DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Shay Bilchik, Administrator

From the Administrator

It is virtually impossible to catalog the

innumerable contributions that loving

parents make to the healthy development of their children. Clearly, the

development of skills that enable

them to master the lessons of daily

living and that enhance their capability to solve interpersonal problems is

high on the list.

The desirability of engaging in

thoughtful reflection before acting

is self-evident, but the nature and

quality of such thought processes

are also critical. By strengthening the

capacity of children to solve problems that may lead to violence or

other socially undesirable behaviors,

we hope to reduce their occurrence.

Fortunately, more than two decades

of research have identified specific

interpersonal cognitive problemsolving skills that relate to high-risk

behaviors. This Bulletin describes

their use by Raising a Thinking

Child, a primary prevention program

for children ages 4 to 7 and their

parents, through its “I Can Problem

Solve” curriculum.

Parents are the first teachers of every

child. That is true whether the lessons

learned are social, emotional, or

academic. By teaching their children

to think first and to think constructively, parents can contribute to

preventing violence—the problemsolving way.

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

April 1999

In recent years, there has been escalating interest in social and emotional learning in children and in the skills parents

can and do use to contribute to their development. There has also been increasing interest in training for parents and

their children to enhance those skills. An

understanding of children’s social cognition—including how they think about and

perceive the feelings and viewpoints of

others, how they solve interpersonal

problems in different ways, and how the

consequences of their actions affect

them—has become a springboard from

which to study why some children are

socially competent and others are not.

Based on more than 20 years of research on specific interpersonal cognitive

problem-solving (ICPS) skills, intervention

methods were developed to test the hypothesis that behavior can be modified by

focusing on the thinking processes rather

than the behaviors themselves. The ICPS

skills relate to high-risk behaviors that

may develop into serious problems such

as violence and substance abuse. This approach to childrearing deals with social

cognition and social adjustment. Its central theme is that certain interpersonal

cognitive thinking skills play a crucial role

in the social adjustment of both parent

and child. Thus, it has particular relevance

for the primary prevention of later, more

serious problems.

Preventing Violence

the ProblemSolving Way

Myrna B. Shure, Ph.D.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is dedicated to

preventing and reversing trends of increased delinquency and violence among

adolescents. These trends have alarmed

the public during the past decade and challenged the juvenile justice system. It is

widely accepted that increases in delinquency and violence over the past decade

are rooted in a number of interrelated social problems—child abuse and neglect,

alcohol and drug abuse, youth conflict and

aggression, and early sexual involvement—

that may originate within the family structure. The focus of OJJDP’s Family Strengthening Series is to provide assistance to

ongoing efforts across the country to

strengthen the family unit by discussing the

effectiveness of family intervention programs and providing resources to families

and communities.

No one doubts that parents are in a

unique position to affect the behavior of

their children, but the subtleties of this

process are not thoroughly understood.

It is known that, in the face of circumstances that appear to be very similar,

some families adjust well and some do

not. Even among the very poor, many of

whom experience seemingly insurmountable pressures of daily living, some can

cope better than others and may raise

children who become examples of healthy

human functioning.

Family Strengthening Series
2

AWOL?” Continuing with the same response, the boy replied once again, “No.

I didn’t think of that.” Spivack, who once

thought that youth who behave this way

might have an unconscious, or even conscious, desire to get into trouble, began

believing that his client might be telling

the truth. Perhaps he really did not think.

Perhaps he did not know how to think.

This, and other similar experiences, led

Spivack and his colleague, Murray Levine,

to identify ICPS skills that would distinguish delinquent and predelinquent adolescents from their nondelinquent peers.

They discovered two such skills—meansends thinking and weighing pros and cons

(Spivack and Levine, 1963).

◆ Means-ends thinking is a skill used to

reach a stated interpersonal goal (e.g.,

making friends). With this approach, a

person plans step-by-step, sequenced

means to reach that goal (e.g., talk to

a group leader and show him how to

play basketball). The person then

identifies potential obstacles that could

interfere with reaching that goal (e.g.,

the leader does not like basketball)

and appreciates that problem solving

takes time. For example, 3 months

later, a few kids see the young boy

practicing shooting goals with a

hockey stick and ask him to teach

them how to shoot goals. The young

boy makes several friends.

◆ Weighing pros and cons is a skill used

to decide whether to carry out an interpersonal act (e.g., going to a party

This Bulletin describes intervention

methods, their importance, and their impact as evaluated through research studies and explores implementation and

policy issues relevant to training and information dissemination.

Raising a Thinking Child is a culturefree, primary prevention program for parents and their children ages 4 to 7. It is

derived from a curriculum that was developed for use in schools. Originally called

“Interpersonal Cognitive Problem Solving”

(ICPS), the curriculum is now called “I

Can Problem Solve” (also ICPS). Helping

children think about ways to solve interpersonal problems when they are very

young helps them grow into thinking, feeling human beings who will be able to

make good decisions when they reach

adolescence and adulthood.

In 1997, Raising a Thinking Child was

recognized as an exemplary juvenile delinquency prevention program by the

Strengthening America’s Families Project,

conducted by the University of Utah and

funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

I Can Problem Solve for schools and

Raising a Thinking Child for families both

received the Lela Rowland Prevention

Award from the National Mental Health

Association in 1982 and were recognized

as model programs by two prevention

task forces of the American Psychological

Association in 1986 and 1993. In 1997,

they were recognized as among the six

top violence prevention programs in a

five-State area by the Mid-Atlantic Region

of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Background and

History

In the mid-1960’s, a predelinquent adolescent boy ran away from a residential

treatment home at 2 a.m. on a Saturday.

He headed toward the city by way of the

railroad tracks. George Spivack, the boy’s

therapist and research director of the

treatment home, rescued him and asked

him why he was leaving the home at 2

a.m. and walking down the train tracks.

“I need to go shopping,” the boy replied.

Spivack asked if the boy knew that stores

were closed on Sundays. “I didn’t think of

that,” said the boy. Spivack asked if the

boy knew that walking down railroad

tracks was dangerous. “No. I didn’t think

of that,” the boy repeated. Spivack asked

the boy one more question. “Don’t you

know you’ll get in trouble for going

the night before an examination). A

person may process the decision by

thinking, “If I go to the party I’ll see my

friends and have fun, but I might fail

my exam and get into trouble,” or “If I

don’t go to the party I’ll miss meeting

the beautiful girl who just moved into

the neighborhood, but I’ll have more

time to study and I’ll get a good grade

on my test.”

In 1968, Spivack teamed up with Myrna

Shure to continue investigating whether

children who behave differently think differently. Their first study together (1972)

compared youth in a school for diagnostically disturbed juveniles, ages 9 to 12,

with peers in regular public schools

(Shure and Spivack, 1972). Although the

weighing of pros and cons did not distinguish these two groups, means-ends

thinking did. In their second study, Shure

and Spivack (1980) then tested this age

group in a more homogeneous sample of

normal public school fifth-graders who

displayed varying degrees of behavioral

difficulties. Youth deficient in means-ends

thinking were more likely to display impulsive antisocial behaviors such as

physical and verbal aggression, inability

to delay gratification, overemotionality

in the face of frustration, inability to

make friends, and less tendency to show

empathy or sympathy to others in distress than youth with competent meansends thinking skills. These findings have

been substantiated by Pelligrini (1985)

and by studies of homogeneous groups in
3

verbal attempts to conceptualize relevant

responses to these tests. Further analyses

revealed that youth able to think of both

alternative solutions and means-ends

plans were the most prosocial and the

least impulsive or inhibited of all (Shure,

1985). The significance of alternative solution thinking to behavior has also been

confirmed by Asarnow and Callan (1985)

in a sample of fourth to sixth grade boys

(girls were not studied).

ICPS Skills in 4- to

8-Year-Olds

Interested in identifying the relationship between ICPS skills and behavior at

different age levels, Shure and Spivack

also studied children as young as 4 years

of age. Deficiencies in two ICPS skills—

alternative solution thinking and consequential thinking—were most strongly

associated with impulsiveness, withdrawn behavior, and lack of prosocial

skills in 4- to 8-year-olds.

Alternative Solution Thinking. As

measured by the Preschool Interpersonal

Problem Solving (PIPS) test (Shure and

Spivack, 1992), behaviorally adjusted,

low-income, African-American 4-year-olds

could give more different and relevant

solutions to a problem involving peers

(how to get to play with a toy that another child has) and to a problem

involving parents (how to keep a mother

from being angry after the child had damaged property) than peers showing impulsive or withdrawn behaviors (Spivack

and Shure, 1974). As measured by the

Hahnemann PreSchool Behavior (HPSB)

Rating Scale (Shure and Spivack, 1974),

behaviorally adjusted and socially competent youngsters gave both prosocial

responses to the peer-toy scenario (e.g.,

“Trade a toy,” “Be his friend,” “Say he’ll

just play with it a little while”) and antisocial ones (e.g., “Hit him,” “Grab the toy,”

“Take it when he’s not looking”). Their

more poorly adjusted peers gave fewer

different solutions, though not necessarily more forceful ones. Just as they did in

the peer-toy scenario, behaviorally adjusted youngsters also gave more solutions to the parent scenario (e.g., “Fix it

[the flower pot],” “Hide it [throw it

away],” “Hide”) and more creative ones

(e.g., “Pretend she’s asleep and mommy

can’t spank her,” “Put her favorite flower

in it,” and “Paint it her favorite color”).

The study of the ICPS skills in 4- to

8-year-olds revealed surprising results.

While solutions such as “Say I’m sorry”

and “I made a mistake, I won’t do it

again” are positive, socially acceptable

responses, it was shy and withdrawn

children who were more likely to give

those responses than children who

showed either adjusted behavior or

impulsive behavior. With the more adjusted children giving both forceful and

prosocial solutions and withdrawn children giving apologetic ones, Shure and

Spivack wondered if the important link

to behavior was not what children think,

but how children think. Perhaps the process of thinking of more than one solution guides behavior more than the positive content of just one or two options,

however prosocial in nature they may

be (Shure, Spivack, and Jaeger, 1971;

Spivack and Shure, 1974). In studies

replicated by other researchers in lowincome 4-year-olds (Dimson, 1992;

Turner and Boulter, 1981) and in the

middle class (Arend, Gove, and Sroufe,

institutional settings that compared more

impulsive youth with less impulsive youth

(Larcen, Spivack, and Shure, 1972) and

the most-liked youth with the least-liked

(Higgens and Thies, 1981). In addition,

poor means-ends thinking was characteristic of youth who were more socially

withdrawn, unable to stand up for their

rights, and timid and fearful of others

(Shure, 1980; 1985).

In addition to means-ends thinking and

weighing pros and cons, two other ICPS

skills emerged through the 1980 and 1985

studies.

◆ Alternative solution thinking is the

ability to name unconnected, alternative solutions to a stated problem (instead of connecting sequenced plans).

For example, to make friends, a child

could say, “She could ask him to go

to a movie with her,” or “She could

have a party and invite lots of kids,”

or “She could get another kid to tell

everyone how nice she is.” Welladjusted, more socially competent

children were able to think of more

alternative solutions than their less

well-adjusted classmates.

◆ Consequential thinking is the ability

to think of different things that might

happen in certain situations. For example, David was at Kevin’s house, and

when Kevin wasn’t looking, David put

Kevin’s new ball in his pocket and later

took it home with him. When asked to

state what might happen next rather

than to list pros and cons, better adjusted youth could offer more different, relevant consequences (e.g.,

“Kevin will make David pay for a new

ball,” “He’ll make David apologize,” or

“Call his mother or the police”) and

more empathic responses, including,

“David will feel bad ‘cause Kevin thinks

he lost his ball” (Shure, 1985).

The correlational data revealed that,

among this homogeneous group of lowincome, African-American fifth-graders,

high ICPS skills, especially alternative solution thinking skills, added significantly

to the prediction of prosocial behaviors

such as sharing and caring. Low ICPS

skills contributed to the prediction of

negative, impulsive, and inhibited behaviors. These relationships still held after

the controlling effects for the Wechsler

Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised

Intelligence Quotient (WISC–R IQ) (vocabulary subtest) and academic skills.

In addition, none of the relationships

between ICPS skills and behavior were

statistically explained by the number of
4

1979), lack of alternative solution thinking skills continued to relate to aberrant

behaviors and the absence of prosocial

behaviors in lower income and middleincome children ages 6 to 8 (Johnson,

Yu, and Roopnarine, 1980; McKim et al.,

1982; Richard and Dodge, 1982).

Consequential Thinking. As with older

children in the ICPS study, younger children were asked what might happen next

if a child grabbed a toy from another

child and what would happen if a child

took something from an adult without

first asking [as measured by the What

Happens Next Game (WHNG) test (Shure

and Spivack, 1990)]. Strengths in the combination of solution and consequential

thinking skills distinguished the adjusted

children from other behavior groups.

Weaknesses in both ICPS skills were characteristic of withdrawn children. This did

not necessarily hold in terms of consequential thinking skills found in children

identified as impulsive (Shure, Newman,

and Silver, 1973). Perhaps impulsive children experience the consequences of

their negative behaviors often enough

to be aware of what might happen next.

Perhaps withdrawn children, fearful of

people and problems they cannot solve,

simply give up and do not think about

how to solve problems at all.

Risk and Protective Factors:

The ICPS Link

Research has clearly documented that

beginning as early as preschool (Parker

and Asher, 1987) and escalating in the

middle childhood years (Eron and

Heussman, 1984; Hawkins, Catalino, and

Miller, 1992; Morrison and Masten, 1991;

Spivack, Marcus, and Swift, 1986), antisocial behaviors; poor impulse control, including the inability to delay gratification

and to cope with frustrations; poor peer

relations; and lack of empathy are highrisk predictors of subsequent delinquency, substance abuse, teen pregnancy,

school dropout, and some forms of psychopathology. Early social withdrawal

predicts more internalized problems such

as depression (Rubin and Mills, 1988).

In addition to these risk factors, Arend,

Gove, and Sroufe (1979) and Schiller

(1978) also found that, in middle-income 

4-year-olds, alternative solution thinking

skills related to protective factors such as

resilience. These researchers learned that

those who gave a high number of solutions on the PIPS test were more likely to

behave flexibly, persistently, and resourcefully, especially in problem situatheir problem-solving skills to many situations, no single solution was stressed.

Rather, the focus was to help children

develop the habit of thinking of different

ways, not adult-valued ways, to satisfy

their needs and cope with frustration.

They could then decide for themselves

whether their idea was or was not good in

light of their own and others’ feelings and

of the possible consequences. The goal

was to enhance ICPS skills very early in

life and increase the probability of preventing later, more serious problems.

Preschool and kindergarten teachers

were trained to implement ICPS skills in

their classrooms through games, roleplays, and dialogs applied to real life

(Shure, 1992a; 1992b). The study showed

that the 113 children exposed to the interventions in preschool improved their

problem-solving abilities more than a comparable group of 106 children who were

tested but not trained. The study also

showed that trained youth who improved

their ICPS skills were most likely to show a

decrease in both impulsive and withdrawal

behaviors. These gains were still apparent

when they were measured 1 and 2 years

later. In addition, preschoolers who did

not exhibit behavioral difficulties were less

likely to begin exhibiting them in kindergarten if they were exposed to ICPS training. This was a very important finding because it suggested that no matter how

skilled a child was at solving problems, he

or she could still improve, and that the

continued use of ICPS skills to solve real

problems helped to relieve any anxiety,

frustration, or anger.

The 35 children trained in kindergarten

also improved their ICPS skills and behaviors compared with a control group of 27

children who were never trained, suggesting that although kindergarten is not too

late to expose children to ICPS, those who

were given ICPS training in nursery school

could enjoy their kindergarten year from a

better behavioral vantage point (Shure and

Spivack, 1979a; 1980; 1982).1

Parent Research

Given the positive results of the ICPS

studies, Shure and Spivack adapted the

program to the home. To investigate the

impact that a mother’s means-ends skills

have on her child’s ICPS skills, the researchers administered a battery of tests

tions, than low scorers. Perhaps having

more than one solution available provides

the very flexibility and resourcefulness

that creates a resilient child.

Zachary, a 4-year-old who wanted the

wagon Peter was playing with, illustrates

how cognitive flexibility can relate to behavioral flexibility. When Peter refused

his request, Zachary asked him why he

couldn’t have it. “I need it,” replied Peter.

“I’m pulling the rocks.” Instead of hitting

Peter, grabbing the toy, telling the

teacher, or walking away in despair,

Zachary said, “I can help you pull the

rocks. We can pull the rocks together.”

Peter said, “Okay,” and the two children

went off, happy with their solution. No

adult had to intervene. The children

solved the problem themselves. Children

who can think of several options can, perhaps, avoid experiencing frustration and

failure. They can bounce back and do not

have to give up too soon.

Having identified the link between ICPS

and behavior, Shure and Spivack tested

the hypothesis that ICPS skills mediate

behaviors and that behaviors can be

modified by engaging children in thinking

about their actions, the impact of that

behavior on themselves and others, the

possible consequences of their actions,

and the other options they have. If

exposing children to an intervention that

focuses on thinking skills, rather than directly on behaviors themselves, could

reduce or prevent high-risk behaviors,

there would be a new approach to the primary prevention of violence, substance

abuse, mental health dysfunction, and

other subsequent, serious outcomes.

Early School Intervention

Believing that it would be optimal to

reduce and prevent high-risk behaviors at

the earliest possible age, and with research showing that inner-city, low-income

youth may be at greater risk than their

middle-income peers, Shure and Spivack

began their interventions with urban, primarily African-American children in federally funded daycare programs.

Training strategies grew out of what

was learned from correlational studies,

from what children were observed saying

and doing, and from the theory that understanding a child’s social cognition

could explain why some children are socially competent and others are not. Because the Shure and Spivack research

suggested that the process of thinking,

not the content, helps children apply

1

 ICPS has also been conducted in grades 5 and 6

(Shure, 1992c), with research results reported in Shure

and Healey (1993).
5

measuring problem-solving skills and

styles of handling problems that arise at

home to 40 low-income African-American

mothers of 4-year-olds. The tests that

yielded the most interesting results involved child-related stories and childrearing style.

◆ Means-Ends Thinking: Child-Related

Stories. Each mother was given the

beginning and ending of a story depicting hypothetical problems between a

mother and child, or between two children, and asked to explain what can

happen in between to produce the outcome. For example, in one story, a child

is depicted as unhappy and unmotivated to go out and socialize with his or

her friends. The test scored the number

of means to the stated goal (e.g., “Get

him a toy and he’ll want to go out and

show it to the kids”), the number of obstacles (e.g., “But she can’t afford a new

toy right now” or “He’s afraid the kids

would break it”), and the number of

statements of time the mother could

produce (e.g., “For 3 days we talked

about it, and he finally went out and

talked with the kids”).

◆ Childrearing Style. Each mother was

given six general categories of typical

problems that arise in the home,

such as a child wanting something he

can’t have or refusing a request. The

mother was asked to relate, as best

as she could, everything she said or

did in that situation and everything

her child said or did (or what might

happen if the problem occurred).

While no claim was made that mothers always reported exact details of

what took place (although that was

the stated intent), their reports were

still an indication of their ability to

think about handling problems that

came up.

Test Results

The testing showed that a mother’s

means-ends skills regarding hypothetical

child-related problems have a direct impact on her childrearing style, with high

means-ends scorers being more likely

to offer positive suggestions in real life

and/or explanations of the impact of an

act on another. Low means-ends scorers

are more likely to handle real problems

with negative punishment, threats,

demands, and commands (Shure and

Spivack, 1978). A mother’s child-related

means-ends problem-solving ability and

her childrearing style were correlated

with her child’s ICPS skills. Curiously, in

two studies, this occurred only if the

child was a girl (Shure and Spivack, 1978).

While one might conjecture that boys, no

more deficient in their ICPS ability than

girls, learn ICPS skills from their fathers,

more than 75 percent of this sample came

from homes in which the father was absent. Flaherty (1978) found that, among

30 low-income intact families, the same

correlation existed between mothers and

their 5-year-old daughters but not between fathers and either their daughters

or sons, a finding replicated in the middle

class by Howie (1977). Although the way

boys acquire their ICPS skills has still not

been identified, the question became

whether mothers could learn to be effective training agents for their children and

whether systematic ICPS intervention at

home could equally affect the thinking

skills and behavioral adjustment of boys

and girls (for further discussion of the

natural parental impact on a child’s ICPS

skills, see Shure and Spivack, 1978).

Raising a Thinking

Child: The Parent

Interventions

After an initial pilot study of 10 lowincome African-American mothers and

their 4-year-old children showed that training mothers to teach problem-solving skills

to their children at home produced behavior gains at school (Shure and Spivack,

1978), a more systematic study examined

how, and if, change in mothers’ ICPS skills

and childrearing style would affect their

children’s ICPS skills and/or behavior

(Shure and Spivack, 1978).

Before training, many mothers were

just as preoccupied with their own needs

for their children (“You must learn to

share your toys”) as their children were

with theirs (“But I did share, now I want it

back!”). Therefore, the goals for mothers

were to (1) increase their awareness that

the child’s point of view might differ from

their own; (2) help them recognize that

there is more than one way to solve a

problem; (3) increase their understanding

that thinking about what is happening

may, in the long run, be more beneficial

than immediate action to stop the behavior; and (4) help them provide their children with a model of problem-solving

thinking—that is, a thinking parent might

inspire a child to think.

Session Content

Each week, for 10 weeks, parents were

given text from a manual and pictures and

puppets with which to play specific ICPS

games with their children. Parents were

also instructed on how to use the weekly

concepts in problem and nonproblem

situations. The sequence of sessions was

as follows.

Weeks 1–3: A Problem-Solving Vocabulary. In this unit, the family was introduced to ICPS words, a set of carefully

chosen vocabulary words that set the

stage for problem-solving thinking. By

associating learning with fun, children

learned selected word pairs in a game format that demonstrated problem-solving

thinking. For example, the words is and

not were taught so children could think

about whether their idea for solving a

problem “is or is not a good one.” The

word pair before/after was taught to help

children think about what happened

before a fight began. For example, “Did he

hit me before or after I hit him?” The word

pairs same/different and why/because

help children think about new solutions
6

to problematic situations, such as obtaining a toy from another child. For example,

“Hitting and kicking are kind of the same

because they can both hurt someone. I

can think of something different to do that

will not hurt someone.”

Weeks 4–6: Emotional Awareness/

Preference Recognition. Once the children learned to identify people’s feelings,

they learned to become sensitive to

them. The goal of this unit was to build

on the ICPS words to teach children that

there is more than one way to decipher

how someone feels, namely by listening,

by watching, and by asking. In addition

to learning these different ways to find

out about people, children learned that

different people can feel different ways

about the same issue (e.g., a messy

room, climbing on the furniture). They

learned that sensitivity to the preferences of others is also important in deciding what to do in situations (e.g., “I

like dolls but he does not”). This kind of

perspective taking helps children think

about what would make a friend happy

and what would not. Using previously

learned concepts, children learned that,

if one way of making someone happy is

not successful, it is possible to try a different way.

Weeks 7–10: Problem-Solving Thinking Skills. In this unit, the children played

games that required them to use skills

learned in the first 6 weeks to think of

alternative solutions to hypothetical problems. They also learned to use other ICPS

words such as might and maybe to answer

the question, “What might happen if? (e.g.,

‘What might happen if someone pushes

someone down to get them out of their

way?’)”

Exercises for Parents. At appropriate

points in the training, the parents were

given exercises to help them:

◆ Think about their own feelings and

become sensitive to their children’s

feelings.

◆ Find out how their child viewed the

problem.

◆ Engage the child in the process of solving the problem through ICPS dialoging

(see below).

Program Structure

After the first meeting, usually an overview of the program and exposure to the

first week’s lessons, each group meeting

began with the parents describing their

successes and failures during the previous week. For the first hour, this discussion and the lessons for the week were

enacted through demonstration and roleplay, with parents practicing the lessons

with each other. The second hour was

devoted to steps toward ICPS dialoging

when real problems come up at home.

This led to full dialogs, which included:

◆ “What happened, what’s the problem?”

◆ “How do you think he feels when . . . ?”

(e.g., “When you hit him?”)

◆ “What happened next?”

◆ “How did that make you feel?”

◆ “Can you think of a different way to

solve the problem?”

The parents were also taught how to

shorten the dialog after they and their

children had become familiar with the

approach. Eventually, the parents could

just ask, “Can you think of a different way

to tell him [me] how you feel?” or, “Can

you think of a different place to leave your

toys?” In the final half hour of the meeting, the parents were invited to bring up

problems that had come up but had not

been discussed. With leader supervision,

they then discussed ways to use the ICPS

dialoging techniques. In the group meetings, the parents developed a sense of

community. Some called each other between meetings to find out how they were

doing with a particular lesson or to ask

for help with problems that came about.

Results

Relative to matched controls, mothers

who went through the training significantly

improved both in ability to solve hypothetical child-related problems and in

childrearing style. The following story

shows how a trained mother created a

means-ends story about hypothetical siblings who were fighting. In the exercise, the

mother was instructed to finish the story

in a way that would have her children end

up happy. This would solve the problem;

merely ending the fighting would not.

Trained mother: First she tells

them she is sorry they are so upset

(means). She asks one of them to

tell her what happened (means).

The older boy said his younger

brother lost his racing car. So she

asked, “Why don’t you make a game

of it and look for it together”

(means). The younger brother says

he doesn’t want to look for the racing car (obstacle). The older brother

waits for the younger brother to be

in a better mood (time) and suggests that “whoever finds it first

wins a prize.” The mother agreed to

go along with this (means), and

both of the boys looked for the racing car. Finally, the younger boy

found the racing car. The mother

didn’t want another fight over the

prize, so she gave a treat to both of

the boys, letting the younger one

have first choice (means). That was

fair. The mother asked them if they

were happy now, and they both said

yes.

The subject mother recognized an obstacle that could potentially interfere with

reaching the goal but did not portray the

story mother as insisting that the boys

stop the fighting and look for the car immediately. Depicting her older son as

waiting for his younger brother to be in a

better mood—thereby conceptualizing

both time (the ability to wait) and timing

(exercising good judgment)—the story

mother allowed the children to think the

situation through and accepted the solutions the children chose. What is being

tested in this example is the extent to

which the trained mother included the

components of means-ends thinking in

her story. This mother included all three

components—means, obstacles, and time.

Because it is a story the trained mother is

making up, it does not matter which character in the story performs the actions.

What is important is that the trained

mother understands the concepts of

means-ends thinking and recognizes how

they can be used in communicating with

children. Mothers who best learned to

plan step-by-step means to solve a problem involving a hypothetical child, who

were most likely to anticipate potential

obstacles, and who allowed the child to

generate solutions and consequences

were also more likely to apply the ICPS

dialoging techniques in real life, as measured by their childrearing style.

In contrast to the pretest findings of

the mother’s problem-solving skills being

related only to their daughters, both boys

and girls improved in ICPS skills and behavior. Before training, mothers with the

highest scores for childrearing style offered suggestions and explained consequences, but very few elicited the child’s

view of the problem or possible solutions.

The finding that children who showed

behavioral difficulties could improve by

learning ICPS skills and mastering their

use was particularly encouraging (Shure

and Spivack, 1979b). Another encouraging

finding was that inner-city mothers, many
7

of whom were initially ICPS-deficient,

could become effective training agents in

only 3 months. That children trained in

one setting (home) could improve their

behavior in another setting (school) is

believed to be a result of teaching the

children how and not what to think. Having been guided to solve their own problems, rather than given solutions each

time a conflict or need occurred, the children learned skills that enabled them to

generalize when new problems confronted them. As rated by teachers blind

to the training process, impulsive children learned more effective ways to obtain their wish when it was obtainable

and to cope with the frustration when it

was not, and withdrawn children no

longer had to deny their desires and withdraw from interpersonal confrontation.

Five-Year Longitudinal

Study

A study of children from kindergarten

through fourth grade (Shure, 1993), funded

by the National Institute of Mental Health,

was the culmination of 20 years of research to test the ICPS/behavioral mediation hypothesis. Children were trained by

their kindergarten teachers, some were

retrained by their first-grade teachers, and

some were retrained by their mothers. All

were compared with children who were

only trained in kindergarten or never

trained at all.

In addition to studying the longer range

impact of ICPS training, Shure made

clearer distinctions to define how parents

and teachers talk to, or with, children

when real problems occur (Shure, 1997b).

She delineated four levels of communication to distinguish ICPS dialoging (asking

techniques) from negative punishment and

from even more positive suggestions or

giving explanations (telling techniques).

◆ Level l: Power assertion (demands,

belittles, punishes).

❖ Do it because I say so!

❖ Do you want a spanking?

❖ How many times have I told you . . . !

❖ If you can’t share the truck, I’ll take it

away and neither of you can have it.

◆ Level 2: Positive alternative (no

explanation).

❖ I’m on the phone now, go watch TV.

❖ Ask him for the truck.

❖ You should share your toys.

◆ Level 3: Induction (explanations and

reasons).

❖ I feel angry when you interrupt me.

❖ If you hit, you’ll lose a friend (hurt

him).

❖ You’ll make him angry if you hit him

(grab toys).

❖ You shouldn’t hit (grab). It’s not nice.

◆ Level 4: Problem-solving process,

ICPS dialoging.

❖ What’s the problem? What’s the

matter?

❖ How do you think I (she/he) feel(s)

when you hit (grab)?

❖ What happened (might happen)

when you did (do) that?

❖ Can you think of a different way to

solve this problem (tell him/her/me

how you feel)?

❖ Do you think that is or is not a good

idea? Why (why not)?

In 1972, in the fall of their kindergarten

year (the beginning of the study), 542 lowincome African-American public school

children (264 boys, 278 girls) were studied, of whom 120 boys and 132 girls were

still available at the end of fourth grade

(Shure, 1993). Of these, 46 were trained

by their mothers (27 boys and 19 girls in

first grade, following teacher training in

kindergarten). By fourth grade, 27 of the

46 mother-trained children were still

available for study, a percentage typical

for low-income African-American youth.

The remainder could no longer be located

in the school system, which suggested

that they had moved out of the city or

enrolled in private schools. The results

presented below are all statistically

significant.

◆ Among the 200 boys and 180 girls still

remaining at the end of the first grade

(first training assessment), children

who were trained by their kindergarten

teachers, children who were trained by

their kindergarten and first grade

teachers, and children who were

trained by their kindergarten teachers

and by their mothers in first grade

were, compared with controls, significantly ahead in ICPS skills, especially

alternative solution skills. They also

had significantly lower mean scores on

negative behaviors, as rated by independent observers on the Direct Observation Form (Achenbach and

Edelbrock, 1983) and significantly

higher mean scores on rated positive

behaviors. This was especially true for

those who were trained for 2 years by

their teachers.

◆ In the second grade, 162 boys and 162

girls still remained. Alternative solution thinking, superior in all three

trained groups at the end of the first

grade, remained so at the end of the

second grade, with the 2-year teachertrained group maintaining their superiority in both sexes. The mother-trained

children were the least impulsive, the

least withdrawn, and showed the fewest behavior problems as observed by

independent raters. The same was true

for the boys trained by teachers for 1

or 2 years.

◆ After some slippage in behavior in the

third grade, the 120 boys and 132 girls

still available for the study in the

fourth grade showed superior alternative solution thinking skills in all

trained groups, with 2-year teachertrained children emerging as the best

adjusted group of all. Among parenttrained children, those whose mothers

ICPS Dialoging

Below is how one ICPS-trained mother used

level 4 ICPS dialoging with her 4-year-old

son who hit his friend.

Mother: What happened? What’s the problem? (eliciting child’s view of the problem).

Child: He hit me first.

Mother: What happened before he hit you?

(using ICPS vocabulary word “before” is

less threatening than an accusatory question such as “Why did you hit him?”).

Child: I took his toy.

Mother: What happened when you hit him?

Child: He hit me back.

Mother: How do you think he feels when you

take his toys and hit him? (guiding the child

to think of other’s feelings).

Child: Mad.

Mother: And how did you feel when he hit

you? (guiding child to think of his feelings too).

Child: Mad.

Mother: You’re mad and he’s mad. Can you

think of a different way to solve this problem?
8

best applied problem-solving dialoging

(measured 3 years earlier) were still

maintaining their significant behavior

gains at the end of the fourth grade,

when the study was completed.

After a while, ICPS dialogs can be

shortened. One mother watching her two

sons, ages 5 and 3, playing tug-of-war over

a truck simply asked, “Can you two think

of a different way to solve this problem?”

The 5-year-old told his brother that he

could have the truck for a little while, but

when it was his turn, he’d have to give it

back. Before ICPS training, this mother

would have taken the toy away and told

her sons, “If you two can’t share, I’ll put it

away,” leaving both children angry and

frustrated instead of proud of their own

solution.

Replication

Replication of the positive behavioral

impact of ICPS and ICPS-inspired schoolbased interventions are described in detail in Spivack and Shure (1982), Denham

and Almeida (1987), and, more recently, in

Shure (1997a; 1997b). There have also

been successful replications of outcome

measures of ICPS training with parents as

well. Staff from the Mental Health Association in Illinois, who conducted 7

weeks of training with parents of culturally diverse backgrounds, found that

children learned to express their feelings, think of alternative solutions to

problems, and identify possible consequences. Although behavior was not

measured, parents reported a change in

their own parenting style (use of ICPS

dialoging) and new insights into their

children’s thinking (Caravello, 1992).

Qualitative analyses of middle- to upperincome parents yielded the same reported improvements as those measured

by systematic rating scales in children

(Baumgardner, 1996), suggesting that the

generic approach of ICPS is not limited

to use with any one specific ethnic or

income group.

Training Parents of Children

With Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder

With single subject design, Aberson

(1996) taught ICPS to parents of three second grade children with attention deficit

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Measured

by teacher and parent ratings on the Behavior Assessment System for Children

(BASC) Rating Scale (Reynolds and

Kamphaus, 1992) and self-reports, the

scores of all three children improved from

pre- to post-training on measured depression (e.g., feeling sad, sudden mood

changes) and, as rated by their parents,

the children had decreased their conduct

problems and increased their ability to

relate well to others. These parent-trained

children also improved in conduct grades

on their report cards as rated by their

teachers and in their interpersonal relationships. These behavioral improvements

remained at 6-month followup assessment.

It is notable that, as in the 1978 Shure/

Spivack study of nondiagnosed children,

these ADHD children generalized their behavior from the setting in which they were

trained (the home) to another setting (the

school). While hyperactivity and the ability to focus may have to be controlled with

medication, Aberson’s data suggest that

problem-solving skills and behavior can

be improved through the use of ICPS

strategies. While more research is

needed, it is important to recognize that

trained ADHD children can learn how to

handle anger, find alternative ways to

express their anger, and recognize consequences of their behavior, all of which

address risk factors that, combined with

poor behavior and no training, could

contribute to an overall pattern of failure

in school and to later delinquency and/

or other serious outcomes.

Anecdotal Data

Aberson reports that one of the ADHD

children (a lower middle-income girl)

would not do her homework, resulting in

a constant power struggle in which the

mother (a single parent) lost her temper

and the child failed at school. After ICPS

training, the mother reported listening

more to her child, asking the child how

she thinks the mother feels when they

have to argue and how this problem

could be solved. Now the child talks to

her mother and does her homework.

When Aberson asked, “What are you

thinking when you are doing your homework and getting it done?” the child

gleefully exclaimed, “I want to get my work

done so my mom and teacher will feel

proud of me” (a feeling word that is used in

the program). This child’s grades improved

and, as measured by her self-report, so too

did her sense of control over her world (locus of control) and self-esteem.

Another child (a middle-income Cuban

boy) was initially very dependent on his

mother. He would not get dressed in the

morning, had to be given his toothbrush,

and so on, which resulted in fighting between his parents (the father resented the

mother “babying” him). One day during

training, the boy asked his mother for an

allowance. His mother asked him what he

could do to get an allowance and the boy

answered, “I can pick up the leaves around

the pool and water the plants.” The next

day he woke up his parents, dressed and

ready for school. When his mom asked

(very surprised), “Why are you up so

early?,” her son said, “I want to get my job

done before I go to school so I can play

with my friend after school.” This kind of

planning ahead had never occurred before.

Guide to

Implementation

There are several possible ways to

implement Raising a Thinking Child. Now

in workbook form for children ages 3 to 7

(Shure, 1996b), the program provides a
9

set of interactive exercises with pictures

children can color, circle, or draw lines

through and exercises for parents to help

them move to the problem-solving stage

of the process.

One training model is for a parent

educator to meet with a small group of

parents for a period of 6 weeks (after

which most will ask for more time). The

first meeting consists of parents talking

about what is important to them and

what they want for their children. The

trainer also talks about ICPS dialoging:

how it will be a change from the way

they are used to talking with their children and how they will ease into it

slowly, one step at a time. Each week the

trainer assigns homework from the workbook (at least 3 days’ worth for the parent to conduct with the child and at least

one parent exercise). At each meeting,

parents “show and tell” the pictures their

children decorated, followed by discussions on how they handled problems

they encountered on the four levels of

communication described above. As the

meetings progress, parents role-play,

practice using ICPS vocabulary words in

different situations, and talk about their

own feelings in various situations, their

children’s feelings, and ways to guide

their children to think of solutions and

consequences to problems.

A second model presents parents with

Raising a Thinking Child in book form

(Shure, 1996a), a format that includes

games and exercises but is less interactive than the workbook. Aberson merely

encourages the parents she trains to read

the book on their own (in that they are all

competent readers) and focuses upon

dialoging in the group meetings.

Another model, implemented by

Sandra Baumgardner at the DuPage

County Health Department in Illinois, includes the children in the meetings. In the

first hour, one trainer works with the parents, another with the children in a separate room. In the second hour, the children join their parents and show them

what they have learned. Some demonstrations of new games from the book or the

workbook include the children from the

beginning.

Workshops for parent educators

can also vary from a half day to 2 days,

depending on funding. It is always preferable for followup training to occur, not

only to fine tune the trainers’ knowledge

and abilities, but to support them in their

work.

Policy Implications

To the extent that parents who teach

ICPS skills to their children can help them

prepare for school and help them learn,

ICPS intervention can also be included as

part of the Parent Involvement initiative

that is now a focus of schools nationwide.

Goal 1 of the National Education Goals

2000 includes the objective “Every parent

in the United States will be a child’s first

teacher and devote time each day to helping such parent’s preschool child learn,

and parents will have access to the training and support parents need.” Goal 8

from the same report states, “By the year

2000, every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the

social, emotional, and academic growth of

children” (National Education Goals

Panel, 1997), which is especially relevant

for ICPS.

 Although ICPS was not designed to

directly improve school achievement,

both parent-trained and teacher-trained

children, as early as the first grade, did

better on standardized achievement tests

and/or grade-book levels in reading and

math. Perhaps some children who are failing at school do not need more emphasis

placed on academic subjects, but would

be better able to focus on those subjects

if they were relieved of any emotional

blockage that might be interfering with

their ability to concentrate. It is logical to

conclude that, regardless of IQ (never

found to explain the ICPS/behavior linkages), once behaviors mediated through

ICPS skills do improve, children can better absorb the task-oriented demands of

the classroom and subsequently do better in school.

To the extent that poor school achievement is a high-risk predictor of dropping

out of school, delinquency, substance

abuse, and other serious outcomes and

that ICPS reduces and prevents those

early high-risk behaviors, the I Can Problem Solve and Raising a Thinking Child

interventions can support National Education Goal 7, that “By the year 2000, every school in the United States will be free

of drugs, violence, and the unauthorized

presence of firearms and alcohol and will

offer a disciplined environment conducive

to learning” (National Education Goals

Panel, 1997).

If children can learn to think about the

problems that are important to them

early in life, they will be better equipped

to handle the more serious issues of drug

use, violent behavior, unsafe sex, and

other problems that will confront them in

middle school, junior high school, high

school, and beyond.

For Further

Information

For more information about training on

the Raising a Thinking Child and I Can

Problem Solve programs for your school

or agency, contact Myrna B. Shure, Ph.D.,

MCP Hahnemann University, Broad and

Vine, MS 626, Philadelphia, PA 19102; 

215–762–7205 (phone), 215–762–8625

(fax); mshure@drexel.edu (e-mail).

For more information on the Raising a

Thinking Child program for families, consult the following publications by Dr.

Shure:

Raising a Thinking Child. Help Your

Young Child to Resolve Everyday Conflicts

and Get Along With Others, New York, NY:

Pocketbooks, 1996. 800–456–6798. (Also

available in bookstores.)

Raising a Thinking Child Workbook.

New York, NY: Henry Holt, 1996. Organizations (bulk orders): 212–674–5151, ext.

573; individuals and schools: 888–330–

8477. (Training manual for parents and

parent educators.)

Raising a Thinking Child, New York, NY:

BDD Audio Publications, 1996. (Available

from the author.)

For more information on the I Can

Problem Solve program for schools, consult the following publications by Dr.

Shure (all are available from Research

Press in Champaign, IL, 800–519–2707):

I Can Problem Solve (ICPS): An Interpersonal Cognitive Problem Solving Program

[preschool], 1992.

I Can Problem Solve (ICPS): An Interpersonal Cognitive Problem Solving Program

[kindergarten/primary grades], 1992.

I Can Problem Solve (ICPS): An Interpersonal Cognitive Problem Solving Program

[intermediate elementary grades], 1992.

(Training manuals for teachers and

school personnel.)

The following additional resources are

also available:

D. Goleman, Emotional Intelligence,

New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1995. 

800–323–9872.

How To Raise and Teach a Thinking

Child, Plantation, FL: Specialty Press,

1998. 800–233–9273. (Video.)
10

References

Aberson, B. 1996. An intervention for

improving executive functioning and social/emotional adjustment of ADHD children: Three single case design studies.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Miami,

FL: Miami Institute of Psychology.

Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S.

1983. Manual for Child Behavior Checklist

and Revised Child Behavior Profile. Department of Child Psychiatry, Burlington,

VT: University of Vermont.

Arend, R., Gove, F.L., and Sroufe, A.L.

1979. Continuity of individual adaptation

from infancy to kindergarten: A predictive

study of ego-resiliency and curiosity in

preschoolers. Child Development 50:950–

959.

Asarnow, J.R., and Callan, J.W. 1985.

Boys with peer adjustment problems.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 53:80–87.

Baumgardner, S. 1996. ICPS family education series: Evaluation summary. Unpublished manuscript. Wheaton, IL:

DuPage County Health Department.

Caravello, L.M. 1992. Interpersonal Cognitive Problem Solving. Problem Solving

Techniques in Childrearing. A report on

the parent pilot project, 1991–92. Chicago,

IL: Mental Health Association.

Denham, S.A., and Almeida, M.C. 1987.

Children’s social problem solving skills,

behavioral adjustment, and interventions:

A meta-analysis evaluating theory and

practice. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 8:391–409.

Dimson, C. 1992. Interpersonal cognitive problem solving and behavioral adjustment in preschoolers. Unpublished

master’s degree thesis. Hayward, CA: California State University.

Eron, L.D., and Huesman, L.R. 1984.

The relation of prosocial behavior to

the development of aggression and psychopathology. Aggressive Behavior

10:201–211.

Flaherty, E. 1978. Parental Influence on

Children’s Social Cognition. Final Summary

Report No. 298033. Washington, DC: National Institute of Mental Health.

Hawkins, J.D., Catalino, R.K., and Miller.

J.Y. 1992. Risk and protective factors for

alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood. Implications for substance abuse. Psychological

Bulletin 112:64–105.

Higgins, J.P., and Thies, A.P. 1981. Problem solving and social position among

emotionally disturbed boys. American

Journal of Orthopsychiatry 51:356–358.

Howie, R.D. 1977. The relationship between interpersonal problem solving ability of 4-year-olds and parental values and

attitudes. Unpublished paper. Millersville,

PA: Millersville State College.

Johnson, J.E., Yu, S., and Roopnarine, J.

1980 (March). Social cognitive ability, interpersonal behaviors, and peer status

within a mixed age group. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southwestern Society for Research in Human Development, Lawrence, KA.

Larcen, S.W., Spivack, G., and Shure,

M.B. 1972 (April). Problem-solving thinking and adjustment among dependentneglected preadolescents. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern

Psychological Association, Boston, MA.

McKim, B.J., Weissberg, R.P., Cowen,

E.L., Gesten, E.L., and Rapkin, B.D. 1982. A

comparison of the problem-solving ability

and adjustment of suburban and urban

third grade children. American Journal of

Community Psychology 10:155–169.

Morrison, P., and Masten, A.S. 1991.

Peer reputation in middle childhood as a

predictor of adaptation in adolescence. A

seven year followup. Child Development

62:991–1007.

National Education Goals Panel. 1997.

The National Education Goals Report:

Building a Nation of Learners. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp.

xiv–xvii.

Parker, J.G., and Asher, S.R. 1987. Peer

relations and later personal adjustment:

Are low-accepted children ‘at risk’? Psychological Bulletin 102:357–389.

Pelligrini, D.S. 1985. Social cognition

and competence in middle childhood.

Child Development 56:253–264.

Reynolds, C.R., and Kamphaus, R.W.

1992. Behavior Assessment System for Children. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Richard, B.A., and Dodge, K.A. 1982. Social maladjustment and problem solving in

school-aged children. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology 50:226–233.

Rubin, K.H., and Mills, R. 1988. The

many faces of social isolation in childhood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology 56:916–924.

Schiller, J.D. 1978. Child care arrangements and ego functioning: The effects of

stability and entry age on young children.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.

Shure, M.B. 1980. Interpersonal Problem

Solving in Ten-Year-Olds. Final Report

#MH–27741. Washington, DC: National Institute of Mental Health.

Shure, M.B. 1985. Problem Solving and

Mental Health of Ten- to Twelve-Year-Olds.

Final Report #MH–35989. Washington, DC:

National Institute of Mental Health.

Shure, M.B. 1992a. I Can Problem Solve

(ICPS): An Interpersonal Cognitive Problem

Solving Program [preschool]. Champaign,

IL: Research Press.

Shure, M.B. 1992b. I Can Problem Solve

(ICPS): An Interpersonal Cognitive Problem

Solving Program [kindergarten/primary

grades]. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Shure, M.B. 1992c. I Can Problem Solve

(ICPS): An Interpersonal Cognitive Problem

Solving Program [intermediate elementary

grades]. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Shure, M.B. 1993. Interpersonal Problem

Solving and Prevention. A Comprehensive

Report of Research and Training. Report

#MH–40801. Washington, DC: National Institute of Mental Health.

Shure, M.B. 1996a. Raising a Thinking

Child. Help Your Young Child to Resolve

Everyday Conflicts and Get Along With

Others. New York, NY: Pocketbooks.

Shure, M.B. 1996b. Raising a Thinking

Child Workbook. New York, NY: Henry Holt.

Shure, M.B. 1997a. Interpersonal cognitive problem solving: Primary prevention

of early high-risk behaviors in the preschool and primary years. In Primary Prevention Works, edited by G.W. Albee and

T.P. Gullotta. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, pp. 167–188.

Shure, M.B. 1997b. How to think, not

what to think: A cognitive approach to

prevention of early high-risk behaviors in

children. A discussion paper, Pennsylvania Child and Adolescent Service System

Program (CASSP) Training and Technical

Assistance Institute, Harrisburg, PA.

Shure, M.B., and Healey, K.N. 1993 (August). Interpersonal problem solving and

prevention in urban school children. Paper presented at the meeting of the

American Psychological Association,

Toronto, CA.
11

Shure, M.B., Newman, S., and Silver, S.

1973 (May). Problem solving thinking

among adjusted, impulsive and inhibited

Head Start children. Paper presented at

the meeting of the Eastern Psychological

Association, Washington, DC.

Shure, M.B., and Spivack, G. 1972.

Means-ends thinking, adjustment and social class among elementary school-aged

children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology 38:348–353.

Shure, M.B., and Spivack, G. 1974. The

Hahnemann Preschool Behavior (HPSB)

Rating Scale. Philadelphia, PA: Department of Mental Health Sciences,

Hahnemann University.

Shure, M.B., and Spivack, G. 1978. Problem Solving Techniques in Childrearing.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shure, M.B., and Spivack, G. 1979a. Interpersonal cognitive problem solving and primary prevention: Programming for preschool and kindergarten children. Journal of

Clinical Child Psychology (Summer):89–94.

Shure, M.B., and Spivack, G. 1979b. Interpersonal problem solving thinking and

adjustment in the mother-child dyad. In

The Primary Prevention of Psychopathology,

edited by M.W. Kent and J.E. Rolf. Vol. 3 of

Social Competence in Children. Hanover,

NH: University Press of New England, pp.

201–219.

Shure, M.B., and Spivack, G. 1980. Interpersonal problem solving as a mediator of

behavioral adjustment in preschool and

kindergarten children. Journal of Applied

Developmental Psychology 1:29–43.

Shure, M.B., and Spivack, G. 1982. Interpersonal problem solving in young children. A cognitive approach to prevention.

American Journal of Community Psychology

10:341–356.

Shure, M.B., and Spivack, G. 1990 (Revised from 1974). The What Happens Next

Game (WHNG) Test: Manual. Philadelphia,

PA: Department of Mental Health Sciences, Hahnemann University.

Shure, M.B., and Spivack, G. 1992 (Revised from 1974). Preschool Interpersonal

Problem Solving (PIPS) Test: Manual. Philadelphia, PA: Department of Mental Health

Sciences, Hahnemann University.

Shure, M.B., Spivack, G., and Jaeger,

M.A. 1971. Problem-solving thinking and

adjustment among disadvantaged preschool children. Child Development

42:1791–1803.

Spivack, G., and Levine, M. 1963. SelfRegulation in Acting-Out and Normal Adolescents. Report M–453l. Washington, DC:

National Institute of Mental Health.

Spivack, G., Marcus, J., and Swift, M.

1986. Early classroom behaviors and later

misconduct. Developmental Psychology

22:124–131.

Spivack, G., and Shure, M.B. 1974. Social Adjustment of Young Children. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Spivack, G., and Shure, M.B. 1982. Interpersonal cognitive problem solving and

clinical theory. In Advances in Clinical Psychology, vol. 5, edited by B. Lahey and

A.E. Kazdin. New York, NY: Plenum, pp.

323–372.

Turner, R.R., and Boulter, L.K. 1981

(August). Predicting social competence:

The validity of the PIPS. Paper presented

at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA.

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We

encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and

reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP

and the author of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as

how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP

materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and

questions to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5600 (Fax)

E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the author and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.

Acknowledgments

This Bulletin was written by Myrna B.

Shure, Ph.D., professor at MCP

Hahnemann University, Philadelphia,

PA. She would like to thank George

Spivack for his contributions to the

research described in this Bulletin

and all the schools, parents, and

children who participated in the

study. All ICPS parent and school

research in this Bulletin was funded

by the Applied Research Branch and

the Prevention Research Branch of

the National Institute of Mental

Health, Washington, D.C.

All photographs copyright © 1998

Corbis Corporation.
NCJ 172847

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Bulletin

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91