Examples Of Groupthink In 12 Angry Men

However, it isn't just the jurors' own personal prejudice that affects the way they vote. The prosecution of the boy led the jurors to believe that he was a guilty beyond all doubt. Also, the boy's representation was uninterested and uncaring. ‘I kept putting myself in the boy's place. I would have asked for another lawyer, I think. I mean, if I was on trial for my life I'd want my lawyer to tear the prosecution witnesses to shreds, or at least to try.' [Juror 8, page 14]

Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’ is a play which displays the twelve individual jurors’ characteristics through the deliberation of a first degree murder case. Out of the twelve jurors, the 8th Juror shows an outstanding heroism exists in his individual bravery and truthfulness. At the start, the 8th Juror stands alone with his opposing view of the case to the other eleven jurors. Furthermore, he is depicted as a juror who definitely understands the jury system and defends it from the jurors who do not know it fully. At the end, he eventually successes to persuade the eleven other jurors and achieves a unanimous verdict, showing his

Prejudice can often be formed without one even realize they are prejudiced, many of the characters in 12 Angry Men, have done as such, allowing their prejudice to not allow them fully evaluate the case unbiasedly. Jurors three, ten and seven are swayed by their prejudiced beliefs against the accused, as the deliberate the accused fate, juror ten states “his type are no good”(12 Angry Men). This prejudice which all of them share, justifiers their neglecting to inspect the evidence and testimony given rather than simply accepting it at face value. The film 12 Angry Men conveys how difficult it can be to set aside prejudiced views through jurors three, seven, and ten. The film also enables the reader to see how prejudice such as past experiences, ingnorance or misinformation, and stereotyping can cloud ones judgement.

The jurors are transformed by the process of deliberating. Eleven men voted guilty because of their prejudices, fears, laziness and insecurities, but they are eventually persuaded by reason to give up these limiting beliefs, to see the potential in the facts, and to find justice. The critical turning points in the jury votes occur, not when there is passion and anger, but when there is reasoned discussion, as the rational Juror 8 triumphs over the prejudices of his fellow jurors. The facts of the case do not change, but the jurors come to see the facts differently, and change by the process they go through. Despite the hostility and tension created in this process, the twelve men end up reconciled, and justice is done.

The film “12 Angry Men” gives the audience insight as to how jury deliberations work. The film follows 12 jurors throughout the process of finding the defendant’s sentencing. The jury is overseeing a case surrounding a young boy who is charged with the murder of his father. It was interesting to see the process of this paired with the way each character’s vote had an effect on each of the other juror’s decisions. The film “12 Angry Men” portrays a realistic fluctuation of stances in a room of jurors as a whole and individually based upon the prior experiences and ethics of each juror.

It is the juror's responsibility to prove the boy guilty or not. Many of these jurors applied their biases to the way the boy grew up and was treated throughout his life. They have created false accusations that are not necessarily accurate. They argue that teenagers his age have no sense of morality or respect for their elders. Which could be a justifiable reasoning for the murder of his own father. Juror Three appears to be prejudiced towards the boy due to the fact that his own son resented him and moved out. It is not uncommon to develop an explicit bias after generalizing impressions from a personal experience and applying that to all groups of that kind such as age, religion, etc. As Juror Eight votes not guilty during a vote, the third juror becomes infuriated and disagrees while ranting about how the defendant is completely guilty due to evidence. Two different categories came into play as Juror Three expressed his feelings about his own son relating to the boy on

In Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men there is a clear juror whom swayed the others and directly expressed his ideas. He is a “gentle man...who wants justice to be done.” Juror no.8 is the hero as his initial choice to vote not guilty locks in the boy's fate of escaping a life of prison and punishment; not excluding his persuasiveness and ideology of the morality of the other jurors. Juror no.8 single handedly voted against the grain and convinced other jurors of his logical reasons ‘it’s not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy of to die before talking about it first’. It was heroic of him to stand out against the others and the dramatic conclusion greatly attributed to his significant factor as the vote sway from 11-1 guilty to 12-0 for not guilty. Juror no.8 helped conveyed to the other jurors the boy's innocence. Persuading jurors in a chill mannerism whist jurors 3 and 10 were angry and impatient. Over the case juror no.8 was calm and reviewed the evidence taken from the prosecution and it's flaws. Juror no.8 constantly reviewed the evidence with other jurors presenting logical

The film “Twelve Angry Men” directed by Sidney Lumet illustrates many social psychological principles. The tense, gripping storyline that takes place in the 1950s features a group of jurors who must decide unanimously whether a young man is guilty or innocent in the murder of his father. At the beginning, eleven of the twelve jurors voted guilty. Gradually, through some heated discussion, the jurors are swayed to a not-guilty verdict. Upon examination, the film highlights social psychology theories in areas of conformity and group influence.

Now No.8 tells No.9 he can say what he wants to say about the old man for the reason he lied. No.9 say, “ This is a quiet, frightened, insignificant man who has been nothing all his life, who has never had recognition - his name in the newspapers. Nobody knows him after seventy-five years. That’s a very sad thing. A man like this needs to be recognized. To be questioned, and listened to, and quoted just once. This is very important” ( page.16 ). Juror 8 tells juror 9 it is okay to say your own opinion. All the other jurors feel comfortable saying their own opinions because juror 8 voiced his own. “Look this boy’s been kicked around all his life. You know, living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine years old. That’s not a very good head start. He’s a tough, angry kid. You know why slum kids get that way? Because we knock’em on the head once a day everyday. I think maybe we owe him a few words. That’s all.” ( page. 5 ). No.8 is trying to make people feel bad for the boy. He’s trying to say that they shouldn’t convict him because he hasn't had the best life so he needs to have the opportunity to live the rest of his life doing something that makes him happy. Juror 8 is so powerful he can make all the other jurors say their own opinions. Because of his pathos and his strong ethos the other jurors will listen to his logical appeal about the case.

Although a lot of evidence was really convincing, he tried to prove it unconvincing and use sarcasm to convince other jurors otherwise. One example of #7 using sarcasm would be this quote: "Why don't we have them run the trial over..." I think this quote clearly shows that juror #7 is trying to convince other jurors, that court's evidence proves the young man is guilty without reasonable doubt. Also to break #8's spirit he used name calling, another kind of peer pressure. I believe this is a very good example: "The boy is guilty pal, like the nose on your face." The third and last juror I picked was #8, he was not using sarcasm, nor was he muscle flexing, he was using reasonable argument, which helped him convince all the jurors that the young man was innocent. He did not try to convince anybody by screaming at him, on the contrary he tried to go over all the evidence, and he was using intelligent thinking, like trying to calculate exact times, and figure out the correct position of the switch-blade in the chest of the father. He was also trying to recreate a situation to see if indeed one of the witnesses on the stand was lying.

Groupthink is a problem-solving process in which proposals are accepted without a critical, careful review of the pros and cons of the alternatives, and in which considerable social pressure is brought out to bear against those expressing opposite view point’s (222). Groupthink is a process that almost occurred to the group at the beginning of 12 Angry Men. Eleven of the twelve men voted guilty without a review of the trail, almost sending a young boy to death. If it wasn’t for juror number eight, who expresses his opposing not guilty view, surely the group would have been a victim of the groupthink process. A young boy was almost sentenced to death, without even a discussion of what went on within the murder trial.

The film Twelve Angry Men shows many social psychology theories. This film presents some jurors who must decide if an accused murderer is guilty or innocent. In the beginning, all but one juror voted for guilty. Eventually, however, they come to a non-guilty verdict. It shows how a various group of individuals react to a situation that no one wants to be involved in. Twelve Angry Men exhibits so many examples of the true power of informational social influence and normative social influence. According to informational social influence, individuals tend to comply with others because they believe that another individuals version of a situation is more valid than their own. Normative social influence is a type of social influence that leads to conformity. This theory seems to fit in along with this movie because of the way the juror’s decisional processes went. Informational social influence is aggravated by obscurity and doubt of situation, importance of being correct, time constriction, and presence of those recognized as professionals. Just within the first few minutes of the movie, social influence is shown. In the jury room, a heated debate is prevented by an initial vote. This vote, which was taken publicly, was vulnerable to normative social influence or conformity from the fear of seeming in submissive. An obvious feeling of doubt is presented as the jurors vote. This hesitance can be perceived as weak conviction swayed by the guilty majority’s influence. Time constraints intensify informational social influence and possibly helped play a role in causing some of the jurors to cast guilty, conformist votes. Majority influence and social impact theory generate conformity. These theories are relevant in the jury context and are relevant to an explanation of Twelve Angry Men. Social impact theory specifies the situational and personal factors that bring on conformity. Conformity is enhanced by the immediacy element of social impact theory which brings to belief that without anonymity conflict is increasingly difficult. Perception of norms is apparently a factor that also brings out conformity. Stereotyping and prejudice were rampant at the time Twelve Angry Men was filmed. The director and writers cleverly

The boy later claimed he had been at the movies while his father was murdered, but couldn’t remember the name of the movies or who was in them. A woman living across the street also testified that she saw the boy kill his father through the windows of a passing elevated train. Finally, the boy has a previous record of offenses, including a violent crime with a knife. The remaining chapters will include detailed scene examination of groupthink factors that combine to make this interpersonal phenomenon.

Twelve Angry Men is a courtroom drama that was brought to the big screens in 1957. The storyline follows twelve men selected for jury duty, who are trying to reach a verdict on a young man’s trial following the murder of his father. Throughout the debates and voting, the men all reveal their personalities and motives behind their opinions. Because of all the differences of the men, their communication skills lack in some ways and are excellent in others. The three small group communication variables that I found portrayed throughout the movie were prejudice, past experience and preoccupation.

While these conflicts themselves might have held the jurors back, the competition approach to these sources of conflict moved the group in the right direction. For example, Juror #9, the old man, approached Juror #10’s insults and stereotyping in competitive fashion, claiming that people are not simply born liars. Later, Juror #10 calls the accused boy a “common ignorant slob [that] don’t even speak good English,” after which immigrant Juror #11 competitively corrects him. In the end, almost every juror takes a competitive approach to juror #10’s insulting in one of the film’s most powerful scenes as they, one by one, leave the table and turn their backs on him. The jurors unsympathizing intolerance of Juror #10’s bigoted views serve as a prime example of a competitive approach to conflict. The conflict and the approach to the conflict between the jurors and Juror #10 bring the group together as the votes slowly change from guilty to not guilty.