Roles and Communication Between Groups as See in 12 Angry Men

The term groupthink in this report is defined as, the social psychological phenomenon that results in groups during pressure situations. This social psychology theory is broken down into eight signs. Illusion of invulnerability, Collective rationalization, Belief in inherent morality, Stereotyped views of out-groups, Direct pressure on dissenters, Self-censorship, Illusion of unanimity, Self-appointed “mindguards”. According to research conducted by Irving Janis, there are three conditions to groupthink. The first, "high group cohesiveness" which is the direction for a group to be in unity while working towards a goal, or to satisfy the emotional needs of its members. Secondly, the structural faults such as insulation of the group, lack

In 1957, the producers H. Fonda, G. Justin and R. Rose collaborated with the director S. Lumet to create the film, 12 Angry Men. In this paper, I will provide an analysis of the small group communication displayed by the main characters in the motion picture. I will discuss group communications, group development, group membership, group diversity, and group leadership. These topics will be dissected in order to properly examine the characters’ behavior.

The personality of juror # 10 was one of hatefulness and anger. This juror was prejudice against the kid because he was from the slums. Juror # 10 said something in the movie about not being able to trust people who are from the slums. Juror # 10 had several outbursts and had a heinous attitude through most of the movie. Juror # 10 was the one who did most of the talking, when it came to trying to convince Juror # 8 that the kid was guilty. There was another Juror that had a roundabout same type of personality coming into the juror’s room as juror # 10. The juror # 3 was also bitter and obstinate towards the others, specifically when it came down to several of the other jurors changing their opinion of guilty to not guilty. Juror # 3 became hot headed and very loud and obnoxious towards everyone. Both Juror # 10 and juror # 3 were only looking at the eye witness testimony,

Juror number three is an arrogant, self-minded and extremely ambiguous has had a personal experience in his life, that’s why he wants the boy dead. His son ran away from a fight when he was nine. “ I saw him. I was so ashamed I almost threw up.” Then when he was older the boy then hit him in the face and he has never seen him since. This puts a pre- judged view inside of his head. In the end he thinks to himself that it is not his son that is on trial therefore he can not treat him like that. He can’t hate all teenagers because of his son. Juror number ten is similar to number three in

Juror number one played the role of the moderator. He tried his best to keep it as organized as possible. Juror number two would be considered an includer, because he tried to let everyone speak. He was also a listener for the same reason. Juror number three was an eager beaver, because he was quick to reply before even thinking.

Juror three is a stubborn and short-tempered person. Juror three made solid sentiments in the beginning, which actively kept him involved in the discussion but he started losing control as the discussion continued. Because he disliked Juror eight, the argument between them strengthened the discussion. His loud and demanding personality made jurors go against his claim because his rage was intolerable by others. Later in the discussion, it was also revealed that he had a poor relationship with his own son, which led to believe that this was one of the causes to his intolerance against the suspect. When Juror three understood that he is only presenting an insight of his feelings regarding his own son onto the suspect, he changed his decision.

Juror 1 was a high football coach and was the head of the ballots. Juror 2 was a bank clerk and kind of shy. He seemed intimated by the more outspoken ones but he did change his mind. Juror 3 was a middle- aged man who him and his son did not get along. I truly believe that was the only reason he did not vote not guilty.

He plays the role of 'appointed leader', or the individual who is assigned the leader position from the onset. A simple man who clearly does not understand the complexity of the task that lies before him but is trying to do everything not to let anyone else find this out. He appears at ease only once during the film ' when he talks about football. He has the misfortune to be selected Foreman of the jury ' a task he clearly does not enjoy. Juror #2 is a small, quite man who is clearly unaccustomed to giving his own opinion much less to expecting his views to be of any importance. In his subdued 'observer' and meek 'information giver' role, No. 2 apparently finds comfort in his job ' he is an accountant. Juror # 3 is probably the most complex personality in the film. He starts off like a pleasant self-made successful businessman, analyzing the case impartially, explaining the arguments well and is reasonably self-assured. As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate exploding in disbelieving anger and seems somehow to be personally involved with the case. His motivation for behaving as he does is revealed when he discloses that he's not on good terms with his own son. Illusions to his animosity toward youth were made when he says that kids today have no respect and that he has not see his son in over a decade. No.3 namely plays the 'aggressive', 'dominator' and 'blocker' roles. His personal baggage with his own son 'blocked' or

Groupthink and 12 Angry Men When it comes to individuals, acting upon what they know to be true is not surprising. What can be surprising however, it the ability of a situation bringing multiple individuals to groupthink and come to one belief, conclusion or a common truth. This is what happened in the film “12 Angry Men” (Lumet & Rose, 1957). This paper will discuss this movie and how the patterns of persuasion and conformity, issues of prejudice and reliance on cognitive heuristics to bring these men to one conclusion. Patterns of Persuasion and Conformity

Juror#8 made efforts to make personal links with other jurors and tried to make everyone feel comfortable. He tried to sort out the disputes rapidly when they occur. For instance, he stops the old men when he is yelling after the extremist. Henry Fonda (juror #8) was a kind of person who owes different types of leadership traits like he was self-controlled because he listened to the points of each and every person even though, he was not agreeing with them (Basilicata, 2013). He was determined person

These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his

In the movie “12 Angry Men” each juror has a different personality and each react differently to each other. I have picked juror’s eleven, eight, and three because juror eight and juror three are basically polar opposites, but juror eleven see’s both sides of the story.

in the jury room: Juror 8, Juror 3 and Juror 9. Juror 8 is important because he is smart, brave, and fair. Juror 3 was important because he was the antagonist, he was mean, and he was intolerant. Juror 9 was important because he wasn�t afraid of confronting other jurors. Juror 8 was a very important juror, he was the protagonist. He was the one that proved the truth. Juror 8 was very smart, he bought a knife similar to

Juror 10 and Juror 3 are both connected through bias. Juror 10 is very biased towards his opinions of people of other races. Juror 3 is very biased because he went through a similar situation with his son as the accused went through with his father. This is represented by their closeness in the diagram, Juror 2 is further away because he isn’t as biased. Juror 10 and Juror 3 both think they are above everyone else, which is represented by Juror 3 and 10 being above Juror 2. Juror 2 is very humble and doesn’t seem to have much power over anyone. This also is represented on the diagram with the sizes of the shapes, Juror 10 and Juror 3’s shapes are larger, while Juror 2’s shape is smaller. As you can see, the jurors in 12 Angry Men are all very different, but their differences help challenge everyone’s thoughts in the jury

When placed in a group with different personalities, you have to find a way to work and communicate effectively as a team; of course you’ll find yourself stuck at times because of certain barriers such as the lack of communication between members. However, group members have to find the ability to work together as a team. In the film “12 Angry Men,” we see a group of jurors who have to decide whether the defendant has committed the crime or is presumed innocent throughout a capital murder trial. As the audience, we witness how challenging it was for the jury to deliberate on a verdict and come to a true consensus because of the different personality role, and negotiation strategies. Specifically, I found six jurors