550 Part VI Learning-Cognitive Theories
argued that traits are weak predictors of performance in a variety of situations and
that the situation is more important than traits in influencing behavior. This book
upset many clinical psychologists, who argued that the inability of personal dispo-
sitions to predict behavior across situations was due to the unreliability and impre-
cision of the instruments that measure traits. Some believed that Mischel was trying
to undo the concept of stable personality traits and even deny the existence of
personality. Later, Mischel (1979) answered his critics, saying that he was not
opposed to traits as such, but only to generalized traits that negate the individuality
and uniqueness of each person.
Much of Mischel’s research has been a cooperative effort with a number of
his graduate students. In recent years, many of his publications have been col-
laborations with Yuichi Shoda, who received his PhD from Columbia in 1990 and
is presently at the University of Washington. Mischel’s most popular book, Intro-
duction to Personality, was published originally in 1971 and underwent a 7th
revision in 2004, with Yuichi Shoda and Ronald D. Smith as coauthors. Mischel
has won several awards, including the Distinguished Scientist award from the
clinical division of the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1978 and
the APA’s award for Distinguished Scientific Contribution in 1982.Background of the Cognitive-Affective
Personality System
Some theorists, such as Hans Eysenck (Chapter 14) and Gordon Allport (Chapter 12),
believed that behavior was mostly a product of relatively stable personality traits.
However, Walter Mischel objected to this assumption. His early research (Mischel,
1958, 1961a, 1961b) led him to believe that behavior was largely a function of the
situation.Consistency Paradox
Mischel saw that both laypersons and professional psychologists seem to intuitively
believe that people’s behavior is relatively consistent, yet empirical evidence sug-
gests much variability in behavior, a situation Mischel called the consistency par-
adox. To many people, it seems self-evident that such global personal dispositions
as aggressiveness, honesty, miserliness, punctuality, and so forth account for much
of our behavior. People elect politicians to office because they see them as having
honesty, trustworthiness, decisiveness, and integrity; employers and personnel man-
agers select workers who are punctual, loyal, cooperative, hardworking, organized,
and sociable. One person is generally friendly and gregarious, whereas another is
usually unfriendly and taciturn. Psychologists as well as laypeople have long sum-
marized people’s behavior by using such descriptive trait names. Thus, many peo-
ple assume that global personality traits will be manifested over a period of time
and also from one situation to another. Mischel suggested that, at best, these people
are only half right. He contended that some basic traits do persist over time, but
little evidence exists that they generalize from one situation to another. Mischel
strongly objected to attempts to attribute behavior to these global traits. Any attempt
to classify individuals as friendly, extraverted, conscientious, and so forth may be