psychologist wrote. “One does not teach children to swim, adolescents to drive
automobiles, and novice medical students to perform surgery by having them
discover the requisite behavior from the consequences of their successes and
failures ”(Bandura, 1986, p. 20). Psychologists also began to question whether
behaviorism was too limited in the scope of its subject matter. Why couldn ’t
“internal” events like thoughts and attitudes be conditioned the same way as
overt behaviors? For example, paranoid individuals who believe evil agents
are out to get them might have been reinforced in the past for these beliefs.Thus began the transition from traditional behaviorism to a number of ap-
proaches known collectively as social learning theory.
One of the concepts introduced by social learning theorists is the notion
ofbehavior-environment-behavior interactions (Staats, 1996). That is, not
only does the environment influence our behavior, but that behavior then de-
termines the kind of environment we find ourselves in, which can then influ-ence behavior, and so on. The way people treat you (environment) is partly
the result of how you act (behavior). And, of course, how you act is partly a
result of how people treat you. Other social learning theorists point out thatpeople often provide their own reinforcers. It is rewarding to live up to your
internal standards or to reach a personal goal even if no one else knows
about it.
Social learning psychologists also helped to bridge traditional behavior-
ism and cognitive approaches to personality (Chapter 15) by incorporatinginto their theories a number of concepts once deemed unscientific by John B.
Watson. Among the most influential of these social learning theorists is Julian
Rotter (1954, 1982; Rotter, Chance, & Phares, 1972). Rotter argues that the
causes of human behaviors are far more complex than those of lower ani-
mals. He introduced several “unobservable ”concepts to account for human
behavior and personality.
To get an idea of Rotter ’s approach, imagine someone has just insulted
you at a party. How do you respond? You have several courses of action to
choose from. You might attempt to top the remark with something clever
and witty. You could calmly say the behavior was out of line and ask for anapology. You could get angry and hurl an equally rude insult at the offender,
or you could simply leave the scene. The key to predicting your response lies
in what Rotter refers to as the behavior potential for each option. The behav-
ior potential is the likelihood that a given behavior will occur in a particular
situation. Each possible response to the insult has a different behavior poten-
tial. If you decide to scream out an insult, it means the behavior potential forthat response was stronger than for any of the other possible responses. But
what determines the strength of the behavior potential? According to Rotter,
two variables need to be considered: expectancy and reinforcement value(Figure 13.2).
Before you decide to stay up all night studying for an exam, you probably
ask yourself what the likelihood is that the all-nighter will help you do betteron the test. Similarly, when debating whether to join a softball game, you prob-
ably try to figure out the probability that you will have a good time. Rotter re-
ferred to these estimations as expectancies, and whether you study all night orSocial Learning Theory 351