A fairly very recent school of thought was proposed by Jullian Rotter. He found the radical behavioristic approach to be narrow-minded. He felt that stimulus for animals should not be given the same worth as if it were given to a human. He felt that behaviors were predicted by an equation of Reinforcement value + Expectancy = Behavior Potential.
Reinforcement Value is the degree to which we prefer one reinfocer over another. This would be a reason why we can't neccesarily assume that one reinfocer will always work.
Expectancy is what would be the situations or response that a certain behavior would elicit based on previous experiences.
Behavior Potential is the summation of these two processes. The best way to explain this would be through an example. If for instance, a student were in a class and a professor states an obviously wrong fact. How likely is the student likely to correct the professor. The student will most likely refer to other times when they have witness professors being contradicted. If they have witness this to be something that is helpful and rewarding (other students are appreciative that they learned the correct fact or way)and the student would like to have the students appreciate them then there is a good cahnce that they may speak up. If they do not care about helping out by correcting then the reinforcement value is not high enough, which would lead the studentto remain quiet. But, If they were exposed to students being punished and humilated througout the semester becuase of a bruised ego then they may not say anything.
Albert Bandura is another person who is noted in psychology with his social-cognitive theory. He feels that behavior is govern by reciprocal determinism. He feels as though it is not an equation, but a very interactive process that includes external and internal factors