502 Part VI Learning-Cognitive Theories
Bandura uses the term “reciprocal” to indicate a triadic interaction of forces,
not a similar or opposite counteraction. The three reciprocal factors do not need
to be of equal strength or to make equal contributions. The relative potency of the
three varies with the individual and with the situation. At times, behavior might
be the most powerful, as when a person plays the piano for her own enjoyment.
Other times, the environment exerts the greatest influence, as when a boat over-
turns and every survivor begins thinking and behaving in a very similar fashion.
Although behavior and environment can at times be the most powerful contributors
to performance, cognition (person) is usually the strongest contributor to perfor-
mance. Cognition would likely be activated in the examples of the person playing
the piano for her own enjoyment and the survivors of an overturned boat. The
relative influence of behavior, environment, and person depends on which of the
triadic factors is strongest at a particular moment (Bandura, 1997).An Example of Triadic Reciprocal Causation
Consider this example of triadic reciprocal causation. A child begging her father
for a second brownie is, from the father’s viewpoint, an environmental event. If the
father automatically (without thought) were to give the child a second brownie, then
the two would be conditioning each other’s behavior in the Skinnerian sense. The
behavior of the father would be controlled by the environment; but his behavior, in
turn, would have a countercontrolling effect on his environment, namely the child.
In Bandura’s theory, however, the father is capable of thinking about the conse-
quences of rewarding or ignoring the child’s behavior. He may think, “If I give her
another brownie, she will stop crying temporarily, but in future cases, she will be
more likely to persist until I give in to her. Therefore, I will not allow her to have
another brownie.” Hence, the father has an effect on both his environment (the child)
and his own behavior (rejecting his daughter’s request). The child’s subsequent
behavior (father’s environment) helps shape the cognition and the behavior of the
father. If the child stops begging, the father may then have other thoughts. For
example, he may evaluate his behavior by thinking, “I’m a good father because I
did the right thing.” The change in environment also allows the father to pursue
different behaviors. Thus, his subsequent behavior is partially determined by the
reciprocal interaction of his environment, cognition, and behavior.
This example illustrates the reciprocal interaction of behavioral, environmen-
tal, and personal factors from the father’s point of view. First, the child’s pleas
affected the father’s behavior (E ⇒ B); they also partially determined the father’s
cognition (E ⇒ P); the father’s behavior helped shape the child’s behavior, that is,
his own environment (B ⇒ E); his behavior also impinged on his own thoughts
(B ⇒ P); and his cognition partially determined his behavior (P ⇒ B). To complete
the cycle, P (person) must influence E (environment). How can the father’s cogni-
tion directly shape the environment without first being transformed into behavior?
It cannot. However, P does not signify cognition alone; it stands for person.
Bandura (1999b) hypothesized that “people evoke different reactions from their
social environment by their physical characteristics—such as their age, size, race,
sex, and physical attractiveness—even before they say or do anything” (p. 158).