Perceptual Errors In 12 Angry Men

Reginald Rose and Sydney Lumet’s 1957 film, 12 Angry Men is a masterful piece and gives a deep insight into the factors which may impact negation as a whole. According to The Business Dictionary, negotiation refers to the “bargaining (give and take) process between two or more parties (each with its own aims, needs, and viewpoints) seeking to discover a common ground and reach an agreement to settle a matter of mutual concern or resolve a conflict.” Particularly, the film exemplifies negotiation strategies, errors of perception, in addition to the use of power and influence.

The multi-person negotiation was displayed in 12 Angry Men. These twelve jurors were to collaborate together to arrive at a decision of whether “The boy” was guilty or

Stereotyping is a perception error frequently made in everyday life. In the film, there is a scene in which juror 10 states that the boy is guilty, solely based on the fact that he is from the slums (“slum kid”) and makes some implications of his race. The juror blames the child and his race instead of his environment and other external factors (fundamental attribution error). Importantly, all the jurors seemed to be from different backgrounds which is sure to have shaped their reality/view on the matter at hand, i.e. whether the boy murdered his father or not. This influence of background rang true in the case of juror number five. Juror five did not feed into the stereotyping of the boy because he too was from a “rough” neighborhood and had seen knife fights, which he admits in the scene following his knife demonstration. Juror 5 relating to the boy could be seen as the similar to me error, nevertheless, his later demonstration gave this error

For instance, in the film 12 Angry Men, juror 5 (Jack Klugman), displayed expert power in the scene where he stands between two of his fellow jurors and demonstrates how a switchblade knife could be used, whether or not it could have inflicted the type of wound left on the boy’s father. Juror 8, portrayed by Henry Fonda, later uses juror number 5’s expert testimony to sway the rest of the jury pool to re-examine the evidence; which he had been encouraging them to do throughout the film, although he was still unsure of the boy’s guilt or innocence. Fonda’s character wanted to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt before making an important decision that would change the young man’s life