Feist−Feist: Theories of
Personality, Seventh
EditionV. Learning Theories 17. Rotter and Mischel:
Cognitive Social Learning
Theory© The McGraw−Hill^539
Companies, 2009suggest that global dispositions predict behavior, Mischel argues that a person’s be-
liefs, values, goals, cognitions, and feelings interact with those dispositions to shape
behavior. For example, traditional trait theory suggests that people with the trait of
conscientiousness will usually behave in a conscientious manner. However, Mischel
points out that in a variety of situations, a conscientious person may use conscien-
tiousness along with other cognitive-affective processes to accomplish a specific
outcome.
In an exploratory study to test this model, Jack Wright and Mischel (1988) in-
terviewed 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 chil-
dren 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 findings suggest that people readily recognize the interrelationship be-
tween situations and behavior and that they intuitively follow a conditional view
of dispositions.
Neither the situation alone nor stable personality traits alone determine be-
havior. 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 stability
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 potentially pre-
dictable behaviors that reflect stable patterns of variationwithin 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 pro-
voked 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
paradox by taking into account both the long history of observed variability in be-
havior and the intuitive conviction of both psychologists and laypeople that person-
ality is relatively stable. The frequently observed variability in behavior is simply an
essential part of a unifying stability of personality.
Chapter 17 Rotter and Mischel: Cognitive Social Learning Theory 533