Decision-Making - Erin Brokovich Film - Movie Review Example

Decision Making: A Movie Analysis Name Course: Tutor’s Name Date Introduction Executives face difficult situations where they are supposed to make decisions that could potentially harm or enhance their firms’ reputation; career people make decisions that could salvage their family ties and ruin their careers in the process and vice versa; injured parties make decisions that involve risks that could leave them either better or worse off. The common denominator in all the foregoing scenarios is that decision making is involved. Additionally, all the three scenarios are represented in the movie Erin Drokovich. This paper will analyse decisions made in the movie, with specific attention to Ed’s decision to hire, fire, and re-hire Erin at different times in the movie; Erin’s decision to pursue her new found career in a law firm despite the displeasure it caused her children (most especially Mathew) and her boyfriend George; and the decision by the group of plaintiffs to agree to a binding arbitration as opposed to a trial even though there were some discontented voices when Erin and Ed first proposed the idea. The decisions made by Ed, Erin and the plaintiffs at different times in the movie will be analysed using choice-goals framework, attribution theory, theory of reasoned action, and theory of planned behaviour. Ed’s decision to hire, fire and re-hire Erin at different times in the movie Like other decisions, Ed’s decision to first hire Erin, fire her later, and re-hire her some time later can be seen as a reflection of the three components that are consisted in decision problems. In all the three instances, Ed had three basic components as identified by Payne, Bettman and Johnson (1989). They are: alternatives available to him; contingencies or events that related his actions to outcomes; and values that he linked to the possible outcomes of his decisions. Before hiring Erin for example, Ed’s alternatives were: hire Erin and find a role that suits her, refuse to hire her and send her away, or help her get another job that suits her from a different employer. The contingencies facing Ed at that time were: Erin could be a valuable employee or she could also turn out to be a liability to the company; dismissing her (especially after failing to win her case) would perhaps leave Ed with a guilty feeling especially after Erin pleading that she had to fend for three children singlehandedly. There was also the possibility that getting her a job would take time, and perhaps fail to succeed in the long-term. His values perhaps supported giving people (even the unqualified like Erin) a chance to justify themselves, or perhaps it is the thought of having lost Erin’s case that prompted him to hire her. Of the three alternatives available to Ed, it is clear from the movie that he chose to hire Erin despite the risks that came with it. It is also clear, based on the firing episode that, Ed had decided to fire Erin if she did not live up to what was expected of her in the office. Attribution theory can explain Ed’s decision making process. According to Oliviera (2007) attribution theory consists of schemata, bias and heuristics; whereby, schemata is the working hypothesis “about some aspect of the environment and may be a concept of the self (self schema), other individuals (person schema), groups (role schema), or sequences of events in the environment (scripts). From Ed’s decision the interactions between Ed’s self schemas; his hypothesis about Erin, hence person schema; and his hypothesis about the environment, hence script, are seen interacting. Initially, Ed is seen questioning Erin about whether she knows how to go finding a file (probably because she thought she was capable of doing so), he later fires her, and only when new information is available about what Erin had been doing while absent from the office does Ed change his mind regarding Erin’s competencies. The foregoing actions and choices by Ed fit into the attribution theory, where it is indicated that once a person forms a schemata, it is hard to believe otherwise (e.g. Ed’s schemata regarding Erin’s incompetence), and change only occurs if new information becomes available (e.g. when Ed realises that Erin had been out investigating the case, and had indeed got some vital leads all through her absence from the office). A critical look at Ed’s decision (especially firing Erin) indicates the wrong decisions that one unknowingly makes in an effort to make good decisions. In the choice goals framework, Bettman et al. (1998) observe that two meta-goals inform a decision maker’s choice. The meta-goals involve the need to minimise negative emotions during and after making a decision, and enhancing the ease with which the decision-maker justifies the decision made to self and others. Arguably, Ed’s decision to hire, fire and re-hire Erin is a reflection of the two foregoing meta-goals. Perhaps Ed thought hiring Erin would give her a softer landing after losing the court case where she sought compensation for having been hit by a car. Perhaps it was even Ed’s way of dealing with his own guilt of having assured Erin that they would win the case but which they failed in the end. The firing was perhaps a justification on Ed’s end that Erin had blown up her chances of working with the company. The re-hiring was arguably based on the realisation that he had been unappreciative of Erin’s effort, and as such, he might have avoided the guilt of firing a person who had actually done more than was expected of her. It is therefore recommendable that in future, Ed would pay less attention to emotions and the need to justify himself to others as defined by Bettman et al. (1998), and perhaps just do what is right. Erin’s decision to pursue her new found career despite the displeasure it was causing her children (especially Matthew), and despite opposing views from her boyfriend George Notably, the above decision is not a one-time event; rather it is a continuous process that Erin is seen to struggle with whenever her children want her to spend time with them but she has to leave for work. Her resolve to pursue her career is further seen when she has to let George go even though she is emotionally indebted to him because she simply cannot give up her career (or because she felt indebted to the people she was seeking justice for). Erin’s decisions can be explained from a theory of reasoned action perspective; because she is seen to have strong intentions (e.g. seeking justice for the residents of Hinckley, California, and earning a living to enable her support her three children). Arguably, her intentions guide her behaviour in that she does not give in to pressure to quit her job either from her children, her boyfriend or from the anonymous threatening phone call that warns her against pursuing further investigations at the Hinckley, California water board. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) was first proposed by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), and assumes that in most cases, a person can choose which way to act or behave. TRA further assumes that a person’s intentions are drawn from his/her attitude towards behaviour, or their “perceived social norms regarding behaviour” (Beresford & Sloper 2008, p. 20). TRA identifies social influences as the context in which behaviour occurs, since they (social influences) exert pressure on a person to behave in a specific way. In Erin’s case, the residents of Hinckley, California were the main social influences because it is evident that Erin was determined to pursue justice for them. Erin’s children are also another source of social influence because as much as she wants to spend time with them, she also needs to earn a living in order to support them financially. At some point, George points out that buying the children gifts will not compensate for the time that Erin does not spend with her children. George is also a source of social influence to Erin, but in most cases, it seems like she disregards his opinion, mainly because his opinions are contrary to her attitudes towards pursuing justice for the Hinckley residents and earning good money for her children’s sake. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) can also be used to define Erin’s decision to pursue her career despite what can be interpreted as opposing views from her children and boyfriend. According to Conner and Armitage (1998), TPB posits that a person’s behaviour is a “function of three direct determinants: attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control (PBC)” (p. 1431). In other words, in addition to the attitudes and subjective norms considered in TRA, TPB involves a third determinant identified as PBC. Conner and Armitage (1998) note that PBC depends on control beliefs. Such beliefs are internal or external control factors that determine a person’s ability to act in a particular way. Internal control factors include: a person’s emotions, abilities, skills, access to information and/or personal deficiencies. External control factors include: barriers, opportunities, and/or dependence on others. In Erin’s case, her attitudes, subjective norms and her apparent perception of having the necessary resources (both in internal and external control factors) seem to have motivated her decision to pursue her newfound career. For example, she seemed to perceive her femininity as an asset that would get her rid of obstacles hindering her from getting information from the water board. A critical look into Erin’s decision reveals that perhaps she could have minimised the risk of losing those she loved – i.e. George and the children – by making them strike a work-life balance as suggested by Kay (2003). It would therefore be recommendable that Erin should have engaged George and the Children more in her work-related decisions to make them feel that she still considered their input in her life. The decision by the residents of Hinckley, California to agree to binding arbitration as opposed to pursuing a file criminal trial against Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) The decision by Hinckley residents arguably involved risks which included: the possibility of getting less compensation if they chose to be engaged in binding arbitration as opposed to a trial; or the probability of going to trial and the court case dragging on for years during which time some of them would be long dead. Notably, there was no assurance of the amount of compensation that each complainant would receive even after the court case dragging on for years. The decision by residents is therefore best explained using the prospect theory, which indicates that faced with a decision problem, a person forms a mental representation of the same, then forms judgement regarding the same, and finally makes a decision about the problem (Soman 2004). The process of framing the problem and making a decision about it is different among different people, hence perhaps explaining why some Hinckley residents were willing to accept binding arbitration while others were not. According to Schoemaker and Russo (2001), differences in how people perceive, organise and interpret information, and the differences in information context mean that people make varying decisions about the same problems. Incidentally, as seen in the Hinckley residents who initially refused to agree to a binding arbitration during the meeting but later did when Erin and Ed followed them to their houses, people make different decisions about the same decision problem while in different contexts. Prospect theorists (e.g. Hastie & Dawe 2000; Lightle, Kagel and Arkes 2008; Read et al. 1999) argue that a person can consider different options either sequentially or at once. Arguably, Hinckley residents who consented to a binding arbitration during the meeting are those capable of considering all options at once while those who took more convincing by Ed and Erin are perhaps inclined to sequentially considering their options. A critical look at the decision making by Hinckley residents supports prospect theorists’ position that in joint decision making, different people frame a decision-problem differently based on their values or attitudes, or because of the differences in impact that a decision will have on each individual. As indicated in the movie, some Hinckley residents had been sick for longer than others, some had hospital bills that were more than those of others, and still, others had ailing family members while others did not. A decision to a binding arbitration would hence have different impact on each one of them. In such a scenario, it is thus recommendable as indicated by Stasser and Stewart (1992) that groups’ decision making should be more focused on solving a problem as opposed to making judgements. In the end, it would appear that Hinckley residents chose to engage in what Davis, Kameda and Stasson (1992) refer to as group risk-taking, which was not a sure way of solving the problem they had. Luckily though, they got a generous compensation from the binding arbitration process. Conclusion This paper has used different decision making theories to explain three critical decisions made by the characters in the Erin Brokovich film. From the different theories used, it is evident that people make different considerations before making decisions. In some cases, a person’s attitudes towards the possible outcomes consciously or unconsciously affect their decision making. In other cases, the context in which the information regarding the decision-problem is offered affects the decision-making process. Still, the contingencies, alternatives and values that a person attaches to a decision also affect the decision making process. References Ajzen, I & Fishebein, M 1980, Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Beresford, B & Sloper, T 2008, ‘Understanding the dynamics of decision-making and choice: a scoping study of key psychological theories to inform the design and analysis of the panel study’, Social Policy Research Unit, University of York, pp. 1-70. Bettman, J R, Luce, M F & Payne, J W 1998, ‘Constructive consumer choice processes’, Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 187-217. Conner, M & Armitage, C J 1998, ‘Extending the theory of planned behaviour: A review and avenues for further research’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 28, no. 15, pp. 1429-1464. Davis, J, Kameda, T & Stasson, M 1992, ‘Group risk taking: Selected topics,’ In J Yates (Ed.), Risk-taking behaviour (pp. 163-181), John Wiley & Sons, New York. Hastie, R & Dawes, R M 2000, Rational choice in an uncertain world: The psychology of judgment and decision making, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Kay, T 2003, ‘The work-life balance in social practice’, Social Policy & Society, vol. 2, no.3, pp. 231-239. Lightle, J, Kagel, J & Arkes, H 2008, ‘Information exchange in group decision making,’ Management Science, pp. 1-32. Oliviera, A 2007, ‘A discussion of rational and psychological decision-making theories and models: the search for a cultural-ethical decision-making model’, Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, vol. 12, no.2, pp. 12-17. Payne, J W, Bettman, J.R & Johnson, E 1989, ‘The adaptive decision-maker: Effort and accuracy in choice’, In H.J Einhorn & R.M Hogarth (eds.), Insights in decision making: theory and applications, pp. 1-45, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Read, D, Loewenstein, G & Rabin, M 1999, ‘Choice bracketing,’ Journal of Risk Uncertainty, vol. 19, pp. 171-197. Schoemaker, P & Russo, J 2001, ‘Managing frames to make better decisions,’ In S. Hoch & H Kunreuther (Eds.), Wharton on making decisions, John Wiley & Sons, New York. Soman, D 2004, ‘Framing, loss aversion and mental accounting,’ in D J Koehler and N Harvey (eds), Blackwell handbook of judgement and decision making, Blackwell Publishing, Malden. Stasser, G & Stewart, D 1992, ‘Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment,’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 63, pp. 426–434. Read More