preview

Twelve Angry Men

Decent Essays

The objective of this paper is to relate the movie twelve angry men to the course book social psychology. The film is about twelve men who are on are deciding the fait of a young man who is accused of killing his father. In the jury room the discussions, reactions, and occurances that took place can relate to the course book (NAME HERE AND AUTHOR) in many ways. The conections that can me
First off one major concept that was apparent through out the movie is prejudice which in its slef has three components. There is evidence of prejudice because of the attitudes, actions and thoughts that some of the jury members exhibit throughout there deliberation. Prejudice is defined as our negative attitudes towards people in a certain group soley because …show more content…

They use sayings such as “he is lucky he got a trial” or “we arn’t suppose to belive this kid knowing what he is” or “even these stuff kids should all be locked up”. They speak very negatively with out even knowing the boy. The book states along with attitudes prejudice also has a cognitive aspect which is called stereotypes and a behaviour aspect which is discrimination. Stereotypes are assumptions we make that all members of a group have the same characteristics. The moment we see stereotypes brought up in the movie is when we find out the young man in question is from the slums. Once this fact is know by the jury they start making generalizations saying “ the slums bread criminals”. The reason we can classify this as a sterotype is because one it’s assuming that everyone from “the slums” is a criminal. Even with new information it was hard to change certain assumptions jury members had. Also stereotypes can lead to discrimination which is wrongful action upon a person because of there membership in a certain group. The members of the jury were so quick to judge and convict the boy on trail based on there assumptions and attitudes, even if his sentence was death. Even though …show more content…

Which is “ defined as a kind of thinking in which maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than considering the facts in a realistic manner”. This theory first came about from Ivering Janis. He belived there had to be certain criteria met for group think to be likely to occur. Some criteria are things such as group cohesion or having a distinct leader. Recen re-evaluate of janis’s has shown that group think occurs more often then original thought and all criteria does not have to be apperent for it to occur. The jury in twelve angry men did exibit signs that were common when group think was apparent. In the beginning majority of the men wanted to come to a decision quickly they felt the young boy was guilty and didn’t want to waist there time. So we can assume the group was mostly unified in there opinions. As well the men were isolated from outside opinion. You can even assume there is a group leader, although there was never really a distinct leader a couple men were very opinionated and made there thoughts heard. Next is is said that to create groupthink there needs to be a supposed threat . while the majority voted guilty there was one man who voted not guilty. We can see as a threat because many of the jury members tried to convince him to conform to the groups verdict. The group was very hostile towards the man that disagreed with the majority. An indicator of groupthink is

Get Access