Chapter 18 Rotter and Mischel: Cognitive Social Learning Theory 557similar situations. For example, a college student who has never taken the GRE
nevertheless has had experience preparing for other tests. What that student does
in getting ready for the GRE is partially influenced by what previous test prepara-
tion behaviors resulted in the most valuable outcome. A student who has previously
been rewarded for using self-relaxation techniques to prepare for tests will expect
that the same techniques will help in doing well on the GRE. Mischel (1990, 2004)
referred to this type of expectancy as a behavior-outcome expectancy. People often
construe behavior-outcome expectancies in an “if... , then.. .” framework. “If
I use self-relaxation procedures, then I can expect to do well on the GRE.” “If I
tell my boss what I really think of her, then I might lose my job.”
Mischel also identified a second type of expectancy—stimulus-outcome
expectancies, which refers to the many stimulus conditions that influence the prob-
able consequences of any behavior pattern. Stimulus-outcome expectancies help us
predict what events are likely to occur following certain stimuli. Perhaps the most
obvious example is an expectancy of loud, unpleasant thunder following the obser-
vance of lightning (the stimulus). Mischel believes that stimulus- outcome expec-
tancies are important units for understanding classical conditioning. For example,
a child who has been conditioned to associate pain with nurses in a hospital begins
to cry and show fear when she sees a nurse with a hypodermic syringe.
Mischel (1990) believes that one reason for the inconsistency of behavior is
our inability to predict other people’s behavior. We have little hesitancy in attrib-
uting personal traits to others, but when we notice that their behavior is inconsis-
tent with those traits, we become less certain about how to react to them. Our
behavior will be cross-situationally consistent to the extent that our expectancies
are unchanging. But our expectancies are not constant; they change because we
can discriminate and evaluate the multitude of potential reinforcers in any given
situation (Mischel & Ayduk, 2002).
Goals and Values
People do not react passively to situations but are active and goal directed. They
formulate goals, devise plans for attaining their goals, and in part create their own
situations. People’s subjective goals, values, and preferences represent a fourth
cognitive-affective unit. For example, two college students may have equal aca-
demic ability and also equal expectancy for success in graduate school. The first,
however, places more value on entering the job market than on going to graduate
school, while the second chooses to go to graduate school rather than to pursue an
immediate career. The two may have had many similar experiences during college,
but because they have different goals, they have made very different decisions.
Values, goals, and interests, along with competencies, are among the most
stable cognitive-affective units. One reason for this consistency is the emotion-
eliciting properties of these units. For instance, a person may place a negative value
on a certain food because he associates it with the nausea he once experienced while
eating that food. Without counterconditioning, this aversion is likely to persist due
to the strong negative emotion elicited by the food. Similarly, patriotic values may
last a lifetime because they are associated with positive emotions such as security,
attachment to one’s home, and love of one’s mother.