Feist−Feist: Theories of
Personality, Seventh
EditionV. Learning Theories 17. Rotter and Mischel:
Cognitive Social Learning
Theory(^544) © The McGraw−Hill
Companies, 2009
will help in doing well on the GRE. Mischel (1990, 2004) referred to this type of ex-
pectancy 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 ex-
pectancies,which refers to the many stimulus conditions that influence the probable
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
observance of lightning (the stimulus). Mischel believes that stimulus-outcome
expectancies are important units for understanding classical conditioning. For ex-
ample, 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 attribut-
ing personal traits to others, but when we notice that their behavior is inconsistent
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 un-
changing. But our expectancies are not constant; they change because we can dis-
criminate 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 for-
mulate 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 academic
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 ca-
reer. 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 sta-
ble 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 cer-
tain 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, attach-
ment to one’s home, and love of one’s mother.
Affective Responses
During the early 1970s, Mischel’s theory was mostly a cognitive theory. It was based
on the assumption that people’s thoughts and other cognitive processes interact with
a particular situation to determine behavior. Since then, however, Mischel and
538 Part V Learning Theories