Groupthink
The social-psychological phenomenon of groupthink arises when a group is exposed to pressure situations. There are eight signs of groupthink theory including. These signs are collective rationalization, the illusion of invulnerability, self-censorship, belief in inherent morality; the illusion of unanimity, stereotyped views of out-groups, self-appointed misguides and direct pressure on dissenters (Adler, Rodman & Du Pre, 2016). Reginald Rose’s 1957 film Twelve Angry Men is a perfect manifestation of groupthink on how the jury suffers at the begging and end of the film. The movie is based on a jury that had to reach a verdict in a murder trial. Delivering a verdict needed each member of the jury to reach an agreement on the defendant being not guilty or guilty. This type of decision-making is a classic case of groupthink, which entails having a common goal on the opinions of the majority members.
Groupthink is the concept of a group discussion commonly serving to strengthen an already dominating standpoint, which usually leads to a perilous endpoint. Twelve Angry Men epitomizes the groupthink process during its initial and end stages (Rose, 2016). However, the consistent decision is concealed by Fonda along with his associates. The initial jury discussion seemingly strengthens the confidence of who preferred a guilty verdict. This shows that the jurors experienced a situation that was highly susceptible to the vices of groupthink, which made them suffer throughout the play. Groupthink mostly occurs in groups that portray unquestioned beliefs invulnerability and pressure to conform (Adler, Rodman & Du Pre, 2016). The twelve men found themselves in a state of matching many variables that were accommodative to groupthink. Low cohesiveness during ideation as well as lack of a sturdy unified leader barred the jurors from reaching a consensus. Without Fonda’s persuasion, the strained all white males who were segregated by setting would have succeeded in achieving in groupthink.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Groupthink greatly affected the verdict and discussion made concerning the fate of the young man. Due to different perspectives of the, decision making did not work as it was anticipated. In the final scene, two of the jurors eight and three exchanged the only character names that were mentioned during the film (Silbey, 2017). Groupthink occurred in multiple ways during the entire process, affecting the juror’s emotions, behaviors, and personal filters. The symptoms adversely affected the productivity of the jurors throughout the debate. Despite the disagreements, the twelve men came to conformity, but they suffered group psychological aspects.
Persuasive Tactics Used by Majority
Decision-making process illustrates situations when the majority transforms the opinions of the minority by demonstrating effective leadership and exerting persuasive tactics. In Twelve Angry Men , both behavioral and situational fundamentals of majority group process are apparent at the beginning of the film (Rose, 2016). An overabundance of characteristics made the minority prone to conformity. Conformity was clear from the original hand vote. This can be inferred that normative and informative influences played the key role. From the theory of influence perspective, those convinced of the not guilty stand would see the initial six jurors raise their hands, making them accept that the notion “truth lies in numbers.” The immigrant and muscles are likely to fit into this category since they were slow in raising their hands and originally sided the prosecution. Therefore, through conformity, the minority members have persuaded to side the not guilty position.
Normative influence is another tactic used to influence the minority member in the film. It was evident in that the members who were against the verdict may have supported the initial majority as a way of avoiding being perceived as the odd ones out (Adler, Rodman & Du Pre, 2016). This is portrayed through the older jury who was among the last members to raise his hand but was the first to be convinced. The actions of the minority jurors that voted guilty revealed deliberate signs that they were influenced by the stand taken by the majority jurors. When the jurors first took turns explaining their positions, there was a polarization effect. The jurors gained more confidence as a result of the full range of supportive evidence and strength in numbers coming from the joint impression. There was a definite majority opinion as pressures to maintain conformity made Fonda believe the not-guilty verdict.
Using similarity is also another persuasive tactic that can draw the minority to the majority side of the argument. This is done by finding similarities and pointing them out. The similarities are shown between the majority and their prospects by showing their thoughts, appearance, and ideals (Adler, Rodman & Du Pre, 2016). Juror nine could notice that another juror wore glasses resembling that of the witness due to the marking on his nose. Juror five was a man who was reared with the justice for the accused, and he thought of himself being into the same situation. He thought of the number of people that would jump into the same conclusion as a result of his position. Getting people to think in the same position is effective in changing their behavior. Thus, similarity creates a compelling and preferable similar experience that attempt to get the views of the minority members.
Persuasive Methods Used by the Minority
The minority used several methods of persuasion to sway the majority group by getting them to question their views and abandon their previously held contentions. One of the tactics used is the informational social influence, which is a concept that the minority uses information about compelling arguments and factual reality to influence and persuade the majority through logic (Silbey, 2017). Even though the minority may be incorrect, the use of counterarguments and different positions will compell the majority to draw questions from the arguments. Juror 8 used factual reality by tossing a duplicate knife on the table as proof of the ambiguity of arguments on the exclusive murder weapon. Through his compelling argument, he managed to influence the opinion of the minority members. Informational social influence was effective in juror 8 since he was able to compel the other members.
The use of powerful arguments was another central route to persuasion, by making an individual think carefully about what they are about to communicate. The reserved businessman and Fonda’s approach to changing the attitudes of the majority members were characterized by their arguments (Rose, 2016). In an elucidated and well-thought manner, Fonda appealed for the boy’s innocence. By using empirical evidence, he stipulated his points, which eventually swayed the rest of the jurors. Similarly, the businessman used his stoic and inductive nature in creating a convincing argument that was based on facts. Just as Fonda, he used arguments as the vital route to persuade the jurors. The foreign juror also appealed to the use of arguments by advocating to go deeper from reference facts examinations. Persuasion is achieved through several superficial cues that surround an argument rather than its factual validity.
Route selection was another method of persuasion that was relevant in influencing the minds of the majority members. The jurors who argued more on the boy’s fate were more concerned with justice, which made them obtain justice in their understanding no matter the societal status. Their discussions were vulnerable to the main route selection (Rose, 2016). This was majorly demonstrated by the oldest and foreign juror, Henry. Each of them decided to go with the central route. For the jurors who were not able to comprehend the trial’s complexity, they were pressed and distracted for some time, making them decide to take the nonessential route. This phenomenon is portrayed through the sickly man who was ever complaining about the interruption of his business and spoke poor English. He also complained about the fan of Yankee who immediately wanted to reach the ballyard as well as the volatile man who was preoccupied with his rage, which was brought about by the accused boy.
Rahim’s Conflict Styles Model
A major theme of conflict can be seen within the movie 12 Angry Men . It revolves around the jurors arguing about the conclusion of the trial that is taking place and whether the suspect is innocent or guilty. Conflict, as defined in our book, is a serious disagreement or argument. Five key conflict styles can be seen throughout the movie from the jurors arguing with each about different topics. Rahim’s Conflict Styles are evident, which include obliging, avoiding, collaborating, competing, and compromising.
Accommodating is recognizable with low levels of cooperation and assertiveness. This style is most effective when there is the intent of creating goodwill and keeping the peace amongst the involved parties (Rahim, 2017). In the movie, Juror 8 – the architect – was an accommodator. He was cooperating with the others, but he was still arguing to an extent with the outcome of everyone else. He knew that it would be easier to agree with everyone and vote the suspect guilty. He, however, truly believed that the suspect was innocent and because of his knowledge and ability to debate and accommodate with the others he proved him innocent. Juror 9 was an older man who was calm by nature, and even when reprieving juror 10 about his intolerance, he kept calm.
Avoidance is often used by individuals who fear being involved in a conflict. The method places a higher emphasis on teamwork with minimum emphasis on assertiveness (Rahim, 2017). This works when an individual has no chance of winning or when the issue is trivial. The salesperson, Juror 7, used avoidance constantly throughout the juror decision. He was always disregarding what everyone said because he insisted on going to a baseball game that was supposed to happen later that night. When they were trying to talk to him, he walked away, avoiding what the others were trying to tell him (Rose, 2016). Juror 2, the bank employees is a timid man by nature. He also portrays avoidance by being uncomfortable with articulating his judgment because it was snubbed frequently. Juror 5, the man who was raised in the slum, was self-aware of how he was brought up in the slums and therefore withdrew and abstained from the discussion unless his opinion was needed. Avoidance was significant since it enabled the jurors to buy more time for unfolding ambiguous situations.
Collaboration style of conflict management focuses on both high cooperation and assertiveness. Its main goal is for the conflict to arrive at a consensus that would have been reached by a person (Rahim, 2017). This evident in the movie through juror eight, the architect who was an optimist seeking to modify the outlook of other members of the council through discussion and dialogue. He was self-confident and paid attention to the concluding remark of the task in place. Juror 12, the advertising man was always a preoccupied man, absent from discussion but he was very receptive to good reasoning. This type of conflict style was the foundation of a coalition between the jurors.
Effective Decision-Making, Interpersonal Persuasion and Minority Group Influence.
Effective decision-making is an important aspect when it comes to establishing a suitable strategy and clarifying the purpose of the intended group discussion. Decisions made should have objectives and expected outcomes. In the case of the jury, a possible objective would be to evaluate and asses the case using the provided evidence as well as witness testimony and thereafter reach a unanimous decision on whether reasonable doubt exists that the murder was done by the accused. Some rules of conduct should be decided on by the group to control the dealings better and avoid conflict. It is important to encourage the full participation of the group during decision-making (Caber et al., 2019). In film, each man has voting power on the matter and thus has the right to argue his opinion and discuss his thought on the matter. A timid group member is inevitable; there for extra attention should be paid to getting them to contribute to the discussion. In light of the film, Juror 5, the man who grew up in a slum and juror 2 the bank work was, reluctant to give their opinion. Both men are unsure and self-conscious consequently fear to go against the current of the group
Interpersonal persuasion is an excellent way of developing a clearer understanding of a particular issue. Through a group, the key questions surrounding the task are organized to persuade the group members and keep the discussion on track rather than just assisting in clarifying drawing and thinking out ideas within the group (Thibaut, 2017). In the case of facilitating twelve men present in the film, the main objective would be not influenced but remain neutral to the responses and thoughts of the board members. This would be hard if the facilitator had a deciding vote on the case, much like juror one the foreman. Thus, a degree of influence would be eminent. Therefore, interpersonal persuasion is the only method that enables the juror to come to a common decision and conclusion.
Working with minority group influence, the one used in the film provide an effective outcome in decision-making. However, the outcome of the verdict at the end of the meeting had mainly high chances in that the accused would lose his life. Hence, it is of great concern that the jury should have been as effectual as possible in their decision-making process. The efficacy of a group is often the main purpose of the team dynamics that enables people to relate to each other on a task-related or personal level (Caber et al., 2019). Useful minority group influence has three main distinctiveness, including a clear objective, the ability to stimulate open communication and participation of group members. The minority members are often the appointed chair or foremen of a jury meeting who are significant in being enthusiastic and active on the process. They also need the willingness to be the first in sharing ideas and knowledge about the proceedings to prompt the other jury members in engaging the group ( Peter‑Hagene, Salerno, & Phalen, 2019 ). Minority group influence also fosters the notion of respect among the group members. The value of differences in opinion and diversity helps the group to keep away from pointless interpersonal conflicts that might bring challenges to the process of decision-making (Dunn & Goodnight, 2016). In the movie, the downfall of the tenth juror arises from not being sensitive to the plight of other members. The whole group rejected Ed Begley, juror 10, due to his pointless opinions, to the extent of not being allowed to vote. Furthermore, the opinions of minority group members are important to stream conversations towards a common goal rather than that is effective in the verdict. Recapping is a necessary tool of minority group influence that enables the group to keep their stand and perspective on a particular issue.
In conclusion, Twelve Angry Men is an interesting movie since it was released during a time when social justice and political upheaval was fomenting. It is also a mirror of the growing perceptions of the United States during the ear of moral, social, and scientific expansion. The film portrays the effectiveness of group decision making, persuasion methods, and conflict resolution styles. The awareness of possible dangers and the limiting nature of the thin group process is necessary and beneficial to provide a better understanding of the viewers. However, the film is gender-biased since it used men only as of the jurors. Including a few women would have been appropriate in making the film more interesting.
References
Adler, R. B., Rodman, G. R., & Du Pré, A. (2016). Understanding Human Communication (Vol. 10). Oxford University Press.
Caber, M., Ünal, C., Cengizci, A. D., & Güven, A. (2019). Conflict Management Styles of Professional Tour Guides: A Cluster Analysis. Tourism Management Perspectives , 30 , 89-97.
Dunn, D. M., & Goodnight, L. J. (2016). Communication: Embracing Difference . Routledge.
Peter‑Hagene, L. C., Salerno, J. M., & Phalen, H. (2019). Jury Decision Making. Psychological Science and the Law , 338.
Rahim, M. A. (2017). Managing Conflict in Organizations . Routledge.
Rose, R. (2016). Twelve Angry Men . Bloomsbury Publishing.
Silbey, J. M. (2017). American Trial Films and the Popular Culture of Law.
Thibaut, J. W. (2017). The Social Psychology of Groups . Routledge.
