of the Future Perfect include enhanced clarity, increased motivation, and a proactive approach towards problem-solving. It stimulates constructive thinking and encourages clients to have a forward-looking perspective.

When to use it: The Future Perfect is normally done early in the session, right after the therapist or coach understands the purpose of the coaching session. It is then used to guide the rest of the session. It’s also useful when clients feel stuck or struggle to envision positive outcomes. It’s particularly effective in overwhelming situations or when clients dwell on past failures.

How to use it: To utilize the Future Perfect, therapists or coaches guide clients to envision a future where their problems have been resolved. This approach helps clients articulate their desired outcomes and set tangible targets, facilitating effective action towards achieving their goals.

Examples of Future Perfect Questions:

• “Imagine waking up tomorrow and a miracle has happened. How would you know? What would be the first thing you notice?”
• “Imagine a hypothetical situation where your current challenges have been resolved. What activities would you engage in that you cannot do now?”
• “Let’s say you went to sleep tonight and woke up tomorrow with no problems. What would you do first?”
• “If we were to fast-forward to a time when your issues are no longer a barrier, how would that change your approach to achieving your goals?”
• “Envision yourself in a future where your current obstacles don’t exist. How would that positively affect your mental and physical wellbeing?”
• “In a world where your problems are resolved, what would your ideal day look like?”

Miracle Question

The Miracle Question is the most widely used form of the Future Perfect. It is a fundamental tool in solution-focused therapy that encourages clients to ponder a hypothetical situation wherein their concerns have been magically resolved.

Purpose: The Miracle Question is designed to help clients articulate their desired state of existence and pinpoint the changes required to achieve this. It aims to shift their mindset from problem-oriented to solution-oriented.

Benefits: Utilizing the Miracle Question can increase client optimism and motivation. It encourages forward thinking and helps clients identify and focus on their strengths and resources to bring about positive change.

When to use it:   The Miracle Question is normally done early in the session, right after the therapist or coach understands the purpose of the coaching session. It is then used to guide the rest of the session. This technique is also effective when clients find it challenging to envision their lives without their current issues. It is not advisable for severely traumatized individuals or those who are not ready to contemplate the future.

How to use it: To apply the Miracle Question, the therapist or coach asks the client:

“Suppose tonight you go to bed and go to sleep as usual. And during the night, a miracle happens. And the problem vanishes. And the issues that concern you are resolved, but you’re still asleep. Therefore, you don’t know that the miracle has happened. When you wake up tomorrow, what will be the first things that will tell you that the miracle has happened? How will you know that the transformation has occurred?”

This approach aids clients in defining their goals and the steps needed to reach them.

The Miracle Question with Examples, Worksheets, Exercises, & Demo Video

Scaling is a pivotal technique in solution-focused therapy, where clients are asked to rate their problem on a scale, typically from 1 to 10.

Purpose : The primary purpose of Scaling is to provide a visual and measurable representation of the client’s issues and progress. It assists clients in recognizing incremental improvements that may otherwise go unnoticed.

Benefits: The benefits of Scaling include promoting a sense of control and self-awareness in clients. By visualizing their problem and progress, they understand where they are, where they want to be, and the steps needed to get there.

When to use it: Scaling is normally used after the Furtue Perfect. It can also be useful when clients struggle to recognize or articulate their progress. Additionally, it can be helpful when clients are stuck and need to identify small signs of improvement to stay motivated in their continued efforts.

How to use it: To implement Scaling, therapists or coaches might ask:

“On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being the worst possible situation and 10 being the best possible situation (the Future Perfect), where would you rate your current situation?”

Follow-up questions might include:

“What would need to happen for you to move up one point on the scale?”

These questions facilitate self-reflection and goal-setting, furthering the solution-building process.

Counter Finding

Counter-finding is a potent technique in solution-focused therapy that involves identifying potential solutions based on how past situations were managed. This method focuses on finding “counters,” or elements that contribute toward a solution.

Purpose: The main purpose of counter-finding is to draw upon past successes and strengths and use these as a blueprint for managing current and future challenges.

Benefits: This technique allows clients to realize they have previously demonstrated resilience and problem-solving abilities. 

When to use it: Counter-finding is used throughout the session. Practioners should use their active listening skills to listen for counters. It is also effective when clients feel overwhelmed by their current situation, as it helps them recall successful ways they have navigated past challenges.

How to use it: To put Counter Finding into practice, therapists or coaches can ask questions like:

“Can you remember a time when you faced a similar situation and found a way to handle it?” or “What skills or strengths did you use then that might be helpful now?”

Such inquiries encourage clients to tap into past successes to devise solutions for present issues.

Exception Questions

Exception Questions are aimed to identify times when the problem was less severe or absent.

Purpose: The primary purpose of Exception Questions is to help clients discover situations or behaviors that contribute to problem resolution, providing a basis for potential solutions.

Benefits: The main benefit of Exception Questions is that they enable clients to recognize their own problem-solving abilities, enhancing self-efficacy and promoting a sense of empowerment.

When to use it: Exception Questions are suitable when clients feel overwhelmed by their problems and struggle to see instances of success. They are less effective with clients who are reluctant or unable to reflect on past experiences.

How to use it: To implement Exception Questions, a therapist or coach might ask:

• “Can you recall when the problem was less intense or didn’t occur at all? What was different then?”
• “Tell me about a time when you managed the situation better than usual. What was different about that time?”
• “Can you recall a moment when you expected the problem to occur, but it didn’t? What were you doing differently?”
• “In the past week, was there a day or even just a moment when the problem didn’t affect you as much? Can you describe what was happening then?”

Such questions invite clients to reflect on positive past experiences and identify useful strategies or behaviors.

Coping Questions

Coping Questions are a tool used in solution-focused therapy to help clients recognize and value their resilience.

Purpose: These questions highlight positive changes, no matter how small, shifting the client’s perspective towards solution-building.

Benefits: This technique can enhance resilience, promote self-efficacy, and create a positive outlook. It can underscore the client’s ability to navigate difficulties and affirm their potential for change.

When to Use: Use this approach at the start of subsequent sessions after establishing a baseline in the first one or whenever there is a need to shift from problem-focused to solution-focused discussions.

How to Use: To use Coping Questions, therapists might ask:

• “Despite all your challenges, how are you managing?”
• “How did you manage to prevent things from worsening?”
• “What helped you keep going despite the difficulties?”

These questions ensure clients appreciate their strengths, resilience, and coping mechanisms, fostering self-efficacy and a positive attitude toward change.

Reframing Questions

Reframing Questions is a significant tool used to change the client’s perspective on their problems or situation.

Purpose: The primary purpose of Reframing Questions is to shift the client’s view from a negative, problem-focused perspective to a positive, solution-oriented one.

Benefits: The strength of Reframing Questions lies in their ability to promote a more positive outlook, enhance resilience, and encourage creative problem-solving skills.

When to Use: Reframing Questions can be employed anytime during the therapy or coaching process , particularly when the client is stuck in a negative viewpoint or when facilitating a shift from discussing problems to exploring solutions.

How to Use: To use Reframing Questions, therapist or coaches might ask:

“What if you viewed this challenge as an opportunity? How would that change your approach?” or

“Despite the hardship, what’s something positive you can take away from this situation?”

These questions inspire optimism and a sense of possibility, stimulating the client’s ability to envision and work toward solutions.

Externalization

Externalization is a strategic technique used to separate clients from their problems.

Purpose: The primary purpose of Externalization is to help clients perceive their issues not as innate, personal failings but as external challenges that can be managed and overcome.

Benefits: Externalization can reduce self-blame and guilt, increase objectivity, and empower clients to confront and handle difficulties more effectively.

When to Use: This technique is beneficial when clients exhibit strong self-criticism or when their identity appears intertwined with their problems.

How to Use: To employ Externalization, therapists and coaches might say:

“If the problem were a separate entity, how would you deal with it?” or “Let’s think of the problem as a ‘monster.’

How would you fight this ‘monster’?” These questions aim to help clients view their problems from a fresh perspective, encouraging problem-solving and resilience.

Affirming and Complementing

Affirming and Complementing is a powerful technique used in solution-focused therapy to reinforce positive behaviors and achievements.

Purpose: The primary purpose of affirming and complementing is to boost the client’s confidence and self-esteem. It encourages clients to continue engaging in behaviors that contribute to their progress.

Benefits: The benefits include enhanced self-efficacy, motivation, and a stronger therapeutic relationship. It fosters a sense of accomplishment and positivity within clients.

When to use it: Affirming and Complementing is beneficial in all stages of therapy or coaching, but especially when a client has made progress, however minor, towards their goals.

I teach my coaching students to use it toward the end of the session, just before action planning. The point is to affirm and summarize everything you heard throughout the session to the client. This helps create an awareness about all the possibilities for the client.

How to use it: To implement Affirming and Complementing, therapists or coaches highlight and praise the clients’ achievements, strengths, and positive actions.

At the end of the session, the therapist or coach might say something like: 

“I want to take a moment to acknowledge the courage it’s taken for you to share your experiences and feelings today. I’ve heard you express a lot of resilience in managing your challenges. For instance, you’ve noticed that taking a walk in nature helps alleviate your anxiety, and you’ve been proactively incorporating this into your daily routine. You also shared a recent occasion when you successfully handled a stressful situation at work without letting it overwhelm you. These are significant accomplishments. Your increased awareness and active efforts in managing your stress are commendable. Let’s continue to explore and build upon these strategies in our future sessions.”

Feedback is a crucial technique in solution-focused centered around providing clients with constructive insights on their progress and behaviors.

Purpose: The primary purpose of feedback is to guide clients toward their desired outcomes by clearly understanding their strengths, achievements, and areas for improvement.

Benefits: Feedback fosters self-awareness, informs clients of their progress, and motivates further improvement. It reinforces positive behaviors, aids in the rectification of unhelpful ones, and promotes active participation in their therapeutic journey.

When to use it: Feedback is beneficial throughout the therapy or coaching process but is particularly useful after a significant interaction achievement or when clients seem unsure about their progress.

How to use it: To implement feedback, therapists or coaches should highlight the client’s achievements, discuss areas of improvement, and collaboratively plan future strategies. The feedback should be specific, balanced, and done in a supportive and non-judgmental manner.

For instance: “You’ve made good progress in managing your stress, especially in ‘X’ area. What do you think worked for you there? How can we replicate this success in ‘Y’ area?”

Goal Setting and Action Planning

Goal Setting and Action Planning is an essential technique in solution-focused therapy that involves establishing clear, achievable goals and outlining steps to reach those goals.

Purpose: The primary purpose of Goal Setting and Action Planning is to provide direction and motivation for clients. It helps clients focus on their desired outcomes and the steps necessary to achieve them.

Benefits: Goal setting and action planning enhance clients ‘ sense of control, self-efficacy, and motivation. It enables clients to visualize their progress and holds them accountable for their own change process, which can lead to long-lasting success.

When to use it: Goal setting and action planning mostly come towards the end of the session. It is useful when a client is ready and motivated to make changes but requires structure and clarity in initiating the change.

How to use it: To implement Goal Setting and Action Planning, therapists or coaches might ask:

• “What are some of the changes you wish to see? How will you know when you have achieved this?”
• “What are some steps you can take towards this goal?”

These questions encourage self-reflection, decision-making, and proactive behavior, which are key components in the solution-building process.

EARS stands for Elicit, Amplify, Reinforce, and Start Again. In solution-focused, this technique identifies improvements and changes since the last session.

Purpose: The primary purpose of using EARS in this context is to help clients recognize the positive changes and progress they’ve made since the last session. This can include any improvements, no matter how small.

Benefits: Using EARS to track progress reinforces a client’s self-efficacy and motivation, highlighting their ability to effect positive change. This can foster a sense of empowerment and boost confidence in their problem-solving skills.

When to use it: EARS is used at the beginning of a follow-up session to gauge changes since the previous meeting. It’s especially beneficial when clients struggle to see their progress or need a boost in motivation.

How to use it: To implement EARS in tracking progress, the therapist or coach should:

• Elicit: Ask the client to reflect on any changes or improvements since the last session.
• Amplify: Have the client elaborate on these changes and the actions they’ve taken to bring them about.
• Reinforce: Highlight these positive changes and actions, reinforcing their ability to effect change.
• Start Again: Begin the process anew in the subsequent session, continually helping the client to recognize and build upon their progress.

Check out 101 Solution-Focused Questions for Therapy and Coaching

Solution-focused therapy and coaching offer many techniques designed to shift clients’ perspectives, foster resilience, and enhance their ability to navigate challenges. Factors such as goal setting and action planning, coping and reframing questions, and externalization all play a pivotal role in this therapeutic and coaching approach. Although each technique varies in the application, they share a common objective: to empower clients to envision and work towards solutions rather than remain entangled in their problems. Remember, it’s about facilitating a journey from a problem-focused mindset to a solution-oriented one.

Transformational Coaching Techniques for You Need Know for Client Results

Solution-Focused Approach: Coaching, Therapy, Interventions

101 Solution-Focused Questions for Therapy and Coaching

The Miracle Question w/ Examples, Worksheets, Demo Video & Exercises

Share this post

Related Posts

Mindset Coaching: Techniques, Exercises, and Applications

How Transformational Coaching Works

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Addictions and Substance Use
• Administration and Management
• Aging and Older Adults
• Biographies
• Children and Adolescents
• Clinical and Direct Practice
• Couples and Families
• Criminal Justice
• Disabilities
• Ethics and Values
• Gender and Sexuality
• Health Care and Illness
• Human Behavior
• International and Global Issues
• Macro Practice
• Mental and Behavioral Health
• Policy and Advocacy
• Populations and Practice Settings
• Race, Ethnicity, and Culture
• Religion and Spirituality
• Research and Evidence-Based Practice
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Work Profession
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Solution-focused brief therapy.

• Mo Yee Lee Mo Yee Lee College of Social Work, Ohio State University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.1039
• Published online: 03 September 2013

Building on a strengths perspective and using a time-limited approach, solution-focused brief therapy is a treatment model in social work practice that holds a person accountable for solutions rather than responsible for problems. Solution-focused brief therapy deliberately utilizes the language and symbols of “solution and strengths” in treatment and postulates that positive and long-lasting change can occur in a relatively brief period of time by focusing on the solution-building process instead of focusing on the problems. Currently, this practice model has been adopted in diverse social work practice settings with different client populations, which could be partly accounted by the fact that the assumptions and practice orientation of solution-focused brief therapy are consistent with social work values as well as the strengths-based and empowerment-based practice in social work treatment.

• brief treatment
• empowerment-based
• social work treatment
• solution-focused
• strengths-based

The development of solution-focused brief therapy was originally inspired by the work of husband and wife Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg, along with their associates at the Brief Family Therapy Center in Milwaukee. The Brief Therapy Center was first established by de Shazer and Berg in 1978 and formally became the home of solution-focused brief therapy in 1982. With the passing of de Shazer in September 2005 and then Berg in January 2007, the stewardship of the Brief Therapy Center was transferred to the Solution-Focused Brief Therapy Association (SFBTA). De Shazer was instrumental in the development of SFBTA because he was the one who first invited the solution-focused community to meet in 2001. This group, including de Shazer, Berg and 27 colleagues, founded the SFBTA in the fall of 2002. The European Brief Therapy Association (EBTA), which was established earlier in 1993, shares similar aims to promote the development and dissemination of solution-focused brief therapy. Both the SFBTA and the EBTA hold annual conferences, support research efforts, and further the development and promotion of solution-focused brief therapy in practice.

When de Shazer and Berg first conceptualized the approach, solution-focused brief therapy was atheoretical, and the focus was on finding “what works in therapy.” Wary of the potentially limiting effects of assumptions or presumptions of theory-based practice approaches pertaining to clients, problems, and diagnoses, these pioneers of solution-focused brief therapy took a new and different approach in exploring the treatment process by asking one simple question: “What works in treatment?” They were interested in listening to what clients have to share, noticing what actually happens in session that helps positive improvement, and distancing themselves as much as possible from presumptions about what works as proposed by diverse treatment approaches. The original team regularly met and observed therapy sessions using a one-way mirror. While observing the therapeutic dialogues and process, the team behind the mirror diligently attempted to identify, discover, and converse about what brought beneficial positive changes in clients and families. In other words, the early development of solution-focused brief therapy was antithetical to the modernist epistemology of understanding human behavior and change based on a presumed understanding of the observed phenomena. Instead of taking a positivistic, hierarchal, or expert stance, the understanding is accomplished by a bottom-up and grounded approach, which strives for a contextual and local understanding of what works in therapy (Berg, 1994 ; Lee, 2011 ).

De Shazer, the co-founder of solution-focused brief therapy, was trained in brief therapy at the Mental Research Institute (MRI) in Palo Alto, CA. Consequently, the brief therapy tradition at MRI does have some legacy on the development of solution-focused brief therapy. Brief therapy, as based on MRI, is influenced by a systems perspective (Bateson, 1979 ), social constructivism (for example, see Berg & Luckmann, 1966 ; Neimeyer & Mahoney, 1993 ; Rosen & Kuehlwein, 1996 ), and the work of the psychiatrist Milton Erickson, who was an expert in observing and utilizing what clients brought to the session in order to solve their presenting problems. Erickson’s work exemplified the belief that individuals have the strengths and resources to solve their problems (Erickson, 1985a ; Erickson, 1985b ). To note, a major difference between MRI and solution-focused brief therapy is that while the brief therapy approaches that were developed at MRI focus on disrupting the problem-maintaining pattern, solution-focused brief therapy emphasizes the solution-building process. Such a shift in treatment focus is influenced by a strong emphasis on the role of language in creating and sustaining reality as embraced by solution-focused brief therapy (de Shazer, 1994 ).

Practice Assumptions of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy

Insoo Kim Berg, Steve de Shazer, and the solution-focused community emphasized that solution-focused brief therapy is not simply a set of therapeutic techniques but instead represents a way of thinking (de Shazer, 1985 ). Mastering the techniques without embracing underlying assumptions and beliefs of solution-focused brief therapy toward clients and change is not helpful in the treatment process. While the original development of solution-focused brief therapy was atheoretical, the practice of solution-focused brief therapy is consistent with the views posed by a systems perspective, social constructivism, and the work of the psychiatrist Milton Erickson. The practice assumptions of solution-focused brief therapy are:

Focus on solutions, strengths, and health . Solution-focused brief therapy focuses on what clients can do versus what clients cannot do. Instead of focusing and exploring clients’ problems and deficiencies, the focus is on the successes and accomplishments when clients are able to satisfactorily address their problems of living. The focus is on how to notice, identify, expand, and use these successes them more often (Berg & Kelly, 2000 ; de Shazer, 1985 ). The emphasis on solutions and successes is neither a consequence of “naive” beliefs regarding strengths in clients nor simplistic “positive thinking.” It is a deliberate therapeutic choice, which is supported by repeated clinical observations that clients discover solutions more quickly when the focus is on what they can do, what strengths they have, and what they have accomplished (de Jong & Berg, 2013 ). Theoretically speaking, the focus on solutions and successes to facilitate positive changes in clients is supported by a systems perspective (Bateson, 1979 ) and the role of language in creating reality (de Shazer, 1994 ). Systems perspective . One major proposition of a systems perspective is that change is constant in any system (Bateson, 1979 ). Because change is constant and there is movement in any system, every problem pattern includes an exception to the pattern (de Shazer, 1985 ). For example, no matter how conflicted a relationship is, there must be times that the dyads (that is, a couple or two people) are not fighting or bickering. The time when the dyad is doing something else to handle its differences constitutes an exception to the problem pattern, which also contains potential solution to the problem of fighting. Underlying such a view is a belief in the inherent strengths and potentials of clients to engage in behavior that is outside the problem pattern (De Jong & Berg, 2013 ). In other words, despite the multi-deficiencies and problems that clients may perceive that they have, there are times when clients handle their life situations in a more satisfying way or in a different manner. These exceptions provide the clues for solutions (de Shazer, 1985 , 1988 ) and represent the client’s “unnoticed” strengths and resources. The task for the solution-focused practitioner is to assist clients in noticing, amplifying, sustaining, and reinforcing these exceptions, regardless of how small or infrequent the exceptions may be (Berg & Kelly, 2000 , Lee, Sebold, & Uken, 2003 ). Once clients are engaged in non-problem behavior, they are on their way to a solution-building process (Berg & Steiner, 2003 ).

Another major assumption of a systems perspective is the inter-relatedness of all parts of a system, which presumes that everything is connected. Change in one part of a system leads to change in other parts of the system (Bateson, 1972 ; Becvar & Becvar, 2012 ; Keeney & Thomas, 1986 ). As such, a systems perspective does not assume a one-to-one linear relationship between problem and solution. The focus is on circular relationships rather than linear relationships among different parts of a system. The complex inter-relatedness of different parts of systems also renders the effort to establish a causal understanding of problems essentially futile. It is almost impossible to precisely ascertain exactly why any problem occurs in the first place and the trajectory of development. As such, solutions to a problem can happen in multiple pathways and do not necessarily have to be directly related to the presenting problem (de Shazer, 1985 ). In other words, insight into the problem’s origin is not necessary to initiate a process of change in clients. Without minimizing the importance of a person’s experience and perception of the history of the problem, solution-focused brief therapy views what is going on in the present as more important than what caused the problem at the very beginning.

The choice of not drilling into the history and patterns of problem but focusing on what clients do well is further influenced by the power of language in shaping clients’ experience of their reality (de Shazer, 1994 ; Lee et al., 2003 ).

Language and reality.

There is a conscious effort in solution-focused brief therapy to stay focused on solution dialogues and to de-emphasize problem dialogues. Such a conscious effort grows out of a concern about the role of language in creating or sustaining reality. Solution-focused brief therapy views language as the medium through which personal meaning and understanding are expressed and socially constructed in conversation (de Shazer, 1991 , 1994 ). Furthermore, the meaning of things is contingent on the contexts and the language within which issues are described, categorized, and constructed by clients (Wittgenstein, 1958 ). Wittgenstein ( 1958 ) suggested that the way an individual experiences the reality is framed and limited by the language available to him or her to describe it. As such, these meanings are inherently unstable and shifting (Wittgenstein, 1958 ). Consequently, a major therapeutic task for social work professionals is to consider how we can use language in treatment that will facilitate the description and construction of a “beneficial” reality that will open space for individuals to find solutions to their presenting problems.

Recognizing the power of language in creating and sustaining realities, the “conversation of change” is the preferred language of solution-focused brief therapy. The “conversation of change” uses language with the following characteristics (Lee, et al, 2003 ):

Language that implies the person wants to change

Language that implies that the person is capable

Language that implies change has occurred or is occurring

Language that implies the changes are meaningful

Language that encourages the person to explore possibilities for change

Language that suggests that the person can be creative and playful about life

Language that conveys recognition of the persons’ evolution of their personal story

Language that does not encourage negative, blaming, or self-defeating descriptions

This “conversation of change” uses presuppositional language that assumes a possibility of change and thereby induces hopefulness in clients (Lee et al., 2003 ; Walter & Peller, 1992 ).

Accountability for Solutions

Practitioners of solution-focused brief therapy choose to hold the client responsible for solutions instead of problems in the treatment process in order to ethically and effectively facilitate positive changes in clients (de Shazer, 1985 ). The advantage of such a focus is that the practitioner and the client can direct therapeutic efforts toward supporting the client’s responsibility for building solutions and avoiding the potential negativity cycle that might be perpetrated by the language of blaming (Lee et al., 2003 ). However, holding clients to be accountable for solutions is neither simple nor easy. Clients usually seek treatment because they do not know or even feel that there are solutions to their presenting problems. Change requires hard work and a solution-building process requires discipline and effort (Berg & Kelly, 2000 ; De Jong and Berg ( 2013 ). In solution-focused treatment, the “solution” is established in the form of a goal that is to be self-determined and attained by the client (Lee, Uken, & Sebold, 2007 ). Characteristics of useful goals are:

personally meaningful and important to the clients;

small enough to be achieved;

concrete, specific, and behavioral so that indicators of success can be established and observed;

positively stated so that the goal represents the presence rather than the absence of something;

realistic and achievable within the context of the client’s life; and (6) perceived as involving hard work (Berg & Miller, 1992 ; Lee et al., 2007 ).

A Present and Future Orientation

People can take helpful actions to impact the present and the future, but obviously we cannot change what has already happened in the past. Solution-focused brief therapy believes that problems belong to the past while solutions exist in the present and future. Solution-focused brief therapy assumes that the meanings of a problem are artifacts of the context (de Shazer, 1991 ). Because one can never know exactly why a problem exists and because problem perceptions are not external objective “realities,” insight into the problem’s origin is not necessary to initiate a process of change in clients. Without minimizing the importance of the client’s experience and perception of the history of the problem, a solution-focused practitioner listens attentively to clients’ sharing of their stories and experiences. However, the practitioner does not reinforce this line of conversation and instead looks for opportunities to shift to a “conversation of change” that assists clients in “staying at the surface of their problems” (de Shazer, 1991 ). “Staying at the surface of problems” should not be equated with being superficial in the treatment process. The treatment process avoids going “deep” into the problem; rather, it aims to assist clients to do something attainable and observable in their present, immediate life context (de Shazer, 1994 ). Solution-focused brief therapy acknowledges that we cannot change the past but assumes that we can do something helpful in the present.

Solution-focused brief therapy also assumes that “the future exists in our anticipation of how it will be” (Cade & O’Hanlon, 1993 , p. 109). In other words, how we construct a picture of a desirable future will influence how events will unfold in life. Consequently, the solution-focused practitioner asks questions that will help clients to describe a future that does not contain the problem. The more specific and clearer the vision of a desirable future, the more likely it will happen because the client will have a goal to aspire to and steps to follow. Consequently, the task of therapy is to help clients envision a desirable future and identify the first small step that they can take to attain a future without the problem (Berg, 1994 , De Jong & Berg, 2013 ). Such descriptions also inspire hope and enhance motivation in clients to engage in beneficial behaviors that will lead to positive changes in their lives.

Clients define their goals: The client as assessor

Solution-focused brief therapy views goals as individually constructed by clients in a collaborative process during treatment. Aligned with social constructivism (Berg & Luckmann, 1966 ; Neimeyer & Mahoney, 1993 ; Rosen & Kuehlwein, 1996 ), solution-focused brief therapy believes that solutions to problems are not objective “realities” but rather individually constructed. Clients are the most legitimate “knower” of their life experiences and should be the center of the change process. Externally imposed therapeutic goals, as promoted by therapy approaches or society, may be inappropriate or irrelevant to the needs of clients. In addition, clients generally are willing to work harder if they define the goal of therapy and perceived the goal as personally meaningful (Lee et al., 2007 ). Consequently, a distinctive characteristic of solution-oriented assessment is its focus on the client as the assessor (Lee et al., 2003 ). Contrary to most medical models of assessment, which view professionals as possessing expert diagnostic knowledge and clients as the objects for assessment, solution-focused assessment emphasizes the client as the assessor who constantly self-evaluates what the problem is, what may be feasible solutions to the problem, what the desirable future is, what the goals of treatment are, what strengths and resources the client has, what may be helpful in the process of change, how committed or motivated the client is to make change a reality, and how quickly the client wants to proceed with the change, etc (Lee et al., 2003 ). Solution-focused practitioners are experts on the “conversation of change” and keep the dialogues going in search of a description of an alternative and beneficial reality (de Shazer, 1994 ).

Collaborative therapeutic relationship.

This view of clients as the assessor fundamental shifts the relationship between the client and the social work practitioner, so that it is no longer a hierarchal relationship but rather a collaborative one, with the client as the assessor and the social work practitioner as an expert of the conversation of change. Clients no longer simply provide “data” for professionals to use in determining a diagnosis and a treatment plan. The role of the solution-focused practitioner is to provide a therapeutic context for clients to construct and develop a personally meaningful goal. The practitioner enters into their perspective, adopts their frame of mind, listens to and understands their goals, and looks for strengths instead of weaknesses or diagnoses (Lee, 2011 ). Instead of being hierarchical, the solution-focused practitioner-client relationship is an egalitarian and collaborative relationship in which both the client and social work professional work together to facilitate positive changes (de Jong & Berg, 2013 ). This collaborative relationship inherently enhances the process of engagement and client’s ownership of the treatment process.

Utilization.

Milton Erickson was an expert in utilizing clients’ symptoms to help resolve their presenting problems. He firmly believed that individuals have the strengths and resources to solve their problems and that the main therapeutic task is to uncover and activate these resources in clients (Haley, 1973 ). Influenced by Erickson’s work, solution-focused practitioners utilize whatever resources clients bring with them, whether these are skills, knowledge, beliefs, motivations, behaviors, symptoms, social networks, circumstances, and personal idiosyncrasies, to uncover the solution (de Shazer, 1985 ; O’Hanlon & Wilk, 1987 ). Such a practice orientation is based on several beliefs: (1) there is the presence of exception in every problem situation (de Shazer, 1985 ); (2) instead of attempting to teach clients something new or foreign based on the practitioner’s presumed notions of what is best for the client, it is usually more efficient to focus on what clients are doing when they engage in non-problem behaviors; (3) utilizing and building on exceptions is a more efficient and effective way for clients to develop solutions that are relevant to and viable in their unique life circumstances as opposed to suggestions from professionals; (4) people are usually more invested in solutions that they discover or identify by themselves. As such, the task for the solution-focused practitioner is to elicit, trigger, reinforce, expand, and consolidate the exceptions that the client generates. Solution-focused practitioners stay away from teaching clients skills or intervening in their lives in ways that may fit our “model” of what is good, but may not be appropriate or viable in their lives (Lee, et al., 2003 ; Lee, 2011 ).

Tipping the first domino: A small change.

“A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step” (Laozi, Dao Te Ching , Chapter 100) Solution-focused brief therapy fully embraces the wisdom of beginning the change effort with the first, small step. There are many benefits of focusing on the first small step: (1) small changes are more feasible, doable, attainable, and manageable than big changes; (2) small steps provide indicators of improvement; (3) people are usually more encouraged and committed to the change process when they experience successes; and (4) small successes provide feedback for more successes in the process of change. Change requires both the vision of a “big” picture and a pragmatic plan for the first small step.

The emphasis on the first small step is also influenced by systems perspective. Introducing any change in a system may disturb a person’s equilibrium in unpredictable ways as a result of reiterating feedback. Repetitive attempts at the same unsuccessful solution are precisely what create problems in the first place (Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974 ). Consequently, solution-focused brief therapy believes that the best responses to client’s problems involve minimal, but personally meaningful, intervention by the solution-focused practitioner into their lives (Lee et al., 2003 ). Clients should determine what constitutes acceptable solutions. The most important thing is for practitioners to help clients identify the first small behavioral step toward desirable change.

The Solution-Focused Treatment Manual adopted by SFBTA succinctly describes the basic tenants of solution-focused brief therapy. It can be found at: http://www.sfbta.org/researchDownloads.html (Trepper, McCollum, De Jong, Korman, Gingerich, & Franklin, 2010 ).

Solution-Focused Interventions

Solution-focused interventions engage the client in a “conversation of change” that is conducive to the solution-building process. In this conversation, the solution-focused practitioner invites the client to be the “expert of change.” Collaboratively, the solution-focused practitioner and the client co-construct a desirable future that does not contain the problem. The practitioner listens intensely and explores the meaning of the client’s perception of his or her situation. Practitioners utilize solution-oriented questions, including exception questions, outcome questions, coping questions, scaling questions, and relationship questions to assist clients in constructing a reality that does not contain the problem. De Shazer, Berg, and their colleagues develop these questioning techniques to fully utilize the resources and potential of clients (for example, Berg & Kelly, 2000 ; de Jong & Berg, 2013 ; de Shazer, 1985 ). Questions are perceived as better ways to create open space for clients to think about and self-evaluate their situation and solutions.

First session.

In terms of the treatment process, clients are first oriented to a solution-focus frame in which the focus of therapy is to assist clients in finding solutions to their problems with as few sessions as needed. The clients are immediately encouraged to give a clear and explicit statement of their presenting complaint. Without focusing on the history of the problems, the solution-focused practitioner uses solution-building questions to begin assisting clients in identifying solutions for their problems. Specific interventions include:

Pre-session change . Early in treatment, the solution-focused practitioner helps clients to notice positive changes in their natural environment before they receive any treatment. “What changes have you noticed that have happened or started to happen since you called to make the appointment for this session? (Trepper et al., 2010 ). Pre-session change assumes that change is ongoing and is initiated by the clients and not the professionals.

Exception questions inquire about times when the problem is either absent, less intense, or dealt with in a manner that is acceptable to the client (de Shazer, 1985 ). The solution-focused practitioner presupposes that change is happening in the client’s problem situation. Such an effort shakes the rigid frames constructed by many clients with respect to the pervasiveness and permanency of their complaints. Examples of exception questions include: When was the last time that you didn’t have this problem? When was the last time that you expected that you’d have the problem but it did not happen? When was the last time that you thought you would lose your temper but you didn’t? What was different about these times?

Miracle questions allow clients to separate themselves from their problem-saturated context and construct a future vision of life without the presenting complaint or with acceptable improvements in the problem. Miracle questions foster a sense of hopefulness and offer an opportunity for clients to develop a beneficial direction for improving their lives. The focus is on identifying small, observable, and concrete behaviors that are indicators of small changes, which can make a difference in the client’s situation (de Shazer, 1985 ). A widely used format of miracle question is: Suppose that after our meeting today, you go home, do your things, and go to bed. While you are sleeping, a miracle happens and the problem that brought you here is suddenly solved, like magic. The problem is gone. Because you were sleeping, you don’t know that a miracle happened, but when you wake up tomorrow morning, you will be different. How will you know that a miracle has happened? What will be the first small sign that tells you that the problem is resolved? (Berg & Miller, 1992 ). Variations of the miracle question include the dream question (Greene, Lee, Mentzer, Pinnell, & Niles, 1998 ) and the nightmare question (Reuss, 1997 ).

Coping questions help clients to notice times when they are coping with their problems and what they are doing when they are successfully coping. Asking coping questions indirectly reframes the meaning frames of clients who have assumed that they are entirely helpless and thus they have no control over the problem situation (Berg, 1994 ; Berg & Steiner, 2003 ). Examples of coping questions include: How have you been able to keep going despite all the difficulties you’ve encountered? How are you able to get up despite being so depressed? A newly developed question is the “lemon question” that embraces personal pride and dignity in assisting clients to look for personal strengths in coping with difficult situation: Suppose you came to see, with a new clarity, that ______ [a normalized statement of the difficult life predicament in which the clients find themselves], what would you be most proud of as your response to that situation? (Taylor, 2012 ).

Scaling questions ask clients to rank their situation or goal on a 1-to-10 scale (de Jong & Berg, 2013 ). Usually, 1 represents the worst scenario that could possibly be and 10 is the most desirable outcome. Scaling questions provide a simple tool for clients to quantify and evaluate their situation and progress so that they can establish a clear indicator of progress for themselves. Some examples of commonly used scaling questions are: On a 1-to-10 scale, with 1 being the worst the problem could possibly be and 10 as the most desirable outcome, where would you put yourself on the scale? On a 1-to-10 scale with 1 being you don’t believe you can do anything to change the situation and 10 meaning you are absolutely determined to do something to change the problem, how would you put yourself on the scale? What would your wife say using the same scale?”

Relationship questions ask clients to imagine how significant others in their environment might react to their problem or situation and changes they make (Berg, 1994 ; de Jong & Berg, 2013 ). Relationship questions recognize the interactional aspect of many problems. These questions not only contextualize problem definition but also the client’s desired goals and changes. In addition, relationship questions help establish multiple indicators of change as grounded in clients’ real life context. Examples of relationship questions include: Who would be the first to notice changes in you? What would your friends notice that is different about you if you are more comfortable with the new college environment? How would your mother rate your motivation to do something different and helpful on a 1-to-10 scale?

Taking a break.

Solution-focused practitioners are encouraged to take a break near the end of the session prior to wrapping up the session. The break serves several important functions: (1) the practitioner can consult with his or her team or supervisor about the session and solicit ideas and feedback for complimenting and providing solution-focused interventions to the client; (2) the practitioner can use the time to organize his or her thoughts and develop with compliments and ideas for possible interventions (Berg, 1994 ; Trepper et al., 2010 ); and (3) the break prepares the client or family to focus and receive the feedback from the solution-focused practitioner.

The end-of-session message usually consists of three components: a compliment, a bridging statement, and tasks. The compliment helps the client or family to clearly notice, register, and anchor what they have done well, what might be helpful in the change process, and what things that they should be proud of, and so on. Authentic compliments serve to motivate and direct clients for positive changes. A bridging statement serves to connect the compliment with the solution-focused tasks and experiments. An example of an end-of-session message is:

Apparently, you are determined to be a better mom for your children despite your kids being in foster care right now. Some parents might choose to distance from their children because of the pain of not able to be with them and you are determined not to let that pain takes control over you (compliment). Since you are such a keen observer (bridging statement), between now and next time we meet I would like you to observe, what happens in your daily life and in particular your interaction with the child welfare people that you want to continue to have happen more often so that you have a better chance to reunite with your children in the near future (observation task) .

Solution-focused tasks and experiments.

Solution-focused brief therapy routinely uses task assignments and experiments to assist clients in noticing solutions in their natural life context (de Shazer & Molnar, 1984 ; Molnar & de Shazer, 1987 ). Some common solution-focused tasks and experiments are:

If clients can identify exception behaviors to the problem, then clients are asked to “do more of what works.”

For clients who focus on the perceived stability of their problematic pattern and fail to identify any exceptions, an observation task is given: “Between now and next time we meet, we (I) want you to observe, so that you can tell us (me) next time, what happens in your (life, marriage, family, or relationship) that you want to continue to have happen” (Molnar & de Shazer, 1987 ). Another observation task directs clients to notice what they do when they overcome the temptation or urge to engage in the problem behavior.

Other tasks that assist clients in interrupting their problem patterns and developing new solutions include: Do something different (“Between now and next time we meet, do something different and tell me what happened”) and the prediction task , which asks the client to predict his or her behavior by tossing a coin (“If it is heads, do what you normally do; if it is tails, pretend that the miracle day has happened”) (Berg, 1994 ).

Second session and after.

The focus of second session and afterwards is on facilitating clients to notice and expand changes that have happened or were observed between sessions. A typical question is the “What’s better?” question: So, what is better, even a little bit, since last time we meet? (Berg, 1994 ; Trepper et al., 2010 ). Noticing change is a small but important step for clients to realize their desired future. The solution-focused practitioner continues to use solution-focused questions and interventions to elicit, amplify, and consolidate positive goal efforts that are demonstrated by the client. An important skill is to encourage clients to describe their small change effort in great detail so that the “ordinary” becomes “extraordinary” (Lee et al., 2003 ). Another important therapeutic task in the second session is to help clients notice the connection between their behaviors, feelings, thoughts, and their desired solutions. Examples of these questions include: How are you able to go out together for a walk four out of seven days last week? How did both of you do that? How did you feel when you decided to stop arguing instead of exploding despite your anger? What’s in you mind when you chose not to talk back and argue with your parents?

It is not uncommon for clients become distracted by problems, for things to not get better, or for clients to have not acted on the solution-focused tasks, and so on. From a solution-focused perspective, there is no good or bad response, because clients’ responses are just feedback to the practitioners to continue co-construct a beneficial reality with the clients (Lee et al., 2003 ). In other words, there is no failure because responses are just feedback (de Shazer, 1985 ). Oftentimes, clients might have overlooked the small change or been distracted by problems. The trick is for the solution-focused practitioners to remain persistent and patient. It is helpful to ask the client to restate in a different way his or her goal and the things that he or she has noticed. The task is to help the client to look for small changes that can be further amplified and expanded. Other times, the client might need to reevaluate his or her goals based on experimentation. People might need to experiment using trial and error to determine what is important and helpful to them. When clients do not improve or have done nothing by the second session, it is likely that the stated goals or tasks are not important, not appropriate, or not relevant to the extent that the clients are committed to do something different. It is important for the practitioner to offer choices as much as possible and to continue helping the clients to self-assess what might be beneficial for them. Solution-focused practitioners should not view clients as resistant or unmotivated. Instead, they should look for ways that clients are cooperating (Lee et al., 2003 ).

The solution-building process is allows the clients to notice a difference that can make a difference in their livesin their natural environment. The solution-focused practitioner cautiously refrains from providing or suggesting solutions. The solution-focused practitioner is responsible for creating a therapeutic dialogical context in which clients experience a solution-building process that is initiated from within and grounded in clients’ cultural strengths as well as thier personal construction of the solution reality (Lee, 2003 ). It is for clients to discover what works for them in their unique life context.

Termination.

The goals of termination in solution-focused brief therapy is to (1) review goals and discuss progress; (2) facilitate clients to own and take full credit for their improvement and positive changes; (3) assist clients in developing connections between their actions and positive change efforts; and (4) assist clients in establishing indicators of relapse and follow-up measures. Oftentimes, the solution-focused practitioners use scaling questions to help clients evaluate differences in their presenting problem between now and before: Suppose when we first started meeting, your problem was at a 1 and where you wanted to be is at a 10. Where would you say you are at today on a scale of 1-to-10? In addition, scaling questions are used to e valuate the clients’ confidence in their ability to maintain change: On a scale of 1-to-10, with a 10 meaning that you have every confidence that you will keep up with your progress and a 1 meaning that you have no confidence at all to maintain the change, where would you put yourself today? What would it take for you to move from a 5 to a 6?

In addition to complimenting clients for the positive change efforts, one major solution-focused intervention at termination is to use questions that assist clients to make connections between their actions and positive changes as well as to take ownership of the change. Looking back, what have you done to help you in making these changes? How do you decide that you are determined to make the change despite not being easy? “When did you decide to do that?” “Where do you think it comes from for you, the commitment?”

Change will be more long lasting when clients are able to consolidate their changes into alternative, beneficial “self-descriptions” such as an honest man, a caring parent, or a loving husband. These descriptions encapsulate the overall change so that clients develop “the language of success” in place of the “language of problem” in describing the self (Lee et al., 2003 ). How would you describe yourself as a husband now as compared to when we first met a few months ago?

In addition to consolidating change efforts, it is important to help clients prepare for the ups and downs in life. Solution-focused practitioners use scaling and relationship questions to assist clients establish earliest indicator(s) of relapse and develop contingency plan: What will need to happen in order for you to slide back again? What you will need to do to prevent that happen again? What would be the earliest sign to you that you are starting to go backward? When you notice that you are sliding back, what can you do differently to pull yourself up?

Solution-focused brief therapy takes a developmental perspective in viewing change. In other words, there are always ups and downs in life, and clients might need to seek help again in the future for different problems of living, which is normal and not an indicator of failure. The important thing is for clients to learn something new and useful each time that they can use in addressing future problems.

In sum, solution-focused brief therapy advocates for an open process of self-evaluations and choice making through a “conversation of change.” There is no longer an objective problem or reality that exists independently outside the client. Treatment is essentially an ongoing and open process in which the client and the social work practitioner actively engage in co-constructing an inherently unstable reality that is different from the problem reality and contains the desirable future as defined by the client. The practitioner listens for and absorbs clients’ descriptions, words, and meanings, and then formulates responses by building on clients’ frames of reference and connecting to clients’ words and meanings. This cyclical and ongoing process of listening, connecting, and responding allows solution-focused practitioners and clients to co-construct a new, alternative, and beneficial solutions or desired future as determined by the clients (Trepper, 2010 ). Assessment and treatment are no longer alienated procedures operated on the client by an expert. Instead, treatment focuses on co-constructing a “conversation of change” that deliberately utilizes the language of change, strengths, and resources to help clients developing useful goals, recognizing exceptions, amplifying change efforts, and consolidating the new behaviors in their life. It becomes an open process in which the clients continuously make evaluations and choices. Ownership, options, and choices become an integral part of the treatment process (Lee et al., 2003 ).

Clinical Applications of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy

Solution-focused brief therapy has gained prominence in social work practice despite its relatively short history as compared to other established practice approaches in social work treatment. One plausible reason is that solution-focused brief therapy has its roots in social work because social work professionals actively participate in its development and dissemination. The late Insoo Kim Berg and Steve de Shazer, the founders of solution-focused brief therapy, were social work professionals. Peter de Jong, Michelle Weiner-Davis, and Eve Lipchik, who all belonged to the original group at BFTC, were social work professionals. Cynthia Franklin, Johnny Kim, and Michael Kelly applied solution-focused brief therapy to family practice and school social work (Franklin & Jordan, 1998 ; Kelly, Kim, & Franklin, 2008 ). Mo Yee Lee, Adriana Uken, and John Sebold are social work professionals who use solution-focused brief therapy to work with domestic violence offenders (Lee et al., 2003 ). Wally Gingerich, who conducted the first systematic narrative review of solution-focused brief therapy outcome studies, is a social work professional (Gingerich & Esiengart, 2000 ). This list is certainly not exhaustive as there are many other social work professionals actively applying solution-focused brief therapy with their client populations in creative and beneficial ways. Because the founders of solution-focused brief therapy were social work professionals, it is not surprising that the practice and value orientation of solution-focused brief therapy are consistent with the social work overarching framework of person-in-environment as well as the social work values of respecting clients’ dignity and self-determination (Karls, 2009 ; NASW, 1999 ). The practice of solution-focused brief therapy—being systems-based, collaborative, strengths-based, respectful, pragmatic, and focused—facilitates the adoption of this model by social work professionals in their work (Lee, 2011 ).

The increasing adoption of solution-focused brief therapy by social work professionals is plausibly related to its focus on clients’ strengths and resources, which is consistent with the empowerment-based and strengths-based approaches in human services; approaches that have gained increased prominence since the late 1990s (Rees, 1998 ; Saleebey, 2009 ). In addition, solution-focused brief therapy provides a specific set of treatment skills and techniques that help to operationalize strengths-based and empowerment-based practice in daily social work practice. In other words, solution-focused brief therapy translates the concept of strengths and empowerment to every day practice of using the “language of empowerment” (Rappaport, 1985 ; Rees, 1998 ) and the “lexicons of strengths” (Saleebey, 2008) in social work treatment. Finally, while the development of solution-focused brief therapy is entirely independent of the development of managed care, its emphasis on being brief, efficient, and effective clearly aligns with the mandate of managed care, which is on cost-effectiveness and cost-containment.

To date, solution-focused brief therapy has been adopted in a variety of social work practice settings (Nelson & Thomas, 2007 ). Examples of these settings or practices include but are not limited to the followings:

Child welfare, for example, the Sign of Safety (Berg & Kelly, 2000 ; Turner, 2007 )

Family practice (Berg, 1994 ; Franklin & Jordan, 1998 )

Child and adolescent practice (for example, Berg, & Steiner, 2003 ; Selekman, 1993 , 1997 ).

Students from single-parent families and their parents (Lee & Grover-Ely, 2013 )

Schools (for example, Franklin & Gerlach, 2007 ; Kelly, Kim, & Franklin, 2008 ; Metcalf, 2008 )

Substance use (for example, Berg & Reuss, 1998 ; Smock & Trepper et al., 2008 )

Mental health (Knekt & Lindfors, et al., 2008a ; Knekt & Lindfors, et al., 2008b ; Macdonald, 2007 )

Domestic violence (Lee, 2007 ; Lee et al., 2003 ; Lee et al., 2012 ; Uken, Lee, & Sebold, 2013 )

Health (O’Connell & Palmer, 2003 )

Suicide prevention (Fiske, 2008 ; Hendon, 2008 )

Restorative justice (Walker & Hayashi, 2009 )

Administration and management (Lueger & Korn, 2006 )

Culturally competent practice (Lee, 2003 ; Kim, 2013 )

Coaching (for example, Berg & Szabo, 2005 ; Szabo & Meier, 2009 )

Supervision (Triantafillou, 1997 ; Wheeler, 2007 )

Relevant Research and Challenges

SFBT is gaining increased recognition as an evidence-based model. Solution-focused brief therapy is currently listed in the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquent Prevention Model Program Guide ( http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/mpgProgramDetails.aspx?ID = 712) and is included in SAMHSA’s National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices. In addition, Franklin and her associates published the book Solution-focused brief therapy: A handbook of evidence based practice (Franklin, Trepper, Gingerich, & McCullum, 2012 ). These are important milestones for solution-focused brief therapy, in part because the history of solution-focused brief therapy is relatively recent compared to other established treatment approaches such as cognitive-behavioral approaches. In addition, solution-focused brief therapy was developed by social work professionals in practice and not by academics at universities or research institutes. Nonetheless, the founders of solution-focused brief therapy, Insoo Kim Berg and Steve de Shazer, had a clear vision and support for advancing research in solution-focused brief therapy (de Shazer & Berg, 1997 ). At the EBTA conference at Brugge, Belgium, in 1997, t Berg facilitated a one-day post-conference meeting of people who were interested in solution-focused brief therapy research. This was probably the first “Research Day” to discuss research development in solution-focused brief therapy. The Solution-Focused Brief Therapy Association (SFBTA), which is the professional organization promoting solution-focused brief therapy in North America, continues its vision for promoting research of solution-focused brief therapy. The Research Committee of SBFTA is charged with the mission to promote, strengthen, and disseminate research pertaining to solution-focused brief therapy. This committee organizes a Research Day as part of the pre-conference activities. Since 2010, SFBTA has also funded the SFBTA Research Award, under the auspice of the Research Committee, to continue promote and support research in SFBT.

Outcome research.

Over the years, numerous intervention studies have been conducted for solution-focused brief therapy in diverse practice settings. Gingerich and Eisengart ( 2000 ) conducted the first systematic narrative review of solution-focused brief therapy outcome study. They conducted a systematic review of 15 outcome studies on solution-focused brief therapy. More recently, Johnny Kim has conducted a meta-analysis that consisted of outcome studies that were conducted between 1988 and 2005 (Kim, 2008 ). This review included 22 studies that used a control or comparison group in their study design. In addition, the meta-analysis focused on external behavioral outcomes, internal behavioral outcomes, and family or relationship problem outcomes. In addition, Corcoran and Pillai ( 2009 ) reviewed 10 studies that used SFT in treatment. The analysis of these studies found about 50% of the studies can be viewed as showing improvement over alternative conditions or no-treatment control.

While there is increasing empirical evidence of the effectiveness of solution-focused brief therapy, the rigor of these studies is limited by numerous issues in research design. These limitations, however, are not unusual in intervention studies conducted in real life practice settings. The identified problems include small and non-representative samples, lack of randomized controlled procedures, lack of specific manualized protocol, problems with treatment fidelity, measurement problems, and so on (Gingerich & Eisengart, 2000 ; Kim, 2008 ; Lee et al., 2007 ). To further develop and strengthen evidence for the efficacy of solution-focused brief therapy, future studies should consider a more rigorous research design that (1) uses larger and more representative samples; (2) includes control or comparison groups using randomized assignment procedures; (3) uses standardized measures that are sensitive enough to measure treatment changes; (4) uses observation-based rating systems in data collection when possible and appropriate, (5) further refines and develops the treatment manual for training purposes and fidelity analyses, (6) increases the rigor of the fidelity procedures by using observation-based approaches with a refined, specific, and rigorous fidelity measurement protocol; (7) carefully monitors the data collection process to reduce problems in measurement attrition; and (8) includes research sites that serve ethnically and racially diverse populations (Lee, 2011 ).

Process research.

A unique development in solution-focused brief therapy research is its incorporation of microanalysis as a major research effort. Microanalysis is the close examination of moment-by-moment, utterance-by-utterance communicative actions in conversations, with an emphasis on how these sequences function in the interaction (Bavelas, McGee, Phillips, & Routledge, 2000 ). Microanalysis views communication as constructive and directive (Bavelas, Coates, & Johnson, 2000 ). Consequently, microanalysis as a research method allows us to closely examine the co-constructive process in treatment, which is a hallmark of solution-focused brief therapy. A group of researchers led by Janet Bevalas that includes Peter de Jong, Harry Korman, Sara Smock, Adam Froerer, Christine Tomori, and Sara Healing are using microanalysis to study therapeutic communication as a mechanism of change in solution-focused brief therapy. Their work includes the following types of research: (1) process research (for example, microanalysis of communication within therapy sessions) that assesses congruence between theory and practice and reveals similarities and differences in therapeutic approaches (De Jong & Bavelas, 2009 ; Froerer & Smock, 2009 ; Tomori & Bavelas, 2007 ), and the communication process such as formulation and grounding sequences in treatment (Bavelas, 2011 ); (2) basic experiments in a laboratory setting that provide evidence supporting fundamental assumptions such as co-construction in the treatment process (for example, Bavelas et al., 2000 ; 2002 ); and (3) experiments on therapeutic techniques, which test key techniques such as the miracle question in the laboratory using non-therapeutic tasks and populations (Healing & Bavelas, 2009 ). Such research program illuminates important mechanisms of change and other process issues involved in the solution-focused treatment process. In addition, microanalysis in itself introduces novel research methodologies in understanding the therapeutic processes that may be relevant to other types of social work treatment approaches.

Each social work treatment approach makes different assumptions about how problems of living should be approached as well as how change happens. Recognizing the power of therapeutic dialogues and the potentially harmful effects of a pathology-based and deficits-based perspective in sustaining the problem and disempowering clients, solution-focused brief therapy deliberately adopts the language and symbols of “solution and strengths” and fully embraces clients’ voices and resources in the search for effective solutions. While doing so, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of solution-focused brief therapy and carefully examine the associated mechanisms and processes that contribute to its effectiveness so that treatment is based on an informed position in addition to ethical choices or theoretical preferences (Lee, 2007 ).

Another challenge in the development of solution-focused brief therapy is the dilemma between fidelity adherence versus open flow. Solution-focused brief therapy emphasizes itself as a way of thinking and not just a set of techniques (de Shazer, 1985 ). The treatment process is a co-constructive process between the solution-focused practitioner and the client. Consequently, there are questions about how much the professional body, that is, SFBTA, can and should ensure strict fidelity to an “established” treatment protocol. If this is not feasible or desirable, how can we develop some structure (such as a national network of basic solution-focused brief therapy training), establish defining parameters, or the minimum amount of SF to ensure the adherence to the model (personal communication with Gallagher & Nelson, 2012 ).

Albeit these challenges, helping professionals around the globe are practicing solution-focused brief therapy in a variety of settings with diverse client groups in beneficial ways.

• Bateson, C. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind . New York: Ballantine Books.
• Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity . New York: Dutton.
• Bavelas, J. (2011). From the lab to the therapy room. Microanalysis, co-construction, and solution-focused therapy. In C. Franklin , T. Trepper , W. J. Gingerich , & E. McCollum (Eds.), Solution-focused Brief Therapy: From Practice to Evidence-Informed Practice (pp. 144–162). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bavelas, J. B. , Coates, L. , & Johnson, T. (2000). Listeners as co-narrators . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 , 941–952.
• Bavelas, J. B. , Coates, L. , & Johnson, T. (2002). Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication, 52 , 566–580.
• Bavelas, J. B. , McGee, D. , Phillips, B. , & Routledge, R. (2000). Microanalysis of communication in psychotherapy, Human Systems, 11 , 47–66.
• Becvar, D. S. , & Becvar, R. J. (2012). Family Therapy, A systematic integration (8th ed.): Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Berg, I. K. (1994). Family-based services: A solution-focused approach . New York: W. W. Norton.
• Berg, I. K. , & Kelly, S. (2000). Building solutions in child protective services . New York: W. W. Norton.
• Berg, I. K. & Miller, S. (1992). Working with the problem drinker: A solution-focused approach . New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
• Berg, I. K. & Reuss, N. (1998). Solutions step by step: A substance abuse treatment manual . NY: W. W. Norton.
• Berg, I. K. , & Steiner, T. (2003). Children’s solution work . New York: W. W. Norton.
• Berg, I. K. , & Szabo, P. (2005). Brief coaching for lasting solutions . New York: W. W. Norton.
• Berg, P. L. , & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge . New York: Doubleday.
• Cade, B. , & O’Hanlon, W. (1993). A brief guide to brief therapy . New York: W. W. Norton.
• Corcoran, J. , & Pillai, V. (2009). A Review of the Research on Solution-Focused Therapy. British Journal Of Social Work , 39 (2), 234–242.
• De Jong, P. , Bavelas, J. (2009). The role of formulations in co-constructing meanings in cognitive-behavioral therapy, motivational interviewing, and solution-focused brief therapy . Presentation at 2009 Conference on Solution-Focused Practices, Solution-Focused Brief Therapy Association, November 4–9, Albany, New York.
• De Jong, P. , & Berg, I. K. (2013). Interviewing for solutions . (4th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
• de Shazer, S. (1985). Keys to solutions in brief therapy . New York: W. W. Norton.
• de Shazer, S. (1988). Clues: Investigating solutions in brief therapy . New York: W. W. Norton.
• de Shazer, S. (1991). Putting difference to work . New York: W. W. Norton.
• de Shazer, S. (1994). Words were originally magic . New York: W. W. Norton.
• de Shazer, S. , & Berg, I. K. (1997). What works? Remarks on research aspects of solution focused brief therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 19 , 121–124.
• de Shazer, S. , & Molnar, A. (1984). Four useful interventions in brief family therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 10 , 297–304.
• Erickson, M. (1985a). Conversations with Milton H. Erickson, Volume I: Changing Individuals , edited by Jay Haley. New York: W. W. Norton.
• Erickson, M. (1985b). Conversations with Milton H. Erickson, Volume I: Changing couples , edited by Jay Haley. New York: W. W. Norton.
• Fiske, H. (2008). Hope in action: Solution-focused conversations about suicide . New York: Routledge.
• Franklin, C. , & Gerlach, B. (2007). Clinical applications of solution-focused brief therapy in public schools. In T. S. Nelson & F.N. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of solution-focused brief therapy: Clinical applications (pp. 168–169). Philadelphia: Haworth Press.
• Franklin, C. , & Jordan, C. (1998). Family practice: Brief systems methods for social work . Pacific Cove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
• Franklin, C. , Trepper, T. S. , Gingerich, W. J. , McCullum, E. E. (Eds) (2012), Solution-focused brief therapy: A handbook of evidence based practice . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Froerer, A. , & Smock, S. (2009). Microanalysis of solution-focused formulations . Presentation at 2009 Conference on Solution-Focused Practices, Solution-Focused Brief Therapy Association, November 4–9, Albany, New York.
• Gallagher, D. & Nelson, T. (2012) Personal communication at Celebrating Solutions: 2012 SRBTA Conference, November 14–18, Minneapolis, MN.
• Gingerich, W. , & Eisengart, S. (2000). Solution-focused brief therapy: A review of outcome research. Family Process, 39 , 477–496.
• Greene, G. J. , Lee, M. Y. , Mentzer, R. , Pinnell, S. , Niles, D. (1998). Miracles, dreams, and empowerment: A brief practice note. Families in Society, 79 , 395–399.
• Haley, J. (1973). Uncommon therapy: The psychiatric techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M. D . New York: W. W. Norton.
• Healing, S. , & Bavelas, J. (2009). An Experimental Study of Mechanisms of Change: Effects of Questioning on Attributions and Performance . Unpublished manuscript.
• Hendon, J. (2008). Preventing suicide: The solution focused approach . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
• Karls, J. M. (2009). Person-in-environment system. In A. R. Roberts (Eds.), Social workers’ desk reference , 2nd ed. (pp. 371–375). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Keeney, B. P. , & Thomas, F. N. (1986). Cybernetic foundations of family therapy. In Piercy, F. P. , Sprenkle, D. H. (Eds.)., Family therapy sourcebook (pp. 262–287). New York: Guilford Press.
• Kelly, M. S. , Kim, J. S. , & Franklin, C. (2008). Solution-focused brief therapy in schools: A 360-degree view of the research and practice principles . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kim, J. S. (2008). Examining the effectiveness of solution-focused brief therapy: A meta-analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 18 , 107–116.
• Kim, J.S. (2013). Solution-focused brief therapy: A multicultural approach to working with minority clients . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Knekt, P. , O. Lindfors , et al. (2008a). “Randomized trial on the effectiveness of long-term and short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy and solution-focused brief therapy on psychiatric symptoms during a 3-year follow-up.” Psychological Medicine, 38 , 689–703.
• Knekt, P. , O. Lindfors , et al. (2008b). “Effectiveness of short-term and long-term psychotherapy on work ability and functional capacity: A randomized clinical trail on depressive and anxiety disorders.” Journal of Affective Disorders, 107 , 95–106.
• Lee, M. Y. (2007). Discovering strengths and competencies in female domestic violence survivors: An application of Roberts’ continuum of the duration and severity of woman battering. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 7 , 102–114.
• Lee, M. Y. (2003). A solution-focused approach to cross-cultural clinical social work practice: Utilizing cultural strengths, Families in Society, 84 , 385–395.
• Lee. M. Y. (2011). Solution-focused theory. In Turner, F. J. (Eds), Social work treatment , 5th Ed , (pp. 460–476) . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Lee, M. Y. & Ely, C. (2013). Effective intervening with students from single-parent families and their parents. In Franklin, C. , Harris, M. , & Allen-Meares, P. (Eds), The School Services Sourcebook: A guide for School-Based professionals , 2nd Ed . (chapter 51) New York: Oxford University Press.
• Lee, M. Y. , Sebold, J. , Uken, A. (2003). Solution-focused treatment with domestic violence offenders: Accountability for change . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Lee. M. Y. , Uken. A. , Sebold, J. (2007). Role of Self-Determined Goals in Predicting Recidivism in Domestic Violence Offenders. Research on Social Work Practice , 17, 30–41.
• Lee, M. Y. , Uken, A. , & Sebold, J. (2012). Solution-focused model with court mandated, domestic violence offenders. In C. Franklin , T. Trepper , W. J. Gingerich , & E. McCollum (Eds.), Solution-focused Brief Therapy: From Practice to Evidence-Informed Practice (chapter 11, pp. 165–182). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Lueger, G. , & Korn, H-P. (Eds.) (2006). Solution focused management . München, Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag.
• Macdonald, A. J. (2007). Applying solution-focused brief therapy to mental health practice. In T. S. Nelson & F.N. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of solution-focused brief therapy: Clinical applications (pp. 267–294). Philadelphia: Haworth Press.
• Metcalf, L. (2008). A field guide to counseling toward solutions . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Molnar, A. & de Shazer, S. (1987). Solution focused therapy: Toward the identification of therapeutic tasks. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 13(4) , 349–358.
• National Association of Social Workers 1999. The NASW Code of Ethics . Washington, DC: NASW.
• Neimeyer, R. A. , & Mahoney, M. J. (1993). Constructivism in psychotherapy . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Nelson, T. S. & Thomas, F. N. (Eds.) (2007), Handbook of solution-focused brief therapy: Clinical applications . Philadelphia, PTH: Haworth Press.
• O’Connell, B. , & Palmer, S. (2003). Solution focused therapy: A handbook for health care professionals. London: Sage.
• O’Hanlon, W. , & Wilk, J. (1987). Shifting contexts: The generation of effective psychotherapy . New York: Guilford Press.
• Rappaport, J. (1985). The power of empowerment language. Social Policy, Fall, 16 , 15–21.
• Rees, S. (1998). Empowerment of youth. In L. M. Gutierrez , R. J. Parsons & E. O. Cox (Eds.), Empowerment in social work practice: A sourcebook (pp. 130–145). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
• Reuss, N. H. (1997). The nightmare question: Problem-talk in solution-focused brief therapy with alcoholics and their families. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 8(4) , 71–76.
• Rosen, H. , & Kuehlwein, K. T. (Eds.) (1996). Constructing realities: Meaning-making perspectives for psychosolution-focused practitioners . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
• Saleebey, D. (2009). Strengths perspective in social work practice , 5th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Selekman, M. (1993). Pathways to change: Brief therapy solutions with difficult adolescents . New York: Guilford Press.
• Selekman, M. (1997). Solution-focused brief therapy with children . New York: Guilford Press.
• Smock, S. A. , T. S. Trepper , et al. (2008). “Solution-focused group therapy for level 1 substance abusers.” Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 34 , 107–120.
• Szabo, P. & Meier, D. (2009). Coaching plain & simple: Solution-focused brief coaching essentials . New York: W. W. Norton.
• Taylor, L. (2012). The lemon question: Pride as a useful resource in solution-focused interviewing. Presented at Celebrating Solutions: 2012 SRBTA Conference, November 14–18. Minneapolis, MN.
• Tomori, C. , & Bavelas, J. B. (2007). Using microanalysis of communication to compare solution-focused and client-centered therapies. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 18 , 25–43.
• Trepper, T.S. , McCollum, E. E. , De Jong, P. , Korman, H. , Gingerich, W. , & Franklin, C. (2010). Solution focused therapy treatment manual for working with individuals . SFBTA: Research Committee of the Solution Focused Brief Therapy Association. Retrieved from http://www.sfbta.org/researchDownloads.html
• Triantafillou, N. (1997). A solution-focused approach to mental health supervision. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 16 , 305–328.
• Turner, A. (2007). Thinking and practicing beyond the therapy room: solution-focused brief therapy, trauma, and child protection. In T. S. Nelson & F.N. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of solution-focused brief therapy: Clinical applications (pp. 295–314). Philadelphia: Haworth Press.
• Uken, A. , Lee, M. Y. , Sebold, J. (2013). The Plumas poject: Solution-focused treatment of domestic violence offenders. In P. DeJong & I. K. Berg , Interviewing for solutions , 4th Ed. (pp. 333–345). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
• Walter, J. , & Peller, J. (1992). Becoming solution-focused in brief therapy . New York: Brunner/Mazel.
• Walker, L. & Hayashi, L. (June 2009). Pono Kaulike: Reducing violence with restorative justice and solution-focused approaches. Federal Probation Journal , 73 (1), 23–27
• Watzlawick, P. , Weakland, J. H. , & Fisch, R. (1974). Change, principles of problem formulation and problem resolution . New York: W. W. Norton.
• Wheeler, J. (2007). Solution-focused supervision. In T. S. Nelson & F.N. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of solution-focused brief therapy: Clinical applications (pp. 343–370). Philadelphia: Haworth Press.
• Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigation , Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe . New York: Macmillan.

Further Readings

• European Brief Therapy Association : http://blog.ebta.nu/
• Solution-focused Brief Therapy Association : http://www.sfbta.org/
• Solution-Focused Brief Therapy Evaluation List: http://www.solutionsdoc.co.uk/sft.html

Related Articles

• The Brief Therapies

Other Resources

• New & Featured
• Forthcoming Articles

Printed from Encyclopedia of Social Work. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 20 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.194.105.172]
• 185.194.105.172

Character limit 500 /500

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  

3633 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

Ümüt Arslan & Esra Asıcı

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

Marcel Herrmann, Veronika Brandstätter & Carsten Wrosch

Development and validation of the Equanimity Barriers Scale [EBS]

Joey Weber & Michelle Lowe

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

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is Problem-Solving Therapy?

Arlin Cuncic, MA, is the author of The Anxiety Workbook and founder of the website About Social Anxiety. She has a Master's degree in clinical psychology.

Daniel B. Block, MD, is an award-winning, board-certified psychiatrist who operates a private practice in Pennsylvania.

Verywell / Madelyn Goodnight

Problem-Solving Therapy Techniques

How effective is problem-solving therapy, things to consider, how to get started.

Problem-solving therapy is a brief intervention that provides people with the tools they need to identify and solve problems that arise from big and small life stressors. It aims to improve your overall quality of life and reduce the negative impact of psychological and physical illness.

Problem-solving therapy can be used to treat depression , among other conditions. It can be administered by a doctor or mental health professional and may be combined with other treatment approaches.

At a Glance

Problem-solving therapy is a short-term treatment used to help people who are experiencing depression, stress, PTSD, self-harm, suicidal ideation, and other mental health problems develop the tools they need to deal with challenges. This approach teaches people to identify problems, generate solutions, and implement those solutions. Let's take a closer look at how problem-solving therapy can help people be more resilient and adaptive in the face of stress.

Problem-solving therapy is based on a model that takes into account the importance of real-life problem-solving. In other words, the key to managing the impact of stressful life events is to know how to address issues as they arise. Problem-solving therapy is very practical in its approach and is only concerned with the present, rather than delving into your past.

This form of therapy can take place one-on-one or in a group format and may be offered in person or online via telehealth . Sessions can be anywhere from 30 minutes to two hours long. 

Key Components

There are two major components that make up the problem-solving therapy framework:

• Applying a positive problem-solving orientation to your life
• Using problem-solving skills

A positive problem-solving orientation means viewing things in an optimistic light, embracing self-efficacy , and accepting the idea that problems are a normal part of life. Problem-solving skills are behaviors that you can rely on to help you navigate conflict, even during times of stress. This includes skills like:

• Knowing how to identify a problem
• Defining the problem in a helpful way
• Trying to understand the problem more deeply
• Setting goals related to the problem
• Generating alternative, creative solutions to the problem
• Choosing the best course of action
• Implementing the choice you have made
• Evaluating the outcome to determine next steps

Problem-solving therapy is all about training you to become adaptive in your life so that you will start to see problems as challenges to be solved instead of insurmountable obstacles. It also means that you will recognize the action that is required to engage in effective problem-solving techniques.

Planful Problem-Solving

One problem-solving technique, called planful problem-solving, involves following a series of steps to fix issues in a healthy, constructive way:

• Problem definition and formulation : This step involves identifying the real-life problem that needs to be solved and formulating it in a way that allows you to generate potential solutions.
• Generation of alternative solutions : This stage involves coming up with various potential solutions to the problem at hand. The goal in this step is to brainstorm options to creatively address the life stressor in ways that you may not have previously considered.
• Decision-making strategies : This stage involves discussing different strategies for making decisions as well as identifying obstacles that may get in the way of solving the problem at hand.
• Solution implementation and verification : This stage involves implementing a chosen solution and then verifying whether it was effective in addressing the problem.

Other Techniques

Other techniques your therapist may go over include:

• Problem-solving multitasking , which helps you learn to think clearly and solve problems effectively even during times of stress
• Stop, slow down, think, and act (SSTA) , which is meant to encourage you to become more emotionally mindful when faced with conflict
• Healthy thinking and imagery , which teaches you how to embrace more positive self-talk while problem-solving

What Problem-Solving Therapy Can Help With

Problem-solving therapy addresses life stress issues and focuses on helping you find solutions to concrete issues. This approach can be applied to problems associated with various psychological and physiological symptoms.

Mental Health Issues

Problem-solving therapy may help address mental health issues, like:

• Chronic stress due to accumulating minor issues
• Complications associated with traumatic brain injury (TBI)
• Emotional distress
• Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
• Problems associated with a chronic disease like cancer, heart disease, or diabetes
• Self-harm and feelings of hopelessness
• Substance use
• Suicidal ideation

Specific Life Challenges

This form of therapy is also helpful for dealing with specific life problems, such as:

• Death of a loved one
• Dissatisfaction at work
• Everyday life stressors
• Family problems
• Financial difficulties
• Relationship conflicts

Your doctor or mental healthcare professional will be able to advise whether problem-solving therapy could be helpful for your particular issue. In general, if you are struggling with specific, concrete problems that you are having trouble finding solutions for, problem-solving therapy could be helpful for you.

Benefits of Problem-Solving Therapy

The skills learned in problem-solving therapy can be helpful for managing all areas of your life. These can include:

• Being able to identify which stressors trigger your negative emotions (e.g., sadness, anger)
• Confidence that you can handle problems that you face
• Having a systematic approach on how to deal with life's problems
• Having a toolbox of strategies to solve the issues you face
• Increased confidence to find creative solutions
• Knowing how to identify which barriers will impede your progress
• Knowing how to manage emotions when they arise
• Reduced avoidance and increased action-taking
• The ability to accept life problems that can't be solved
• The ability to make effective decisions
• The development of patience (realizing that not all problems have a "quick fix")

Problem-solving therapy can help people feel more empowered to deal with the problems they face in their lives. Rather than feeling overwhelmed when stressors begin to take a toll, this therapy introduces new coping skills that can boost self-efficacy and resilience .

Other Types of Therapy

Other similar types of therapy include cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) . While these therapies work to change thinking and behaviors, they work a bit differently. Both CBT and SFBT are less structured than problem-solving therapy and may focus on broader issues. CBT focuses on identifying and changing maladaptive thoughts, and SFBT works to help people look for solutions and build self-efficacy based on strengths.

This form of therapy was initially developed to help people combat stress through effective problem-solving, and it was later adapted to address clinical depression specifically. Today, much of the research on problem-solving therapy deals with its effectiveness in treating depression.

Problem-solving therapy has been shown to help depression in: 

• Older adults
• People coping with serious illnesses like cancer

Problem-solving therapy also appears to be effective as a brief treatment for depression, offering benefits in as little as six to eight sessions with a therapist or another healthcare professional. This may make it a good option for someone unable to commit to a lengthier treatment for depression.

Problem-solving therapy is not a good fit for everyone. It may not be effective at addressing issues that don't have clear solutions, like seeking meaning or purpose in life. Problem-solving therapy is also intended to treat specific problems, not general habits or thought patterns .

In general, it's also important to remember that problem-solving therapy is not a primary treatment for mental disorders. If you are living with the symptoms of a serious mental illness such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia , you may need additional treatment with evidence-based approaches for your particular concern.

Problem-solving therapy is best aimed at someone who has a mental or physical issue that is being treated separately, but who also has life issues that go along with that problem that has yet to be addressed.

For example, it could help if you can't clean your house or pay your bills because of your depression, or if a cancer diagnosis is interfering with your quality of life.

Your doctor may be able to recommend therapists in your area who utilize this approach, or they may offer it themselves as part of their practice. You can also search for a problem-solving therapist with help from the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Society of Clinical Psychology .

If receiving problem-solving therapy from a doctor or mental healthcare professional is not an option for you, you could also consider implementing it as a self-help strategy using a workbook designed to help you learn problem-solving skills on your own.

During your first session, your therapist may spend some time explaining their process and approach. They may ask you to identify the problem you’re currently facing, and they’ll likely discuss your goals for therapy .

Keep In Mind

Problem-solving therapy may be a short-term intervention that's focused on solving a specific issue in your life. If you need further help with something more pervasive, it can also become a longer-term treatment option.

Get Help Now

We've tried, tested, and written unbiased reviews of the best online therapy programs including Talkspace, BetterHelp, and ReGain. Find out which option is the best for you.

Shang P, Cao X, You S, Feng X, Li N, Jia Y. Problem-solving therapy for major depressive disorders in older adults: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials .  Aging Clin Exp Res . 2021;33(6):1465-1475. doi:10.1007/s40520-020-01672-3

Cuijpers P, Wit L de, Kleiboer A, Karyotaki E, Ebert DD. Problem-solving therapy for adult depression: An updated meta-analysis . Eur Psychiatry . 2018;48(1):27-37. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2017.11.006

Nezu AM, Nezu CM, D'Zurilla TJ. Problem-Solving Therapy: A Treatment Manual . New York; 2013. doi:10.1891/9780826109415.0001

Owens D, Wright-Hughes A, Graham L, et al. Problem-solving therapy rather than treatment as usual for adults after self-harm: a pragmatic, feasibility, randomised controlled trial (the MIDSHIPS trial) .  Pilot Feasibility Stud . 2020;6:119. doi:10.1186/s40814-020-00668-0

Sorsdahl K, Stein DJ, Corrigall J, et al. The efficacy of a blended motivational interviewing and problem solving therapy intervention to reduce substance use among patients presenting for emergency services in South Africa: A randomized controlled trial . Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy . 2015;10(1):46. doi:doi.org/10.1186/s13011-015-0042-1

Margolis SA, Osborne P, Gonzalez JS. Problem solving . In: Gellman MD, ed. Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine . Springer International Publishing; 2020:1745-1747. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39903-0_208

Kirkham JG, Choi N, Seitz DP. Meta-analysis of problem solving therapy for the treatment of major depressive disorder in older adults . Int J Geriatr Psychiatry . 2016;31(5):526-535. doi:10.1002/gps.4358

Garand L, Rinaldo DE, Alberth MM, et al. Effects of problem solving therapy on mental health outcomes in family caregivers of persons with a new diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment or early dementia: A randomized controlled trial . Am J Geriatr Psychiatry . 2014;22(8):771-781. doi:10.1016/j.jagp.2013.07.007

Noyes K, Zapf AL, Depner RM, et al. Problem-solving skills training in adult cancer survivors: Bright IDEAS-AC pilot study .  Cancer Treat Res Commun . 2022;31:100552. doi:10.1016/j.ctarc.2022.100552

Albert SM, King J, Anderson S, et al. Depression agency-based collaborative: effect of problem-solving therapy on risk of common mental disorders in older adults with home care needs . The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry . 2019;27(6):619-624. doi:10.1016/j.jagp.2019.01.002

By Arlin Cuncic, MA Arlin Cuncic, MA, is the author of The Anxiety Workbook and founder of the website About Social Anxiety. She has a Master's degree in clinical psychology.

Social Work Today magazine