THEORIES OF LEARNING

1. CLASSICAL CONDITIONING

A type of conditioning in which an individual responds to some stimulus that would not ordinarily produce such a response.

Ivan Pavlov, a Russian physiologist, incidentally discovered classical conditioning, a very basic form of learning in which an organism comes to associate one stimulus with another, while studying the digestive system in dogs.

Pavlov strapped dogs into a harness, placed different types of food in their mouths, and measured the flow of saliva through a tube surgically inserted in the their cheeks, after repeated sessions, he noted that the dogs would begin to salivate before the food was actually put in their mouths. This occurred in anticipation of the food, before it was actually present. The mere sight of food, the sight of the dog dish, and even the sound of the experiments footsteps made them drool.

From this experiment, Pavlov developed the theory of classical conditioning and began to study classical condition systematically.

In his experiment, his dogs did not have to be conditioned to solvate. The salivary reflex is a innate unconditioned response (UCR) that is naturally associated by placing meat powder in the mouth, an unconditioned stimulus (UCS).

Pavlov conducted an experiment to see if the dogs could be conditioned to salvate at the sound of a bell. Because a dog doesn’t salivate initially to the ringing of a bell, Pavlov called the bell a neutral stimulus (NS).

Pavlov reputedly rand a bell before presenting food in the dogs mouth, bell, food, bell, food.

After a number of these pairings of the bell, with the meat powder, the dogs began to salivate to the sound of the bell alone.

 The bell, which was initially a neutral stimulus, became a conditioned stimulus (CS) and salvation, which was initially an unconditioned response (UCR) to meat powder become a conditioned response (CR) to the sound of the bell.

Through, learning, a previously neutral stimulus evoked the same response as the unconditioned stimulus had.

Hence, the basic classical conditioning procedures involve an unconditioned stimulus (UCS), an unconditioned response (UCR), a neutral stimulus, a conditioned stimulus (CS), and a conditioned response (CR).

LEARNING AND BEHAVIOUR MODIFICATION

DEFINITION

There seems to be a general consensus among social scientists that learning can be defined as “relatively permanent change in behaviour that occurs as a result of experience or reinforced practice”. This definition contains the following points.

·         Leaning involves a change; through not necessarily improvement in behavour. It may be good or bad from organization points of view. For example, bad habits, prejudice, stereotype and work restrictions also can be learned.

·         Change must be relatively permanent.

·         Some form of experience is necessary for learning to occur

·         The practice of learning must be reinforced in order that learning occurs.

Hence, Learning is acquiring new knowledge, behaviours, skills, values, preferences or understanding, and may involve synthesizing different types of information.

GROUP DECISION MAKING TECHNIQUES

There come several instances in daily existence when decision making is considered necessary for personal and professional life. Group Decision Making is a complex process as it includes opinions and inputs of several people. This composite procedure can be approached by several methods. Some of them are:

1. Interacting Group Technique: 
This type of technique involves people who interact face to face and on daily basis and they use both verbal and non-verbal skills to communicate with each other. This technique is not considered much reliable at organizational level decision making process because non-verbal symbols are misinterpreted sometimes which can affect the verdict badly.


2. Brainstorming: 
Brainstorming is an idea generation process that specifically encourages any all alternatives while withholding any criticism of those alternatives. It is meant to overcome the pressure of conformity that impede to the development of inventive substitutes. In Brainstorming usual session people are invited to meet each other physically, one person states the problem in a clear manner and respondents freewheel to generate multiple ideas in a given length of time. Everyone can give multiple ideas even how absurd it is, but no one can pass any criticism on those ideas unless the session is open for discussion on alternatives.
Brainstorming is not found effective in either quantity or quality of ideas generated, because researchers give evidence of problems as distraction, production blockage, evaluation apprehension and social loafing during such kind of sessions. People are much more productive in solitary states as compared to meetings due to production blockage. People used to speak a lot in brainstorming sessions that hinders the brain to generate ideas.


3. Nominal Group Technique: 
A better form of Brainstorming is Nominal Group Decision Making Technique. People are restricted to have discussion or inter-personal communication during nominal session. Employees are met physically but they act independently, they are asked to write their ideas in response to a problem individually. After this silent period, each member presents his ideas to the group, until all ideas have been presented and recorded no discussion takes place.
The group now discusses the ideas for clarity and evaluates them. Each group member silently and independently ranks the idea. The idea with the highest aggregate ranking determines the final decision. It is much better technique to make a decision in a group.


4. Electronic Meeting: 
In Electronic Meeting, Nominal Group Technique is merged with new computer technology. Half dozen to a dozen people sit around a table and same process is repeated, respondents write their ideas on computers in front of them which are apparent to others just by a click of tab. This process is considered as the best because individual comments as well as aggregate votes are displayed on a projection screen. It allows people to be brutally honest, and the process is fast as chitchat is eliminated. Participants can talk at once, and remain anonymous.

5.Delphi Technique

The Delphi technique is a group decision-making process that can be used by decision-making groups when the individual members are in different physical locations. The technique was developed at the Rand Corporation. The individuals in the Delphi "group" are usually selected because of the specific knowledge or expertise of the problem they possess. In the Delphi technique, each group member is asked to independently provide ideas, input, and/or alternative solutions to the decision problem in successive stages. These inputs may be provided in a variety of ways, such as e-mail, fax, or online in a discussion room or electronic bulletin board. After each stage in the process, other group members ask questions and alternatives are ranked or rated in some fashion. After an indefinite number of rounds, the group eventually arrives at a consensus decision on the best course of action.

Group Shift:

In comparing group decisions with the individual decisions of members within the group, evidence suggests that there are differences. In some cases, the group decisions are more conservative than the individual decisions. More often, the shift is towards greater risk.

What appears to happen in groups is that the discussion leads to a significant shift in a position of members towards a more extreme position in the direction in which they were already leaning before the discussion. So conservative types become more cautious and the more aggressive types take on more risk. The group discussion tends to exaggerate the initial position of the group.

Group shift can be viewed as actually a special case of groupthink. The decision of the group reflects the dominant decision-making norm that develops during the groups discussion. Whether the shift in the groups decision is towards greater caution or more risk depends on the dominant pre-discussion norm.

The greater occurrence of the shift toward risk has generated several explanations for the phenomenon. Its been argued, for instance, that the discussion creates familiarization among the members. As they become more comfortable with each other, they also become more bold and daring. Another argument is that most first world societies value risk that we admire individuals who are willing to take risks, and that group discussion motivates members to show that they are at least as willing as their peers to take risks. The most plausible explanation of the shift toward risk, however, seems to be that the group diffuses responsibility. Group decisions free any single member from accountability for the groups final choice. Greater risk can be taken because even if the decision fails, no one member can be held wholly responsible.

So how should you use the findings on Group shift? You should recognize that group decisions exaggerate the initial position of the individual members that the shift has been shown more often to be toward greater risk and that whether or not a group will shift toward greater risk or caution is a function of the members pre-discussion inclinations.

What can managers do to minimize group think?

One thing is to monitor group size. People grow intimidated and hesitant as group size increases and, although there is no magic number that will eliminate groupthink, individuals are likely to feel less personal responsibility when groups get larger than about 10 members. Managers should also encourage group leaders to play an impartial role. Leaders should actively seek input from all members and avoid expressing their own opinions, especially I the early stages of deliberation. Another thing is to appoint one group member to play the ole of devil’s advocate. This members role is to overtly challenge the majority position and offer divergent perspectives. Still another suggestion is to use exercises that stimulate active discussion of diverse alternatives without threatening the group and intensifying identity protection. One such exercise is to have group members talk about dangers or risks involved in a decision and delaying discussion of any potential gains. By requiring members to first focus on the negatives of a decision alternative, the group is less likely to stifle dissenting views and more likely to gain an objective evaluation.

Does groupthink attack all groups?

No, It seems to occur most often when there is a clear group identity, when members hold a positive image of their group that they want to protect, and when the group perceives a collective threat to this positive image. So group think is not a dissenter-suppression mechanism as much as its a means for a group to protect its positive image. For NASA, it is a problem stem from its attempt to confirm its identity as the elite organization that could do o wrong?

Group think:

Have you ever felt like speaking up in a meeting, classroom, or informal group, but decided against it? One reason may have been shyness. On the other hand, you may have been victim of group think, the phenomenon that occurs when group members become so enamored of seeking concurrence that the norm for consensus overrides the realistic appraisal of alternatives courses of action and the full expression of deviant, minority or unpopular views. It describes deterioration in an individual mental efficiency, reality, testing, and moral judgment as a result of group pressures.

We have all seen the symptoms of the groupthink phenomenon.

1. Group members rationalize any resistance to the assumptions they have made. No matter how strongly the evidence may contradict their basic assumptions; members behave so as to reinforce those assumptions continually.

2. Members apply direct pressures on those who momentarily express doubts about any of the group shared views or who question the validity of arguments supporting the alternative favored by the majority.

3. Members who have doubts or hold differing points of view seek to avoid deviating from what appears to be group consensus by keeping silent about misgivings and even minimizing to themselves the importance of their doubts.

4. There appears to be an illusion of unanimity. If someone doesn’t speak, its assumed that he or she is in full accord. In other words, abstention becomes viewed as a Yes vote.

Groupthink appears to be closely aligned with the conclusion Asch, the expert in behavioral studies, drew in his experiments with a lone dissenter. Individuals who hold a position that is different from that of the dominant majority are under pressure to suppress, with hold, or modify their true feelings and beliefs. As members of a group, we find it more pleasant to be in agreement –to be a positive part of the group than to be a disruptive force, even if disruption is necessary to improve the effectiveness of the groups decisions.