The empirical literature, however, does not uniformly support the claim that "more experience equals better problem solving" (Baltes, 1997; Berg, 1989; Cornelius and Caspi, 1987). Recent research suggests that strategies are differentially effective depending on the context of the everyday problem (Berg, 1989; Ceci and Bronfenbrenner, 1985; Cornelius and Caspi, 1987; Scribner, 1986). Thus, Cornelius and Caspi (1987) showed that different types of strategies (problem-focused action, cognitive problem analysis, passive-dependent behavior, and avoidant thinking and denial) were viewed as differentially effective in different contexts.

Findings regarding the localization of age differences are also somewhat contradictory. The often-cited trend in the literature is that older adults tend to use more secondary control (e.g., Heckhausen and Schulz, 1995) and less problem-focused action or primary control (Folkman et al., 1987) when compared to younger adults. Blanchard-Fields et al. (1995) found minimal age differences in problem-focused action. Furthermore, Berg et al. (1998) reported age differences for older adults only, with older people using relatively less cognitive regulation and more self-action than either college students or middle-aged adults. The situation has become even less transparent, with Aldwin et al. (1996) showing that, for the most part, age differences existed among adults only when individuals' strategies were assessed through a checklist; these distinctions were greatly reduced when individuals' strategies were elicited through open-ended interviews.

One of the possible explanations for the heterogeneity of these findings is that what develops over time is sensitivity to specific contexts. In other words, the repertoire of dealing with everyday problems is rather broad, and different modules of problem solving are used in different situations; in many ways, consistency across situations may be maladaptive (Mischel, 1984). Some researchers argue that successful everyday problem solving will involve carefully fitting strategies to the specific demands of a problem and modifying these strategies in response to changes in the problem (Berg and Sternberg, 1985; Rogoff, Gauvain, and Gardner, 1987; Scribner, 1986). And sensitivity to the contextual features of a problem is characteristic of a developmental factor (Mischel, 1984; Rogoff et al., 1987). Others, on the contrary, suggest that these strategies become less context-dependent with age (e.g., Kreitler and Kreitler, 1987).

Yet another, although not contradictory possibility, is that the lesson derived from experience with everyday problems is how to avoid getting into everyday problems (Berg, 1989). Thus, it is plausible that no simple relation between kind of experience and everyday problem-solving skill is likely to exist. Moreover, researchers have presented evidence demonstrating that so-called effective-across-all-contexts (e.g., primary) strategies fail in situations in which so-called ineffective strategies (e.g., relinquishing) work (Berg, Calderone, and Gunderson, 1990, as cited in Berg and Calderone, 1994). Certain kinds of experience may be differentially related to success at solving particular kinds of everyday problems, and development might better be construed as individuals becoming increasingly capable of modifying their strategies or avoiding potentially problematic situations (Berg, 1989; Rogoff et al., 1986).

Another line of research focuses on studying individual differences that appear to lead to more optimal problem-solving performance (e.g., Ceci and Liker, 1986; Denney, 1989; Willis and Schaie, 1986). Many factors (e.g., conventional cognitive skills, personality traits, social skills, achievement motivation) have been shown to impact the utilization of strategies in everyday problem solving (e.g., Ceci and Liker, 1986; Charness, 1981; Kuhn, Pennington, and Leadbeater, 1983), but no specific constellations of these factors were found to be better predictors of effective problem solving.