fei75766_ch18_569-609.indd 591  02/24/20 10:50 AM
Chapter 18     Rotter and Mischel: Cognitive Social Learning Theory591
argued thattraits areweak predictors ofperformance inavariety ofsituations and
thatthesituation ismore important thantraits ininfluencing behavior. Thisbook 
upset many clinical psychologists, whoargued thattheinability ofpersonal disposi -
tions topredict behavior across situations wasduetotheunreliability andimpreci -
sionoftheinstruments thatmeasure traits. Some believed thatMischel wastrying to
undo theconcept ofstable personality traits andevendeny theexistence ofperson -
ality. Later, Mischel (1979) answered hiscritics, saying thathewasnotopposed to
traits assuch, butonlytogeneralized traits thatnegate theindividuality andunique -
nessofeachperson.
Much ofMischel’s research hasbeen acooperative effort withanumber of
hisgraduate students. Inrecent years, many ofhispublications havebeen collabo -
rations withYuichi Shoda, whoreceived hisPhDfrom Columbia in1990 andis
presently attheUniversity ofWashington. Mischel’s most popular book, Introduc -
tion to Personality, waspublished originally in1971 andunderwent a7threvision in
2004, withYuichi Shoda andRonald D.Smith ascoauthors. Mischel haswonseveral 
awards, including theDistinguished Scientist award from theclinical division ofthe
American Psychological Association (APA) in1978 andtheAPA’s award forDistin -
guished Scientific Contribution in1982.
Background of the Cognitive-Affective 
Personality System
Some theorists, suchasHans Eysenck (Chapter 14)andGordon Allport (Chapter 12),
believed thatbehavior wasmostly aproduct ofrelatively stable personality traits. 
However, Walter Mischel objected tothisassumption. Hisearly research (Mischel, 
1958, 1961a, 1961b) ledhimtobelieve thatbehavior waslargely afunction ofthe
situation. 
Consistency Paradox
Mischel sawthatbothlaypersons andprofessional psychologists seem tointuitively 
believe thatpeople’s behavior isrelatively consistent, yetempirical evidence suggests 
much variability inbehavior, asituation Mischel called theconsistency  paradox. To
many people, itseems self-evident thatsuchglobal personal dispositions asaggres -
siveness, honesty, miserliness, punctuality, andsoforth account formuch ofour
behavior. People electpoliticians tooffice because theyseethem ashaving hon-
esty,trustworthiness, decisiveness, andintegrity; employers andpersonnel manag -
ersselect workers whoarepunctual, loyal, cooperative, hardworking, organized, and
sociable. Oneperson isgenerally friendly andgregarious, whereas another isusually 
unfriendly andtaciturn. Psychologists aswellaslaypeople havelongsummarized 
people’s behavior byusing suchdescriptive traitnames. Thus, many people assume 
thatglobal personality traits willbemanifested overaperiod oftimeandalsofrom 
onesituation toanother. Mischel suggested that,atbest,these people areonlyhalf
right. Hecontended thatsome basic traits dopersist overtime, butlittleevidence 
exists thattheygeneralize from onesituation toanother. Mischel strongly objected to
attempts toattribute behavior tothese global traits. Anyattempt toclassify individu -
alsasfriendly, extraverted, conscientious, andsoforth maybeonewayofdefining Final PDF to printer