552 Part VI Learning-Cognitive Theories
an outgoing, extraverted manner when he is with men or with older women. Is this
young man shy or is he extraverted? Mischel would say that he is both—depending
on the conditions affecting the young man during a particular situation.
The conditional view holds that behavior is shaped by personal dispositions plus
a person’s specific cognitive and affective processes. Whereas trait theory would sug-
gest that global dispositions predict behavior, Mischel argues that a person’s beliefs,
values, goals, cognitions, and feelings interact with those dispositions to shape behav-
ior. For example, traditional trait theory suggests that people with the trait of consci-
entiousness will usually behave in a conscientious manner. However, Mischel points
out that in a variety of situations, a conscientious person may use conscientiousness
along with other cognitive-affective processes to accomplish a specific outcome.
In an exploratory study to test this model, Jack Wright and Mischel (1988)
interviewed 8- and 12-year-old children as well as adults and asked them to report
everything they knew about “target” groups of children. Both adults and children
recognized the variability of other people’s behavior, but adults were more certain
about the conditions under which particular behaviors would occur. Whereas children
would hedge their descriptions in such terms as “Carlo sometimes hits other kids,”
adults would be more specific: for example, “Carlo hits when provoked.” These find-
ings suggest that people readily recognize the interrelationship between situations
and behavior and that they intuitively follow a conditional view of dispositions.
Neither the situation alone nor stable personality traits alone determine behav-
ior. Rather, behavior is a product of both. Therefore, Mischel and Shoda have
proposed a cognitive-affective personality system that attempts to reconcile these
two approaches to predicting human behaviors.Cognitive-Affective Personality System
To solve the classical consistency paradox, Mischel and Shoda (Mischel, 2004;
Mischel & Shoda, 1995, 1998, 1999; Shoda & Mischel, 1996, 1998) proposed a
cognitive-affective personality system (CAPS; also called a cognitive-affective
processing system) that accounts for variability across situations as well as stabil-
ity of behavior within a person. Apparent inconsistencies in a person’s behavior
are due neither to random error nor solely to the situation. Rather, they are poten-
tially predictable behaviors that reflect stable patterns of variation within a person.
The cognitive-affective personality system predicts that a person’s behavior will
change from situation to situation but in a meaningful manner.
Mischel and Shoda (Mischel, 1999, 2004; Mischel & Ayduk, 2002; Shoda,
LeeTiernan, & Mischel, 2002) believe that variations in behavior can be conceptu-
alized in this framework: If A, then X; but if B, then Y. For example, if Mark is
provoked by his wife, then he will react with aggression. However, when the “if”
changes, so does the “then.” If Mark is provoked by his boss, then he will react
with submission. Mark’s behavior may seem inconsistent because he apparently
reacts differently to the same stimulus. Mischel and Shoda, however, would argue
that being provoked by two different people does not constitute the same stimulus.
Mark’s behavior is not inconsistent and may well reflect a stable lifetime pattern of
reacting. Such an interpretation, Mischel and Shoda believe, solves the consistency