Feist−Feist: Theories of
Personality, Seventh
EditionV. Learning Theories 16. Bandura: Social
Cognitive Theory© The McGraw−Hill^491
Companies, 2009behavior of the father would be controlled by the environment; but his behavior, in
turn, would have a countercontrolling effect on his environment, namely the child.
In Bandura’s theory, however, the father is capable of thinking about the conse-
quences of rewarding or ignoring the child’s behavior. He may think, “If I give her
another brownie, she will stop crying temporarily, but in future cases, she will be
more likely to persist until I give in to her now. Therefore, I will not allow her to have
another brownie.” Hence, the father has an effect on both his environment (the child)
and his own behavior (rejecting his daughter’s request). The child’s subsequent be-
havior (father’s environment) helps shape the cognition and the behavior of the fa-
ther. If the child stops begging, the father may then have other thoughts. For exam-
ple, he may evaluate his behavior by thinking, “I’m a good father because I did the
right thing.” The change in environment also allows the father to pursue different be-
haviors. Thus, his subsequent behavior is partially determined by the reciprocal in-
teraction of his environment, cognition, and behavior.
This example illustrates the reciprocal interaction of behavioral, environmen-
tal, and personal factors from the father’s point of view. First, the child’s pleas af-
fected the father’s behavior (E ⇒B); they also partially determined the father’s cog-
nition (E ⇒P); the father’s behavior helped shape the child’s behavior, that is, his
own environment (B ⇒E); his behavior also impinged on his own thoughts (B ⇒
P); and his cognition partially determined his behavior (P ⇒B). To complete the
cycle, P (person) must influence E (environment). How can the father’s cognition di-
rectly shape the environment without first being transformed into behavior? It can-
not. However, P does not signify cognition alone; it stands for person. Bandura
(1999b) hypothesized that “people evoke different reactions from their social envi-
ronment by their physical characteristics—such as their age, size, race, sex, and
physical attractiveness—even before they say or do anything” (p. 158). The father,
then, by virtue of his role and status as a father and perhaps in conjunction with his
size and strength, has a decided effect on the child. Thus, the final causal link is com-
pleted (P ⇒E).
Chance Encounters and Fortuitous Events
Although people can and do exercise a significant amount of control over their lives,
they cannot predict or anticipate all possible environmental changes. Bandura is the
only personality theorist to seriously consider the possible importance of these
chance encounters and fortuitous events.
Bandura (1998a) defined a chance encounteras “an unintended meeting of
persons unfamiliar to each other” (p. 95). A fortuitous eventis an environmental ex-
perience that is unexpected and unintended. The everyday lives of people are af-
fected to a greater or lesser extent by the people they chance to meet and by random
events they could not predict. One’s marital partner, occupation, and place of resi-
dence may largely be the result of a fortuitous meeting that was unplanned and un-
expected.
Just as fortuity has influenced the lives of all of us, it has shaped the lives and
careers of famous personality theorists. Two such examples are Abraham H. Maslow
(Chapter 10) and Hans J. Eysenck (Chapter 14). As a young man, Maslow was ex-
ceedingly shy, especially with women. At the same time, he was passionately in love
Chapter 16 Bandura: Social Cognitive Theory 485