Group 5

Julian Rotter: Cognitive Social

Learning Theory

Alfante, Leslie Gwyn Y.

Cawaling, Beatrice Marie M.
Hongria, Quiana May C.
Socajel, Rhevenn P.
Tuquib, Keith Michael A.
Overview of Cognitive Social Learning Theory
Julian Rotter’s cognitive social learning theory centers on the idea that cognitive factors
significantly shape how people respond to their environments. Rotter challenged Skinner’s
perspective, which focused on immediate reinforcement as the sole determinant of behavior.
Instead, Rotter argued that individuals’ expectations about future events play a crucial role in
shaping their actions.

Rotter, an interactionist, believed that understanding the interaction between individuals and
their significant environments is essential for predicting behavior. He proposed that neither
environmental factors nor personal characteristics alone are sufficient to explain behavior.
Instead, behavior results from the interplay between cognitive processes, past experiences,
and future expectations. This perspective contrasts with Skinner’s view that reinforcement
primarily stems from environmental influences.

Rotter’s theory highlights that personality is shaped by how individuals perceive and interpret
their experiences and expectations. His approach underscores the importance of cognitive
factors in determining behavior, setting his theory apart from Skinner’s reinforcement-based
model.

Walter Mischel’s cognitive social theory, while similar in some respects to Rotter’s social
learning theory, also incorporates elements from Bandura’s social cognitive theory. Like
Rotter, Mischel emphasizes the role of cognitive factors—such as expectancies, subjective
perceptions, values, goals, and personal standards—in shaping personality. Mischel’s
research has evolved from studying delay of gratification to examining personality
consistency and variability, and he is currently working with Yuichi Shoda on developing a
cognitive-affective personality system.

Biography of Julian Rotter

Julian B. Rotter, renowned for creating the locus of control scale, was born on October 22,
1916, in Brooklyn. As the youngest of three sons in a Jewish immigrant family, he grew up in
a middle-class environment that was disrupted by the Great Depression, which led to two
years of unemployment for his family. This hardship fueled Rotter's enduring interest in
social justice and the impact of situational factors on behavior.

Rotter's academic journey began with a deep passion for reading, eventually leading him to
psychology. Influenced by Adler’s Understanding Human Nature, Freud’s Psychopathology
of Everyday Life, and Menninger’s The Human Mind, he shifted his focus from chemistry to
psychology at Brooklyn College, where he graduated in 1937 with more credits in
psychology than chemistry.
He continued his education at the University of Iowa, earning a master’s degree in 1938,
followed by a PhD in clinical psychology from Indiana University in 1941. Rotter’s early
career included an internship at Worcester State Hospital, where he met his future wife, Clara
Barnes. During World War II, he served as an army psychologist for over three years.

Post-war, Rotter briefly returned to Norwich State Hospital before joining Ohio State
University, where he became a prominent figure in the psychology department alongside
George Kelly and attracted influential graduate students like Walter Mischel. Disillusioned by
McCarthyism, he moved to the University of Connecticut in 1963, directing the Clinical
Training Program until his retirement in 1987.

Rotter’s notable publications include Social Learning and Clinical Psychology (1954),
Clinical Psychology (1964), Applications of a Social Learning Theory of Personality (1972,
with J. E. Chance and E. J. Phares), Personality (1975, with D. J. Hochreich), The
Development and Application of Social Learning Theory: Selected Papers (1982), and the
Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank (1966).

He held leadership roles as president of the Eastern Psychological Association and the APA
divisions of Social and Personality Psychology and Clinical Psychology. Rotter was honored
with the APA Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award in 1988 and the Distinguished
Contribution to Clinical Training Award the following year. He passed away on January 6,
2014, at the age of 97.

Introduction to Rotter’s Social Learning Theory

Social learning theory is based on five key assumptions. First, it posits that individuals
interact with their significant environments, with their responses to environmental
stimuli influenced by the meaning they attach to events (Rotter, 1982). Reinforcements
are not purely determined by external stimuli but are interpreted through an individual’s
cognitive processes. Additionally, personal traits and needs alone do not drive behavior;
rather, behavior emerges from the interplay between environmental and personal factors.

The second assumption is that personality is learned rather than fixed at any specific
developmental stage. This means that personality can evolve and adapt through ongoing
learning experiences. While past experiences contribute to some degree of stability in
personality, individuals remain open to change as they encounter new experiences. These
experiences are not static but are influenced by subsequent events that shape current
perceptions.

Third, social learning theory holds that personality exhibits a fundamental unity,
meaning that while personality traits are relatively stable, they are also consistent. People
assess new experiences based on past reinforcements, which contributes to the stability and
coherence of their personalities.
The fourth hypothesis is that motivation is driven by goals. Rotter rejected the idea that
people are primarily motivated by the desire to reduce tension or seek pleasure. Instead, he
argued that human behavior is best explained by the expectation that actions will lead to goal
attainment. For instance, college students may face significant stress and hard work with the
goal of graduation, as the prospect of achieving this goal outweighs the stress involved.

Rotter’s empirical law of effect supports this idea, stating that reinforcement is any action,
condition, or event that influences an individual’s progress toward a goal (Rotter &
Hochreich, 1975). Thus, behaviors that advance individuals toward their anticipated goals are
most strongly reinforced.

Finally, the fifth assumption is that people are capable of anticipating future events and
use their perceived progress toward these events to evaluate reinforcers. These five
assumptions form the foundation of Rotter’s personality theory, which aims to predict human
behavior based on these principles.

Predicting Specific Behaviors:

Rotter suggested examining four variables that he believed would be able to help accurately
predict how an individual would respond to a specific situation. These variables are behavior
potential, expectancy, reinforcement value, and the psychological situation.
 Behavior potential refers to the likelihood that a given behavior will occur in a
particular situation;
 expectancy is a person’s expectation of being reinforced;
 reinforcement value is the person’s preference for a particular reinforcement;
 and the psychological situation refers to a complex pattern of cues that a person
perceives during a specific time period.

 Behavior Potential (BP)

In simple terms, behavior potential is the likelihood of a specific reaction happening in a
given situation. Rotter's definition of behavior is quite broad, encompassing any response,
whether it's implicit or explicit, that can be observed or measured directly or indirectly. In any
situation, an individual can have multiple behavior potentials, each with varying strengths.
Some behaviors may have no potential, some may be highly likely, and some may fall in
between.

For example, if Megan walks towards a restaurant, there are several potential behavior
outcomes: she might pass by without noticing it, actively ignore it, stop to eat, think about
stopping to eat but go on, examine the building and contents with consideration of purchasing
it, or stop, go inside, and rob the cashier.
The behavior potential in any situation is a function of both expectancy and reinforcement
value. To predict which behaviors are most or least likely to occur, we must consider each
one's expectancy and reinforcement value. Thus, a particular behavior potential will have the
greatest occurrence potential if it is most likely to produce a reinforcement and if it provides a
greater positive reinforcement value than other behavior potentials.

 Expectancy
Expectancy (E) is an individual’s subjective expectations of the outcome of their behavior. It
is the estimation of the probability that a particular reinforcement or set of reinforcements
will occur if one behaves a certain way in a given situation. The probability is not determined
by the individual’s history of reinforcements, as Skinner contended, rather it is subjectively
held by an individual.

Expectancies can be categorized into two:

o General Expectancies (GEs) - learned through previous experiences with a particular
response or similar responses and are based on the belief that certain behaviors will be
followed by positive reinforcement.
E.g. College Students whose previous work has been reinforced by high grades will have a
generalized expectancy that high grades will follow hard work and effort in classes, as this
has been the case in the past.
o Specific Expectancies (E ‘ ) - reflect an individual’s judgment of likelihood that a
behavior will lead to a particular outcome in a particular situation.
E.g. A student who has been getting poor grades in Mathematics may believe that their hard
work and effort in Mathematics goes unrewarded. Thus, they may put less effort into studying
mathematics and place their focus on other subjects.

The amount of effort people will spend to reach their goals is determined by the total
expectancy. Total expectancy of success is a function of both one’s generalized expectancies
and one’s specific expectancies. For example, an individual with low total expectancy for
success in passing the state university admission test is not likely to apply for a slot, whereas
an individual with high total expectancy for success will exert much effort and persevere in
the midst of difficulty to achieve goals that appear possible to reach.

 Reinforcement Value (RV)

Reinforcement value refers to the preference an individual attaches to any reinforcement
when the probabilities for the occurrence of multiple different reinforcements are all equal. In
simpler terms, it is the importance attached to different activities or things. For example, a
teenager may prefer to stay home than going out with friends.

The factors that determine the reinforcement value at any given situation:
 o Internal Reinforcement - It is an individual’s perception of the positive or negative
value of an event.
o External Reinforcement - It refers to the events, conditions, or actions on which
one’s society or culture places a value.
o One’s Needs - The value of a specific reinforcement tends to increase as the need it
satisfies becomes stronger.
o Reinforcement-reinforcement sequences - People are capable of using cognition to
anticipate a sequence of events leading to some future goal and that the ultimate goal
contributes to the reinforcement of each event in the sequence.

 Psychological Situation (S)

Rotter defined psychological situation as a complex set of interacting cues acting upon an
environment at a given time. It is the external and internal world to which an individual
responds to.

Behavior stems from the interaction between a person (personal traits, personal experiences)
and their meaningful environment (situational factors). Thus, both dispositional and
situational influences are emphasized and their interaction deemed as a crucial factor in
shaping behavior.

On the basis of complex cues operating in a specific situation, an individual may develop
expectancies for behavior-reinforcement sequences as well as for reinforcement-
reinforcement sequences. Hence, the psychological situation must be taken into account,
along with expectancies and reinforcement value, in determining the probability of a
particular behavior.

 Basic Prediction Formula

As a hypothetical means of predicting specific behaviors, Rotter proposed a basic formula
which comprises all four variables of prediction. The formula represents an idealistic rather
practical means of prediction.

The Basic Prediction Formula:

BP x 1 s 1 r a =f (E x 1 s 1 r a+ RV a s 1)
The formula is read as follows: The potential for behavior x to occur in situation 1 in relation
to reinforcement a is a function of the expectancy that behavior x will be followed by
reinforcement a in situation 1 and the value of reinforcement a in situation 1.

For example, the likelihood or behavior potential (BP) that a student will rest their head on
her desk (behavior x) in a dull and boring classroom with other students slumbering (the
psychological situation or s1) with the goal of sleep (reinforcement, or ra) is a function of
their expectation that such behavior (Ex) will be followed by sleep (ra) in this particular
classroom situation (s1), plus the measure of how highly she desires to sleep (reinforcement
value, or RVa) in this specific situation.

Predicting General Behaviors

To predict general behaviors, we try to make a situation that can possibly show someone’s
behavior. Imagine Ethan, who has been a worker for a retail shop for 10 years. The shop has
been facing a decline in sales and must cut its workforce and Ethan might lose his job. How
can we predict Ethan’s behavior? Will he try to talk his way to let him remain with the job?
Will he do some desperate things or will he begin drinking heavily and become broken from
the situation?

1. Generalized Expectancies
Say Ethan’s possible behaviors are new to him, how can we predict his actions? At this
point, the concepts of generalization and generalized expectancy enter into Rotter’s
theory.
 If, in the past, Ethan has generally been rewarded for behaviors that have increased
his social status, then only a slight probability exists that he will beg Mr. Hoffman for
a job, because such actions are contrary to increased social status.
 If his previous attempts at responsible and independent behaviors have generally been
reinforced and if he has the freedom of movement—that is, the opportunity to apply
for another job—then, assuming he needs work, a high probability exists that he will
apply for another job or otherwise behave independently
Predicting Ethan’s reaction to the probable loss of a job is a matter of knowing how he
views the options available to him and also the status of his present needs

2. Needs
Rotter (1982) defined needs as any behavior or set of behaviors that people see as moving
them in the direction of a goal. Needs are not states of deprivation or arousal but indicators of
the direction of behavior. The difference between needs and goals is that when the focus is on
the environment, according to Rotter, that lies on goals, when it is on the person, he talks of
needs.
 Allows for more generalized predictions than permitted by the four specific variables
 Ordinarily, personality theory deals with broad predictions of human behavior. Eg., a
person with a strong need for dominance will usually try to gain the power position in
most interpersonal relationships as well as in a variety of other situations. In specific
situations, however, a dominant person may behave in a non-dominant or even
submissive fashion
 This is the more appropriate formula for controlled laboratory experiments but
inadequate in predicting everyday behaviors
Categories of Needs
Six broad categories of needs, with each category representing a group of functionally related
behaviors: that is, behaviors that lead to the same or similar reinforcements
 Recognition-Status
- The need to perform, achieve and to have society recognize their worth (also
includes the need for socioeconomic status and personal prestige)
- To excel in something that a person regard as important
 Dominance
- The need to control the behavior of others (gaining power over others)
- Eg. Taking peers to accept your ideologies
 Independence
- The need to be free of the domination of others, rely on oneself, freedom to make
decisions
- Eg. Declining help
 Protection-Dependency
- The need to be cared for by others (to be protected from harm and satisfy other
need categories)
- Eg. Asking someone to look over you when you are ill
 Love and Affection
-The need for acceptance by others that go beyond recognition and status to
include some indications that other people have warm, positive feelings for them
- Eg. Doing favors in anticipation of receiving gratitude
 Physical Comfort
- Probably the most basic need because other needs are learned in relation to it
- This need includes those behaviors aimed at securing food, good health, and
physical security
- Eg. Turning on the air conditioner

Need Components
 Need Potential
- Refers to the possible occurrence of a set of functionally related behaviors
directed toward satisfying the same or similar goals
- Refers to a group of functionally related behaviors
- Cannot be measured solely through observation of behavior
 Freedom of Movement
- Behavior is partly determined by our expectancies: that is, our best guess that a
particular reinforcement will follow a specific response.
 - Freedom of movement can be determined by holding need value constant and
observing one’s need potential
 Need Value
- Is the degree to which she or he prefers one set of reinforcements to another
- The “mean preference value of a set of functionally related reinforcements”

3. General Prediction Formula

The basic prediction formula is limited to highly controlled situations, however, prediction of
behavior is much more complex because behaviors and reinforcements usually occur in
functionally related sequences

NP=f (FM + NV )

This equation means that need potential (NP) is a function of freedom of movement
(FM) and need value (NV). This general prediction formula allows for people’s history of
using similar experiences to anticipate present reinforcement. That is, they have a generalized
expectancy for success. Rotter’s two most popular scales for measuring generalized
expectancies are the Internal–External Control Scale and the Interpersonal Trust Scale.

4. Internal and External Control of Reinforcement (Locus of Control)

The core of Rotter’s social learning theory is the notion that reinforcement does not
automatically stamp in behaviors but that people have the ability to see a causal connection
between their own behavior and the occurrence of the reinforcer. People strive to reach their
goals because they have a generalized expectancy that such strivings will be successful.

Rotter developed the Internal-External Control Scale basing it on the I-E scale of his two
students. The I-E Scale consists of 29 forced-choice items, 23 pairs of which are scored and 6
of which are filler statements designed to disguise the purpose of the scale. The scale is
scored in the direction of external control so that 23 is the highest possible external score and
0 is the highest possible internal score.
The I-E Scale attempts to measure the degree to which people perceive a causal relationship
between their own efforts and environmental consequences.
 People who score high on internal control generally believe that the source of
control resides within themselves and that they exercise a high level of personal
control over most situations
 People who score high on external control generally believe that their life is
largely controlled by forces outside themselves (by chance or destiny)
 Basically, Internal = “I can” while External = “it can”

The Internal-External Control scale has become one of the most investigated topics in
psychology, however, it is commonly misunderstood.
 One misconception is that scores on the scale are determinants of behavior. Scores
shouldnt be seen as causes but rather as indicator of GEs (generalized expectations)
 A second misconception is that locus of control is specific and can predict
achievement in a specific situation. The concept obviously refers to generalized
expectancies
  A third common misconception is that the scale divides people into two distinct types
—internals and externals. Rotter insisted that GEs imply a gradient of personality and
not actually make distinctions for a person's personality
 Fourth, many people seem to believe that high internal scores signify socially
desirable traits and that high external scores indicate socially undesirable
characteristics. Extreme scores in both direction would actually be undesirable

1. Interpersonal Trust Scale

Rotter defined interpersonal trust as “a generalized expectancy held by an individual that the
word, promise, oral or written statement of another individual or group can be relied on.
Interpersonal trust is a belief in the communications of others when there is no evidence for
disbelieving, whereas gullibility is foolishly or naively believing the words of other people.

To measure differences in interpersonal trust, Rotter developed an Interpersonal Trust Scale

which asked people to agree or disagree to 25 items that assessed interpersonal trust and 15
filler items designed to conceal the nature of the instrument.

The scale is scored on a 5-point gradation from strongly agree to strongly disagree so that
strongly agree and agree responses would indicate trust on 12 items and strongly disagree and
disagree responses would indicate trust on the other 13 items.

Rotter summarized results of studies that indicate that people who score high in interpersonal
trust, as opposed to those who score low, are
 less likely to lie
 probably less likely to cheat or steal
 more likely to give others a second chance
 more likely to respect the rights of others
 less likely to be unhappy, conflicted, or maladjusted
 somewhat more likable and popular
 more trustworthy
 neither more nor less gullible
 neither more nor less intelligent.

In other words, high trusters are not gullible or naive, and rather than being harmed by their
trustful attitude, they seem to possess many characteristics that other people regard as
positive and desirable.
Maladaptive Behavior
 Maladaptive behavior - any persistent behavior that fails to move a person closer
to a desired goal. It arises from the combination of high need value and low
freedom of movement. When people set their goals too high, they cannot learn
productive behaviors because their goals are beyond reach. Instead, they learn
how to avoid failure or how to defend themselves against the pain that
accompanies failure.
 A
‌ nother frequent cause is low freedom of movement. People may have low
expectancies of success because they lack information or the ability to perform
those behaviors that will be followed by positive reinforcement. People may also
have low freedom of movement because they make a faulty evaluation of the
present situation.
 A
‌ nother possibility is that people have low freedom of movement because they
generalize from one situation in which, perhaps, they are realistically inadequate
to other situations in which they could have sufficient ability to be successful.
 M
‌ aladjusted individuals are characterized by unrealistic goals, inappropriate
behaviors, inadequate skills, or unreasonably low expectancies of being able to
execute the behaviors necessary for positive reinforcement. Although they have
learned inadequate ways of solving problems within a social context, they can
unlearn these behaviors and also learn more appropriate ones within the controlled
social environment provided by psychotherapy.
Psychotherapy
 the problems of psychotherapy are problems of how to effect changes in behavior
through the interaction of one person with another. That is, they are problems in
human learning in a social situation” .
 ‌ lthough Rotter adopted a problem-solving approach to psychotherapy, he did not
A
limit his concern to quick solutions to immediate problems. His interest was more
long range, involving a change in the patient’s orientation toward life.
 I‌ n general, the goal of Rotter’s therapy is to bring freedom of movement and need
value into harmony, thus reducing defensive and avoidance behaviors.
 ‌Therapists will attempt to accomplish the therapeutic goal in two ways: changing the
importance of goals and eliminating unrealistically low expectancies for success.

Changing Goals
 Many patients are unable to solve life’s problems because they are pursuing skewed
or distorted goals. The role of the therapist is to help these patients understand the
faulty nature of their goals and to teach them constructive means of striving toward
realistic goals.
 Three sources of problems that follow from inappropriate goals.
1. two or more important goals may be in conflict
2. destructive goal
 3. many people find themselves in trouble because they set their goals too high and
are continually frustrated when they cannot reach or exceed them

Eliminating Low Expectancies

 People may have low freedom of movement for at least three reasons:
1. they may lack the skills or information needed to successfully strive toward their
goals.
2. faulty evaluation of the present situation
3. Low freedom of movement can spring from inadequate generalization.
 Although Rotter recognized that therapists should be flexible in their techniques and
should utilize different approaches with different patients,he suggested several
interesting techniques that he found to be effective:
1. teach patients to look for alternative courses of action.
2. help patients understand other people’s motives
3. Therapists can also help patients look at the long-range consequences of their
behaviors and to understand that many maladaptive behaviors produce secondary
gains that outweigh the patients’ present frustration
4. to have patients enter into a previously painful social situation, but rather than
speaking as much as usual, they are asked to remain as quiet as possible and
merely observe
 ‌ otter believed that a therapist should be an active participant in a social interaction
R
with the patient. An effective therapist possesses the characteristics of warmth and
acceptance not only because these attitudes encourage the patient to verbalize
problems but also because reinforcement from a warm, accepting therapist is more
effective than reinforcement from a cold, rejecting one.

Related Research
Internalized Racial Oppression and Locus of Control
Danice Brown and her colleagues (2017) investigated how internalized racial
oppression impacts African American students' perceptions of control over their academic
outcomes and their valuation of higher education. Their study found that internalized racial
oppression—believing negative stereotypes about one's own racial group—was inversely
related to the importance these students placed on higher education, as measured by the
Higher Education Values Inventory (Luttrell & Richard, 2011).

This means that African American students who internalized racist beliefs were less
likely to value higher education due to the influence of their environment. This means that
African American students are most likely to develop an external locus of control, a belief
that they have less control of their future because of external factors like racial inequality and
oppression, as opposed to developing a more internal locus of control, which pertains to the
belief that their actions determine their success.
 Moreover, the research revealed that this relationship was particularly pronounced
among young men. African American men with higher levels of internalized racial oppression
felt they had less control over their academic performance, as assessed by the Academic
Locus of Control Scale (Trice, 1985). Consequently, these students were less motivated and
saw fewer benefits in pursuing higher education. This finding highlights the need to address
internalized racism in interventions aimed at increasing higher education participation among
African American men, as it significantly affects their academic locus of control and
educational aspirations.

Person Situation Interaction

Walter Mischel's research emphasizes that behavior is influenced by the interaction
between personality and context, rather than being consistent across all situations. His "if-
then" framework, "If I am in this situation, then I do X; but if I am in that situation, then I do
Y." illustrates this concept. In a study by Lara Kammrath, Richard Mendoza-Denton, and
Walter Mischel (2005), participants were asked to predict how a fictional student would
behave in various scenarios based on a single trait descriptor. These words were friendly, a
kiss-up, flirtatious, shy, or unfriendly.

The study found that participants accurately predicted behavior according to the
context: for instance, a student described as a "kiss-up" was expected to act warmly toward
professors but not toward peers. Conversely, a student described as "unfriendly" was
anticipated to be warmer with familiar people than with strangers. These findings support the
idea that understanding behavior requires considering the specific situations, rather than
relying on one uniform response.

Marshmallows and Self-Regulation Across the

Lifespan
Walter Mischel's groundbreaking research on delay of gratification, starting with his famous
marshmallow test, has shown that the ability to resist immediate temptations for long-term
rewards has significant implications throughout life. The marshmallow test is a classic
measure of self-regulation in children and predicts many long-term outcomes such as
academic performance in high school and college. In his early studies with Ebbesen (1970),
Mischel discovered that children who could wait for a second marshmallow, rather than
eating the first one immediately, used various strategies to manage their self-control.

Later studies reviewed by Mischel, Shoda, and colleagues (2011) revealed that this ability to
delay gratification predicts important life outcomes. For instance, children who waited longer
for the marshmallow had higher SAT scores, better educational achievements, and greater
self-worth. Conversely, those who gave in were more likely to be overweight by age 11 and
show traits of borderline personality in adulthood (Ayduk et al., 2008; Seeyave et al., 2009).

Mischel’s research (2010) indicates that successful self-regulation involves two main
strategies: redirection of attention, or looking away from the temptation, and cognitive
reframing, or thinking about the temptation in a less appealing way. This approach allows
people to manage immediate desires and focus on long-term goals. For example, reframing a
marshmallow’s appeal from its taste to its shape can help resist the urge to eat it.

Mischel’s book, The Marshmallow Test: Mastering Self-Control (2014a), emphasizes that
self-control is like a muscle that can be trained and strengthened. He argues that everyone can
learn these skills, which are not merely genetic traits but abilities that can be developed
through practice. These findings challenge the misconception that self-control is an inherent
trait, showing instead that self-regulation strategies can be taught and applied to improve
overall well-being.

Critique of Cognitive Social Learning Theory

A. Research Impact
i. Rotter’s idea of locus of control has led to a lot of research and is well-known,
though his overall theory hasn't been as widely studied.
ii. Mischel’s research on delaying gratification is less extensive but closely related to
his core ideas and has had a significant impact.
B. Falsifiability
i. Rotter’s theories are hard to test accurately because they are quite hypothetical.
ii. Mischel’s theories are easier to test and have been updated to focus more on how
different situations affect behavior.
C. Organizing Knowledge
i. Rotter’s theory provides a helpful framework for understanding behavior, though
it’s not perfect.
ii. Mischel’s theory offers a more detailed and effective way to explain and predict
how people act based on both personal traits and situations.
D. Guidance for Action
i. Rotter’s ideas are useful for therapists but less practical for other applications due
to their complexity.
ii. Mischel’s theory suggests that people act differently in various situations,
providing some guidance but lacking specific advice for practitioners.
E. Internal Consistency
i. Rotter’s theory is logically consistent with clear terms.
ii. Mischel’s theory is also consistent and backed by research, making it coherent and
reliable.
F. Simplicity (Parsimony)
i. Both theories are straightforward and focus on research-based explanations of
behavior rather than complex or speculative ideas.

Concept of Humanity
 Determinism vs. Free Choice:
o Rotter acknowledges that while individuals set and adjust personal goals, their
choices are guided by past experiences and personal limitations, indicating
 that free choice is not entirely unlimited but rather influenced by prior
experiences and cognitive processes.
 Pessimism vs. Optimism:
o Rotter maintains a realistic and pragmatic view. He believes people can learn
new behaviors and problem-solving strategies throughout their lives, reflecting
an optimistic view of human potential. However, he does not suggest that
people have an inherent drive towards inevitable psychological growth, which
balances this optimism with a recognition of external influences and
limitations.
 Causality vs. Teleology:
o Rotter’s theory leans towards a teleological perspective. He emphasizes that
behavior is directed by future goals and expectations rather than solely by past
causes. Individuals are motivated by their anticipation of future outcomes and
how these outcomes align with their goals.
 Conscious vs. Unconscious Determinants:
o Rotter’s approach tends to emphasize conscious determinants. He argues that
people can deliberately set goals and strive to solve problems. Although
individuals might not always be fully aware of all underlying motivations,
conscious goal-setting is central to his theory.
 Biological vs. Social Influences:
o Rotter emphasizes social influences in shaping behavior, focusing on social
learning and interactions within a social environment. However, he
acknowledges that personal history and cognitive processes also play a role.
He places greater weight on social factors compared to biological ones.
 Uniqueness vs. Similarities:
o Rotter recognizes the uniqueness of individual experiences and personal goals,
which allows for personalized behavior. At the same time, he believes there
are sufficient commonalities among people to enable the prediction of
behavior through general principles when adequate information is available.

Julian Rotter’s concept of humanity presents people as goal-directed, cognitive individuals

who evaluate their experiences based on future expectations and personal goals. His theory
integrates conscious thought, social influences, and a balance between uniqueness and
commonality in understanding human behavior.