Theories_of_Personality 7th Ed Feist

Feist−Feist: Theories of

Personality, Seventh

Edition

V. Learning Theories 17. Rotter and Mischel:

Cognitive Social Learning

Theory

© The McGraw−Hill^549

Companies, 2009

experienced greater sadness than those who made state-like self-evaluations. Lastly,
those who believed intelligence and personality tend to be fixed entities reported
greater sadness to the failure experiences than those who believed those traits were
more malleable. Overall, it is clear that conditional and interactionist self-evaluations
do buffer negative reactions to failure.
Mischel and colleagues concluded that the social-cognitive interactionist
conceptualization of the person-situation environment is a more appropriate way
of understanding human behavior than the traditional “decontextualized” views of
personality in which people behave in a given way regardless of the context.

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, cognitive
beings. Rotter and Mischel have both evolved learning theories for thinking, valu-
ing, goal-directed humans rather than for laboratory animals. Like that of other the-
ories, 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 re-
search? 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 psycho-
logical 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 con-
trast to Rotter’s concept of locus of control, Mischel’s theory has generated some-
what 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 method-
ological approaches used in his early research.
On the criterion of organizing knowledge,cognitive social theory rates a little
above average. Theoretically at least, Rotter’s general prediction formula and its
components of need potential, freedom of movement, and need value can provide a
useful framework for understanding much of human behavior. When behavior is
seen as a function of these variables, it takes on a different hue. Mischel’s theory now
rates above average on this criterion, because he has continued to broaden the scope
of his theory to include both personal dispositions and dynamic cognitive-affective
units that are able to predict and explain behavior.
Does cognitive social learning theory serve as a useful guide to action?On this
criterion, we rate the theory only moderately high. Rotter’s ideas on psychotherapy

Chapter 17 Rotter and Mischel: Cognitive Social Learning Theory 543