Chapter 18 Rotter and Mischel: Cognitive Social Learning Theory 565value on those events that they perceive as moving them closer to their
goals, and they place negative value on those events that prevent them from
reaching their goals. Goals, then, serve as criteria for evaluating events. Peo-
ple are motivated less by past experiences with reinforcement than by their
expectations of future events.
Cognitive social learning theory holds that people move in the direction of
goals they have established for themselves. These goals, however, change as
people’s expectancies for reinforcement and their preference for one reinforce-
ment over another changes. Because people are continually in the process of
setting goals, they have some choice in directing their lives. Free choice is not
unlimited, however, because past experiences and limits to personal competen-
cies partially determine behavior.
Because both Rotter and Mischel are realistic and pragmatic, they are
difficult to rate on the optimism versus pessimism dimension. They believe
that people can be taught constructive strategies for problem solving and
that they are capable of learning new behaviors at any point in life. How-
ever, these theorists do not hold that people have within themselves an
inherent force that moves them inevitably in the direction of psychological
growth.
On the issue of conscious versus unconscious motives, cognitive social
learning theory generally leans in the direction of conscious forces. People
can consciously set goals for themselves and consciously strive to solve old
and new problems. However, people are not always aware of the underlying
motivations for much of their present behavior.
On the issue of personality being shaped by social or biological influ-
ences, cognitive social learning theory emphasizes social factors. Rotter
especially stressed the importance of learning within a social environment.
Mischel also highlighted social influences, but he does not overlook the
importance of genetic factors. He and Shoda (Mischel & Shoda, 1999) main-
tained that people have both a genetic and a social predisposition to act in
a given manner. The genetic predisposition, of course, flows from their
genetic endowment, whereas their social predisposition results from their
social history.
As for stressing uniqueness or similarities, we place Rotter in a middle
position. People have individual histories and unique experiences that allow
them to set personalized goals, but there are also enough similarities among
people to allow for the construction of mathematical formulas that, if suffi-
cient information were available, would permit reliable and accurate predic-
tion of behavior.
By comparison, Mischel clearly places more emphasis on uniqueness than
on similarities. Differences among people are due to each individual’s behavioral
signature and to unique patterns of variation in each person’s behavior. In sum-
mary, cognitive social learning theory views people as forward-looking, purpo-
sive, unified, cognitive, affective, and social animals who are capable of
evaluating present experiences and anticipating future events on the basis of
goals they have chosen for themselves.