Chapter 18 Rotter and Mischel: Cognitive Social Learning Theory 563of cigarettes at the store checkout when we are trying to quit smoking. Reframing a
situation away from what Mischel and his colleagues call the “hot” features that our
emotional, limbic system encodes (the marshmallow’s delicious chewiness or nico-
tine’s calming effect) and toward “cooler” representations that our prefrontal cortex
is in charge of (“the marshmallow’s shape resembles a cloud” or “what else could I
buy instead with the money a pack of cigarettes costs?”) boosts our capacity to delay
or even overcome unhealthy immediate gratifications. The ultimate goal is to get the
cool cognitive system, through practice, to take over what typically is activated in
the hot system. In a recent interview, Mischel said, “The cool system allows us to
regulate the emotional thermostat so that in ‘hot’ situations our response is cooler
and reflective rather than hot and reflexive. It helps to have ‘if-then’ implementation
plans so that when, say, the dessert arrives, I choose the fruit rather than fill myself
with sugar” (Mischel, 2014b, p. 943).
These simple strategies can be taught to dramatically improve people’s capacity
to delay gratification and improve self-regulation and hence our lives. Walter Mischel’s
seemingly simple demonstrations of early life self-regulatory competencies have
proven to be powerful predictors of healthy, flexible personality well into midlife.
Critique of Cognitive Social
Learning Theory
Cognitive social learning theory is attractive to those who value the rigors of learn-
ing theory and the speculative assumption that people are forward-looking, cogni-
tive beings. Rotter and Mischel have both evolved learning theories for thinking,
valuing, goal-directed humans rather than for laboratory animals. Like that of other
theories, cognitive social learning theory’s value rests on how it rates on the six
criteria for a useful theory.
First, have the theories of Rotter and Mischel sparked a significant body
of research? On this criterion, cognitive social learning theories have generated
both quantity and quality of research. For example, Rotter’s concept of locus of
control has been, and continues to be, one of the most widely researched topics
in psychological literature. Locus of control, however, is not the core of Rotter’s
personality theory, and the theory itself has not generated a comparable level of
research. In contrast to Rotter’s concept of locus of control, Mischel’s theory has
generated somewhat less research, but that research is more relevant to his core
ideas.
Second, are cognitive social learning theories falsifiable? The empirical
nature of both Rotter’s and Mischel’s work exposes these theories to possible
falsification and verification. However, Rotter’s basic prediction formula and
general prediction formula are completely hypothetical and cannot be accurately
tested.
By comparison, Mischel’s theory lends itself somewhat more adequately to
falsification. Indeed, research on delay of gratification drove Mischel to place
greater emphasis on situation variables and less on the inconsistency of behavior.
This de-emphasis on delay of gratification has allowed Mischel to avoid the narrow
methodological approaches used in his early research.