More handpicked essays just for you.
Negative effects of groupthink on group decision-making processes and
Individual or group decision-making
Negative effects of groupthink on group decision-making processes and
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
It is hard to stand against a group by yourself because in “12 Angry Men” Juror 8 is getting ganged up on, in “The Monsters are Due on Maple Street” Tommy is being called stupid by all the neighbors for having the opinion that he did, also in both of the stories the person who wasn’t going with the group was always the one to call out first. In “12 angry men” juror 8 is the only juror saying that the boy is innocent and everybody else is ganging up on him. Then they start to ask questions like why do you think he's innocent and he says I don’t know
1. From what you know about the members of the jury, what members demonstrated the following Group Roles - supporting, process observing, blocking, and withdrawing? Give specific examples as evidence of your opinion. (See page 46) In the beginning of this movie it's very clear that these men have made up their minds about this young man's guilt.
Dorothy Allison claims that context leads others to have distinct perspectives of a person due to his or her social class and familial background. She utilizes personal experiences and flashbacks such as memories from childhood and life as a grown up to reinforce her claim. Allison wants her audience to know that a person can be impacted due his or her social and family background. When the author states, “Then I saw his eyes flicker over to me and my sisters, registering contempt with which he had looked at my stepfather” (134), she brings to light the day she encountered context; she realized that the cashier in the souvenir shop looked at her as if she was exactly like her stepfather. She enhances the authenticity of her claim by providing
Similarly, Juror 3's class prejudice causes him to be suspicious of the defendant and to view the evidence in a biased
Although 3 does change his mind in the end, he is the last to change so he is the leader for the guilty side. In the end, the reader can look at figure 1. and take away the fact that juror 8 is the main character, and that jurors 3 and 8 causes the main conflict in the
Mobashshir Arshad Ansari DM 16230 The movie “12 Angry Men” is a court drama based movie. The entire film takes place within a small New York City jury room, on "the hottest day of the year," as 12 men debate the fate of a young defendant charged with murdering his father. Most courtroom movies feel it necessary to end with a clear-cut verdict. But "12 Angry Men" never states whether the defendant is innocent or guilty if innocent then who is guilty.
In 12 Angry Men, the movie begins in a courtroom where the case is being discussed by the judge, who seems fairly uninterested. The jurors are then instructed to enter the jury room to begin their deliberations. They take a vote and all but juror 8 vote guilty. The jurors react violently to the dissenting vote but ultimately decide to go around the table in hope of convincing the 8th juror.
Juror 3 is quick to gather a following among the other men by riling up against the defendant and generally shooting down differing opinions. This results in an eleven-to-one vote in favor of guilty almost immediately, likely because the men either succumbed to peer pressure or simply wanted the case to be over with as soon as possible. Juror 7 is a prime example of the latter reasoning, constantly demanding that the other jurors speed things up and getting frustrated whenever something happens that will cause delay. All of these faults can happen in real-life juries, and chances are, they often
Another example in Twelve Angry Men, juror 12 couldn't make his own decisions throughout the discussion he would swing his vote to what the majority is voting for. This can show how some jurors are when it comes to the voting process in the jury room, where they ignore or mishear what the judge has told them to do, and how some jurors become unpredictable when making decisions. "The US Legal System is supposed to go by their own opinions and rules, we can follow our own ways". This can't be right when it comes to legal actions done to someone or put onto someone. When in the jury room and courtroom, we have to follow laws and listen to the judge.
Juror 3 was intimidating the other jurors, trying to convince them to stick with the guilty verdict. Juror 2 was guilty of self-censorship agreeing with the rest of the group to influence his decisions. The whole group began with the illusion of unanimity. According to Janis illusion of unanimity is, “the majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.” (Psysr.org,
Juror #3 mixed his personal conflicts with his son running away from home to the young man accused of hurting his father. His assumption was that young men who don't get along with their fathers might go as far as to kill him. Which is a very informal practice in a small group setting. Another incident of a informal role is to not provide the evidence first hand how can a room full of jurors decide the fate of somebody when they don't have precise evidence to incriminate him. Other jurors based the fact that the accused lived in a slum and that slum residents are delinquents by nature.
A group of juror comprising of 12 men from diverse backgrounds began their early deliberations with 11 of ‘guilty’ and 1 of ‘not guilty’ verdicts. Juror 8 portrayed himself as a charismatic and high self-confident architect. Initially, Juror 1 who played the foreman positioned himself as self-appointed leader of the team in which has led his authority to be challenged as his leadership style lacked in drive and weak. In the contrary, Juror 8 is seen as the emergent leader considering his openness to probing conversations while remaining calm. Implying this openness to the present, it has become crucial that a good decision relies on knowledge, experience, thorough analysis and most importantly critical thinking.
This is a danger because if someone already had plans or something to do they might not try as hard because they want to leave. Juror seven from the play thought the jury system was an inconvenience. He stated in the play; “ This better be fast. I have tickets to the The Seven Year Itch tonight.” (Reiginald 314).
This theory is practicable inside of the juror’s decisional processes of the “Twelve Angry Men.” Conformity is described from the beginnings of the film. When the jurors cast their initial vote, doubt is clear in many of the jurors whom vote guilty. This inhibition might be commented as weak belief shaked by the guilty majority’s influence. Additionally, though the movie is not provide any references about the timelines of decision this is a relevant factor presumably affecting the “Twelve Angry Men,” and should be considered as a potential element in creating social
Other jurors feel annoyed after listening to Juror 8 statements.
