fei75766_ch18_569-609.indd 604  02/24/20 10:50 AM
Part VI    Learning-Cognitive Theories604
Critique of Cognitive Social  
Learning Theory
Cognitive social learning theory isattractive tothose whovalue therigors oflearn -
ingtheory andthespeculative assumption thatpeople areforward-looking, cognitive 
beings. Rotter andMischel havebothevolved learning theories forthinking, valuing, 
goal-directed humans rather thanforlaboratory animals. Likethatofother theories, 
cognitive social learning theory’s value restsonhowitrates onthesixcriteria fora
useful theory.
First, havethetheories ofRotter andMischel sparked asignificant body of
research? Onthiscriterion, cognitive social learning theories havegenerated both
quantity andquality ofresearch. Forexample, Rotter’s concept oflocus ofcontrol 
hasbeen, andcontinues tobe,oneofthemost widely researched topics inpsychologi -
calliterature. Locus ofcontrol, however, isnotthecoreofRotter’s personality the-
ory,andthetheory itself hasnotgenerated acomparable levelofresearch. Incontrast 
toRotter’s concept oflocus ofcontrol, Mischel’s theory hasgenerated somewhat less
research, butthatresearch ismore relevant tohiscoreideas.
Second, arecognitive social learning theories falsifiable? Theempirical nature 
ofbothRotter’s andMischel’s work exposes these theories topossible falsification 
andverification. However, Rotter’s basic prediction formula andgeneral prediction 
formula arecompletely hypothetical andcannot beaccurately tested. 
Bycomparison, Mischel’s theory lends itself somewhat more adequately tofal-
sification. Indeed, research ondelay ofgratification drove Mischel toplace greater 
emphasis onsituation variables andlessontheinconsistency ofbehavior. This
de-emphasis ondelay ofgratification hasallowed Mischel toavoid thenarrow meth -
odological approaches usedinhisearly research.
Onthecriterion oforganizing knowledge, cognitive social theory rates alittle
above average. Theoretically atleast, Rotter’s general prediction formula anditscom-
ponents ofneedpotential, freedom ofmovement, andneedvalue canprovide auseful 
framework forunderstanding much ofhuman behavior. When behavior isseenas
afunction ofthese variables, ittakes onadifferent hue.Mischel’s theory nowrates 
above average onthiscriterion, because hehascontinued tobroaden thescope ofhis
theory toinclude bothpersonal dispositions anddynamic cognitive-affective units 
thatareabletopredict andexplain behavior.
Does cognitive social learning theory serve asauseful guide to action? Onthis
criterion, weratethetheory onlymoderately high. Rotter’s ideas onpsychotherapy 
arequite explicit andareahelpful guide tothetherapist, buthistheory ofpersonal -
ityisnotaspractical. Themathematical formulas serve asauseful framework for
organizing knowledge, buttheydonotsuggest anyspecific course ofaction forthe
practitioner because thevalue ofeachfactor within theformula cannot beknown 
withmathematical certainty. Likewise, Mischel’s theory isonlymoderately use-
fultothetherapist, teacher, orparent. Itsuggests topractitioners thattheyshould 
expect people tobehave differently indifferent situations andevenfrom onetimeto
another, butitprovides them withfewspecific guidelines foraction.
Arethetheories ofRotter andMischel internally consistent? Rotter iscare-
fulindefining terms sothatthesame termdoesnothavetwoormore meanings. Final PDF to printer