Group Dynamics in Twelve Angry Men

The motion picture 12 Angry Men is a enthralling and insightful examination of a diverse collection of twelve jurors who ar uncomfortably brought together to deliberate the facts of a seemingly open-and-shut collide with trial. The premise is the trial of a frightened, teenaged defendant acc utilise of cracking and killing his father. However, there is an underlying maven that the jurors, themselves, and the American judicial corpse, atomic number 18 on trial as well. The trial by jury system is supposed to produce a unanimous decision in an objective, beautiful and unbiased manner.This film takes more than a glimpse behind the unkindly doors of a jury room and reveals that its anything merely what we would expect. So, what went wrong? In order to answer that question, we must examine the twelve jurors and their personalizedities, their ability and frequently inability to communicate clearly, and the positive and negative aspects of their conflict management processe s. The jurors are a group of predominately middle-aged white males. Thats about where the similarities end.Their personalities, prejudices, weaknesses, socio-economic and heathenish differences, priorities, ignorance, and fears often cause them to avoid the true issues of the case. The foreman of the jury ( juryman 1) is an help high school football coach exactly insufficiencys any infixed leadership skills. Throughout the proceedings, he tries to keep the proceedings formal but is easily frustrated and sensitive when his authority or control is threatened. jurywoman 2 is a meek and mild bank teller who seems to listen to avoid conflict at all costs. juror 3 runs a messenger service and is a rude bully.He is extremely magisterial and biased, loud-mouthed, intolerant and temperamental. Although defiant to the end, its later discovered that his cause personal conflicts greatly make his behavior. Juror 4 is a stockbroker. Hes actually logical, self-assured, and rational. Its apparent early in the word-painting that he has an amazing recall about the evidence introduced in the case and has unploughed meticulous notes. Juror 5 is a reserved and quiet man. He is apparently ashamed of his slum-dwelling upbringing and hesitant at first to mouth up. Its possible that he has a Hispanic heritage, but this is altogether speculation.Juror 6 is a blue-collar painter. A natural follower, he seems to micturate difficulty in making his own decisions. Hes intolerant of disrespect towards the older juror. Juror 7 is a salesman whose chief(prenominal) interest is getting to a baseball game that he has tickets for. He lacks any compassion or concern for the defendants life. Juror 8 is a patient and thoughtful architect. A natural leader, he often persuades another(prenominal)s through his calm logical reasoning. He is focused on the gravity of the case and is able to separate others personal prejudices from the task at hand. Juror 9 is the eldest man in the grou p.Hes at the twilight of his life and has uncanny powers of observation and perception. Juror 10 is an intolerant, racist, and angry man. He uses no logical reasoning skills and tries to force his steamy and bitter opinions on others. Juror 11 is a recent immigrant to the coupled States. He is well spoken and has a much deeper respect for the American judicial system than the rest of the group. He is polite and occasionally clever, but also resolute and open-minded. Juror 12 is a superficial ad man. He seemingly lacks any real convictions about anything as attest by his constant swaying to others opinions.These men all have obvious strengths and weaknesses. And, they from each one have their different and unique individual life experiences and attitudes. But its precisely those differences that affect how they are able to interact with each other (although often ineffectively) to work through the task thats been given to them. Further, the lone(prenominal) way to convey those d ifferences, those things that are important or unimportant to them, is through chat. As is often the case, how we communicate with others determines the results that we achieve. If we communicate effectively, others can easily taste our ideas and intentions.If, however, we utilize poor communications skills, our true objectives become confusing, misinterpreted, or confused altogether. Twelve Angry Men gives excellent examples of both clear, concise, and reasonable communication skills as well as inadequate, appalling, and exasperating ones. Henry Fonda (Juror 8) was far and off the about effective communicator of this group. Perhaps this is why he was able to ultimately achieve the unlikely feat of swaying the other eleven jurors. After the sign vote was taken, the emotionally charged group immediately became insolent.Fonda was able to not except convey his intentions of not emotionally pre-judging the young defendant, but did so in such a way that was not directly confronta tional. He openly admits that he doesnt necessarily believe the boys story, but tries to refocus the group towards the legal standards set forth by the judge. He suggests that the group spend scantily one hour discussing the case and weighing the facts, kind of than sending the boy off to die without at least somewhat thought. Throughout the movie Fonda is able to argue and counter-argue his doubts with a rational, thoughtful cool-headedness that make it difficult for the other jurors to deny.Juror 4 (E. G. Marshall) was also an effective communicator. His arguments for vice were clear, concise, and matter-of-fact. However, he often presented arguments in a smug, conceited manner. I venture it was only Fondas appeal to his logical side that eventually won Juror 4 over. On the other side of the coin, it was the total lack of communication skills that seriously hampered the arguments of Juror s 3 and 10. Juror 3 (Lee J. Cobb) was abrasive and blustery. He was a bully in the worst sense of the word. He had no rational arguments of his own, and tried to use others as a springboard for his emotional personal attacks.He obviously felt very strongly about the boys guilt, (albeit for the wrong reasons), but was never able to onwards any coherent reasoning to express that. Instead he used insults, assaults and threats to make up for his lack of coherent discussion. Juror 10 was just plain offensive. He was not capable of issuing any arguments, only violent outbursts of ignorant prejudice. It was precisely these types of communication and personality types that served to most influence the groups dynamics throughout the movie. Even though the sign vote was 11-1 for red-handed, it can be contended that the group was possibly more divided. 6 of the jurors, (Juror s 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, and 12), raise their hands for a guilty verdict close immediately. Yet, five of the remaining six (Juror s 2, 5, 6, 11, and 9) were initially hesitant with their vote. They raised thei r hands only after seeing how quickly the others raised theirs. This is what Forsyth (1999) plausibly would have called compliance, Compliance occurs when group members privately disagree with the group, but publicly express an opinion that matches the opinions expressed by the major(ip)ity of the group (179).This self-reliance could be reinforced by the order in which the jurors changed their votes. The five jurors originally hesitant were the first ones to switch their votes to not guilty as the clash pass oned. The foremans inability to lead effectively was another major component part of the groups dynamics in this case. Juror 1&8243s deficiency caused the group to be more responsive to Juror 8&8243s natural leadership skills. The acceptance of Juror 8&8243s leadership facilitated the unlikely transition of the group from a guilty verdict to one of not guilty.Forsyth (1999) explains, In general, the greater the perceived might and group-centered motivation of the individu al, the more influential the minority (185). Juror 8 gained idiosyncrasy assign with the group as the meeting progressed and slowly developed his credibility. These credits accumulate during the course of interaction, typically as a member contributes to the progress of the group toward desired goals (Forsyth, 1999, p. 186). Twelve Angry Men is a movie about conflict and conflict law of closure. When Juror 8 raises his hand to drip the only not guilty vote he throws the group into conflict.But, it is this comparable conflict that enables the group to intelligently complete their task. According to Forsyth (1999), Exposure to others positions, in addition to providing additional information and prompting a more pure(a) analysis of that information, can also cause group members to reinterpret, or cognitively restructure, key aspects of the issue (191). After the initial vote, tempers flared, votes changed, divisions were created, emotions were exhibited, and prejudices were disp layed.Throughout the rest of the movie though, the group, perhaps unconsciously, moved towards conflict resolution. Persuasion gives way to arguing, emotions take personate of logic, and the once unified group splits into factions and coalitions. This period of conflict escalation is, in most cases, followed by a reduction in conflict and, ideally, conflict resolution (Forsyth, 1999, p. 237). Insofar as conflict is resolved successfully, it has stabilizing functions and becomes an integrating component of the group relationship (Forsyth, 1999), p. 263). These twelve jurors began with conflict, proceeded through often-heated conflict escalation, and eventually came to resolution.They may not have bonded emotionally together, but they were able to produce the better results with the tools they were given. It cant be said for sure if the experience would have changed their attitudes permanently, but it is unlikely. However, it is hoped that those of us who view the film will not be so quick to judge after seeing the facts in our own situations. To convict the young man based on their prejudices, emotions, or calmness would have been a travesty of justice. But, with group observation, discussion, and logical reasoning, (even if forced by conflict), we can all make better decisions.