


Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
This document analyzes the movie '12 angry men' from a group dynamics perspective, focusing on the role of juror eight in changing the jurors' opinions and the power struggles that ensue. The document also discusses the leadership failure of the foreman and the impact of individual biases on group decision-making.
Typology: Papers
1 / 4
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Rec 302 Movie Analysis: Group Dynamics Perspective 12 Angry Men A formal group of 12 jurors is devised in order to reach an agreement on whether or not a young male should be executed for a crime he possibly committed. There were no evident issues with the group until they called their initial vote. The first stage of group development was notable within few minutes of starting the movie, because the audience must assume that the group has been together long enough to have been introduced to one another. During this progression, the men obviously allowed themselves to somewhat bond, they weren’t best pals, but acquainted with the other jurors. Some of them talked about the case, their jobs, the weather and outside lives; recalling when Juror seven tells the other members that he has tickets to a Yankee’s game that was taking place later that night. Those who were talking about the trial had beliefs that were similar. Still a few were not socially involved with the group, such as Juror eight. Juror eight was a very charismatic leader, he convinced men who where set in their judgments on the case that there could be a possibility they maybe wrong about the ordeal, by presenting the facts in a new light. He caused the situation to become controversial by passively protesting the quickness of the group to send the defendant to his emanate demise. By doing so, he established his identity in the group. The other jurors were absolutely repulsed by the idea that the young man on trial could be innocent, another juror complained “There’s always one”, I believe this was an attempt at discounting Juror eight’s wit. Instead of becoming outraged, like the other men, Juror eight knew how to keep his emotional intelligence in tacked, and easily maintaining it throughout the movie. Only losing his composure once, when scolding two other men for
Rec 302 playing Tic-Tac-Toe during the deliberation. This did not make him seems less rational; instead it forced the other men to recognize the importance of their decision. This is when a power struggle emerges, and viewers get to see the true colors of all the characters. As the pressure begins to rise the men begin to bicker between each other and eventually the situation becomes so intense that there is almost a physical altercation and a threat of killing. This of course was not a genuine threat, but it helps display the ferociousness of the setting. During all the fighting amongst themselves, the men periodically take time to relax and continue to try to reach an agreement. While the power struggle was occurring, almost all of the men grew to be edgy and considerably aggressive. When the Foreman realized he had lost control of the group he tried to regain it through the use of a scare tactic. He addresses the group angrily and suggests that he should give up his responsibilities as the foreman. This merely succeeded at compromising his leadership even more because he appeared to not have been expecting anyone to accept the challenge. After this, he became the coordinator with no clout; really all he continued to do was keep count of the votes. He was the appointed leader, meant to facilitate the progression of the verdict and he did not accomplish. I believe he made a good effort prior to the start of conflict, by having the men (in turn) persuade Juror eight of the defendant’s guilt. This plan failed miserably though, and chaos ensued afterward among the group. He did not effectively use his legitimate power. After the arguing began to die down, guidelines began to present themselves. The men attempted to behave maturely and began to come together as a group in order to come to a conclusion. There were still a few moments of chaos but over all the men became calm. Then, a contributor to the turmoil began to antagonize this calmness he was
Rec 302 calm and collected, and this was very effective. This is how people should handle situations that involve other people’s opinions