Group Dynamics in Twelve Angry Men

The movie 12 idle Men is a fascinating and insightful examination of a various(a) stem of twelve jurors who are uncomfortably brought together to deliberate the facts of a seemingly open-and-shut murder mental test. The premise is the trial of a frightened, teen defendant accused of stabbing and killing his father. However, there is an underlying sensation that the jurors, themselves, and the American judicial system, are on trial as well. The trial by jury system is supposed to produce a strong decision in an objective, fair and unbiased gayner.This postulate takes more than a glimpse behind the closed doors of a jury room and reveals that its anything notwithstanding what we would expect. So, what went wrong? In enounce to answer that question, we must canvas the twelve jurors and their personalities, their ability and often inability to make pass cl primeval, and the positive and ostracize aspects of their conflict management processes. The jurors are a assemblage of predominately middle-aged gaberdine males. Thats about where the similarities end.Their personalities, prejudices, weaknesses, socio-economic and cultural differences, priorities, ignorance, and fears often military campaign them to avoid the align issues of the case. The foreman of the jury (jurywoman 1) is an assistant high school footb over(p)ly train and lacks any natural studyership skills. Throughout the proceedings, he tries to foreclose the proceedings formal but is easily frustrated and sensitive when his dictum or control is threatened. jurywoman 2 is a meek and piano bank teller who seems to try to avoid conflict at alone costs. Juror 3 runs a messenger service and is a atrocious tittup.He is extremely opinionated and biased, loud-mouthed, intolerant and temperamental. Although defiant to the end, its ulterior discovered that his own personal conflicts greatly influence his behavior. Juror 4 is a stockbroker. Hes very perspicuous, self-assured, and rati onal. Its apparent early in the movie that he has an amazing recall about the order introduced in the case and has kept meticulous notes. Juror 5 is a reserved and quiet man. He is apparently ashamed of his slum-dwelling upbringing and hesitant at first to speak up. Its possible that he has a Hispanic heritage, but this is only speculation.Juror 6 is a manual(prenominal) painter. A natural follower, he seems to have difficulty in fashioning his own decisions. Hes intolerant of disrespect towards the older juror. Juror 7 is a salesman whose main interest is getting to a baseball game that he has tickets for. He lacks any compassion or care for the defendants life. Juror 8 is a patient and serious-minded architect. A natural leader, he often persuades differents by dint of his calm rational reasoning. He is focused on the gravity of the case and is adapted to take a mode early(a)s personal prejudices from the proletariat at hand. Juror 9 is the eldest man in the meeting. Hes at the twilight of his life and has unearthly powers of observation and perception. Juror 10 is an intolerant, racist, and angry man. He uses no reasonable reasoning skills and tries to force his emotional and bitter opinions on others. Juror 11 is a recent immigrant to the United 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 advertising man. He seemingly lacks any unfeigned convictions about anything as evidenced by his constant swaying to others opinions.These men all have obvious strengths and weaknesses. And, they each have their different and unique various(prenominal) 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 only way to conve y those differences, those things that are strategic or unimportant to them, is through conference. As is often the case, how we communicate with others determines the results that we achieve. If we communicate effectively, others can easily grasp our ideas and intentions.If, however, we utilize poor communications skills, our current objectives become confusing, misinterpreted, or lost altogether. Twelve hot under the collar(predicate) Men gives minute examples of both clear, concise, and reasonable communication skills as well as inadequate, appalling, and nettlesome ones. Henry Fonda (Juror 8) was far and away the most effective communicator of this group. Perhaps this is wherefore he was able to eventually achieve the unlikely feat of swaying the other eleven jurors. After the sign voter turnout was taken, the emotionally charged group immediately became insolent.Fonda was able to not only convey his intentions of not emotionally pre-judging the young defendant, but did so in such a way that was not directly confrontational. 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 just one mo discussing the case and weighing the facts, rather than sending the boy off to die off without at least some thought. Throughout the movie Fonda is able to point and counter-argue his doubts with a rational, thoughtful cool-headedness that made it difficult for the other jurors to deny.Juror 4 (E. G. Marshall) was also an effective communicator. His arguments for guilt were clear, concise, and matter-of-fact. However, he often presented arguments in a smug, conceited manner. I think 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 a nd blustery. He was a bully in the worst sense of the word. He had no rational arguments of his own, and well-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 forward any retentive reasoning to press 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 sure-footed 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 end-to-end the movie. Even though the initial vote was 11-1 for guilty, it can be contended that the group was possibly more divided.Six of the jurors, (Juror s 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, and 12), raised their hands for a guilty verdict almost immediately. Yet, five of the remaining six (Juror s 2, 5, 6, 11, and 9) were in itially hesitant with their vote. They raised their hands only after eyesight how quickly the others raised theirs. This is what Forsyth (1999) probably would have called compliance, Compliance occurs when group members in private disagree with the group, but publicly express an opinion that matches the opinions expressed by the majority of the group (179).This assumption 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 collision progressed. The foremans inability to lead effectively was another major component of the groups dynamics in this case. Juror 1s deficiency caused the group to be more responsive to Juror 8s natural leading skills. The acceptance of Juror 8s leadership facilitated the unlikely musical passage of the group from a guilty verdict to one of not guilty.Forsyth (1999) explains, In general, the greater the perceived competency and group-c entered motivation of the individual, the more influential the nonage (185). Juror 8 gained idiosyncrasy credits 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 resolution. When Juror 8 raises his hand to cast the only not guilty vote he throws the group into conflict.But, it is this same 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 prompt a more thorough 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 prej udices were displayed.Throughout the rest of the movie though, the group, perhaps unconsciously, moved towards conflict resolution. sentiment gives way to arguing, emotions take place of logic, and the once unified group splits into factions and coalitions. This menstruation 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 resolve 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 best results with the tools they were given. It cant be give tongue to for sure if the experience would have changed their attitudes permanently, but it is unlikely. However, it is hoped that those of us who v iew the film will not be so quick to judge after seeing the facts in our own situations. To convict the young man establish on their prejudices, emotions, or apathy would have been a travesty of justice. But, with group observation, discussion, and logical reasoning, (even if forced by conflict), we can all make expose decisions.