So, our personal traits interact with our environment to influence our behavior. Albert Bandura (1986, 2006, 2008) called this process reciprocal determinism. “Behavior, internal personal factors, and environmental influences,” he said, “all operate as interlocking determinants of each other” (FIGURE 12.5).

The social-cognitive perspective on personality that Bandura proposed is especially focused on the many ways our individual traits and thoughts interact with our social world as we move from one situation to another. We bring a lot to any social situation we enter. We bring our past learning, often picked up through conditioning or by observing others. We bring our self-efficacy—our expectations about whether we will succeed in (and attempt) new challenges (Bandura, 1977). We also bring our ways of thinking about specific situations. But situations themselves place different demands on us. Most of us know the general social rules for acceptable behavior at a grandparent’s funeral, for example. We also know that a different set of rules outlines what’s acceptable at a friend’s New Year’s Eve party. In the end, our behavior in any situation is in part the result of our own characteristics and in part the result of the situation.

We can see this interaction in people’s relationships. For example, Rosa’s romantic history (past behavior) influences her attitudes toward new relationships (internal factor), which affects how she now responds to Ryan (environmental factor). Social-cognitive theorists explore the interaction among the three sets of influence:

In addition to the interaction of internal personal factors, the environment, and our behaviors, we also experience gene-environment interaction (Chapter 3). Our genetically influenced traits evoke certain responses from others, which may nudge us in one direction or another. In one classic study, those with the interacting factors of (1) having a specific gene associated with aggression, and (2) being raised in a difficult environment were most likely to demonstrate adult antisocial behavior (Caspi et al., 2002).

In such ways, we are both the products and the architects of our environments. Boiling water turns an egg hard and a noodle soft. Academic challenges turn one person into a success and another toward collapse (Harms et al., 2006). At every moment, our behavior is influenced by our biology, our social and cultural experiences, and our thought processes and traits (FIGURE 12.6).

To predict behavior, social-cognitive psychologists often observe behavior in realistic situations. Military and educational organizations and many Fortune 500 companies use such strategies (Bray & Byham, 1991, 1997; Eurich et al., 2009). AT&T has observed prospective managers doing simulated managerial work. Many colleges assess nursing students’ potential by observing their clinical work, and evaluate potential faculty members’ teaching abilities by observing them teach. Most American cities with populations of 50,000 or more have used such strategies in evaluating police officers and firefighters (Lowry, 1997).

These assessment exercises have some limitations. They may not reveal less visible but important characteristics, such as inner achievement drive (Bowler & Woehr, 2006). These procedures do exploit a valid principle: The best way to predict future behavior is neither a personality test nor an interviewer’s intuition; rather, it is the person’s past behavior patterns in similar situations (Lyons et al., 2011; Mischel, 1981; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).

Social-cognitive theories of personality emphasize how situations affect, and are affected by, individuals. More than other personality theories (TABLE 12.4), they build from psychological research on learning and cognition.

Critics charge that social-cognitive theories focus so much on the situation that they fail to appreciate the person’s inner traits. They note that in many instances our unconscious motives, our emotions, and our traits shine through. Personality traits have been shown to predict behavior at work, love, and play. Consider Percy Ray Pridgen and Charles Gill. Each faced the same situation: They had jointly won a $90 million lottery jackpot (Harriston, 1993). When Pridgen learned of the winning numbers, he began trembling uncontrollably, huddled with a friend behind a bathroom door while confirming the win, then sobbed. When Gill heard the news, he told his wife and then went to sleep.