A film that is honored as influential and ahead of its time because it is an honest reflection of society, especially in 1957 when the film was released. This paper discusses how the script is written with cutting accuracy as to how groups make decisions especially when pressure builds and the climate changes in response to the emotionality of group members. The paper will also discuss the ways in which society has and has not changed in relation to what is perceived as diverse representation within a group, the task the jurors were given, how the discussion process unfolded, and reflections on how effectively juries can make decisions. The setting of the film is a jury room where the group deliberates about a high-profile murder case presents the opportunity for many ways to analyze the group discussion process and interactions.
The film begins a view of the courthouse, goes into the courtroom, and pans over the faces of each of the twelve jurors as the judge explains to them their task. They are instructed to judge the facts from the “fancies” and decide about the guilt or innocence of the accused. They are also instructed to make the decision unanimous and if there is a reasonable doubt among them, bring a verdict of not guilty to the judge. When the jurors enter their private room, they talk amongst themselves, mill around, fiddle with the fan, and seem to be impatiently waiting for the vote to begin while one of them lingers in the bathroom. In 1957, decision-making was clearly influenced by inherent biases, lack of cultural sensitivity, and the film certainly reflects the bold nature of the ways in which it affected the deliberation of the jury. A jury made up of twelve white men is evidence of the societal value of opinions of the time. The lack of diversity in the group is apparent to a modern-day viewer, however, the film still shows how diversity was an issue that created discord within the group.
The root of many conflicts is a difference in understanding, perception, attitudes, or preferred action, which is unveiled as the group’s opinions begin to differ. The differences between the jurors are revealed in their backgrounds, professions, age, and assumptions about the race and lifestyle of the accused murderer. There were also more overt differences noted among the group: one juror having grown up in the “slums,” another juror was a foreign watchmaker from Europe, and one was significantly older than the others. These differences were each addressed in ways that influenced decision-making and brought each juror’s reasoning into question.
Just as in today’s world, it should be recognized that there are always differences within groups and members may or may not be aware of the differences or how it may influence them and change the dynamic. This film does a good job showing how the group discussion starts with assumptions of the dynamic and how the assumptions are broken down to reveal negative judgements and stereotyping. In this way, the film is still quite relatable even in 2018 as many of the personality types and interactions could be imagined in a current setting. When the jurors sat down to perform their task, they were all coming together to make a choice about a problem. The choice was whether or not the accused was guilty, or innocent based on the given testimonies and evidence and to come to a unanimous decision.
The foreman described how the voting can be done but did not reinforce the task of making a decision through evaluating the evidence and testimonies as a group. The group skipped discussion and began with a preliminary vote that immediately defied assumptions shared by several of the more vocal members. They assumed that all jurors would believe the accused was guilty and that the vote would be over with quickly. They did not bother to establish mutuality of concern, which would have given value to the unique perspectives of each juror and exhibited a shared commitment in accomplishing the task as they were instructed, by addressing any doubts.
This lack of understanding the task and the instruction to discuss testimonies and evidence set the group up for unproductive and unfocused discussion. The scene where the group held the initial vote showed several jurors confidently raising their hands in support of a guilty verdict and yet others joining in seemingly reluctant when seeing that there was a clear majority forming. The reluctant jurors were trying to minimize conflict and this action is an example of how groupthink first came into play. The assumption that all jurors would vote guilty became the obstacle that the group had to overcome in order to have a productive discussion of evidence and testimonies.
The process of the discussion unfolded precariously as the group was initially resistant to accept the one dissenting opinion of Juror #8. Several members of the group employed tactics such as attacking the dissenting juror in order to persuade him to change his mind. It is clear the group had made hasty generalizations about the innocence of the accused, that in tandem with the personal attacks on Juror #8, show how these serious fallacies distracted from the task and created tension within the group. [Text Wrapping Break]The task roles emerged as group members attempted to complete the task and exhibited hidden agendas and revealed opinions. Several roles appear clearly throughout the film as mentioned below. [Text Wrapping Break]Juror #1 was appointed to be the foreman and began the discussion by inviting the men to interact, however, he showed a lack of confidence while developing a structure for participation, proposing that jurors can discuss before voting or head straight to voting and stating that he wasn’t going to make any rules. He did not exhibit strong leadership qualities and more accurately fit the role of the procedural technician, who follows the group rules of voting, calls for breaks, and fulfills requests for evidence from the group.
As the discussion continued, one by one the jurors began to agree that there was a lack of substantial evidence which produced reasonable doubt. The jury seemed to be focused on a few of the facts and evidence presented in the trial; the knife used to kill the father, the old man who claimed to hear the son proclaim that he was going to kill his father and saw him run down the stairs, and the woman who claimed to see the murder through the el-train. However, as the discussion ensued each of these facts seemed to lose creditability. Juror #8 proved that the knife was not unique and could be purchased in the neighborhood that the murder occurred and Juror #5, who grew up in the slums educated the group on the proper use of a switchblade. Juror #9 could relate with the old man and questioned his motives, while Juror #8 reenacted the scene of the old man; proving that it potentially took forty seconds for him to reach the steps. However, the turning point was when Juror #4 was finally convinced that the woman could not have seen the killing through the passing L-Train because she needed glasses to see. One by one the jurors changed their votes until Juror #3 broke down in tears and changed his vote to not-guilty, acknowledging that he allowed his personal prejudices to sway his vote.
I believe that juries can be effective providing that they are comprised of competent group of individuals that are focused on the task. However, we learned in class that the formation of a group is not a single event, but instead, it is an ongoing process ranging from an informal collective to a sophisticated organization. Groups are created, change, progress through stages, and I can imagine that it would be difficult for a group of people who do not know each other to have a productive discussion facilitated by an appointed leader. I would assume that in 2018, a jury would be comprised of a more diverse group of individuals and diversity can contribute to the overall effectiveness of a group because including those of varying ages, gender, race, and national origin often includes more potential in terms of skills and past experiences. However, research finds that groups that are more diverse, often experience some difficulty in the early stages because personalities of those with age and nationality differences have a tendency to clash. On the other hand, more homogeneous groups where people are similar and share the same views have an easier time with the initial interactions but are ultimately less productive than those that are more inclusive.
Juries seem to be charged with the simple task of determining guilt or innocence, based on the facts, but they are given vague instructions as to the manner in which they perform their duties, lack the experience of working together, and some of the members may have never worked in group setting at in their lifetime. A jury must achieve its objective in a short amount of time and because they lack experience the group dynamic will likely present many challenges and conflicts. Therefore, jurors could feel compelled to accommodate and vote a particular way based on the opinions of their peers as seen in 12 Angry Men. Accommodating too quickly can result in poor decision making because the underlying issues of the conflict have not been thoroughly examined. If multiple members suddenly accommodate, the jury is at a disadvantage because it has forfeited its diverse ideas and perspectives. Furthermore, some members of the jury may lack the experience of group interaction and may have an aversion to conflict. These individuals may choose to avoid conflict and side with a majority of their peers as opposed to unpacking the evidence presented and expressing their thoughts or opinions.
Effective groups will develop and establish a clear goal, purpose, and assignment in order to be successful. There are three basic tasks that encapsulate most group goals: 1. making a choice about a problem, 2. putting an idea into action, generating ideas, information, and options. I do believe that zero history groups are capable of making decisions, however, I feel that it would be very challenging for a group of this nature to host a productive discussion and yield quality results.
As seen in 12 Angry Men, groups assume roles based on their individual interests, past experiences, qualifications, biases, as well as the needs and expectations of the group. Roles can be formally designated, such as the role of the Foreman, or may emerge informally to meet the needs of the group as displayed by Juror #8; an effective group will have a balance of both formal and informal roles. This film was an excellent model of how group members assume group task, building and maintenance, and individual roles, and overcome the conflict and challenges to achieve its objective.
Groups generally make better decisions than individuals, but it is important to develop a plan to share information so that decisions are not made based on incomplete information. The collective is comprised of individuals of varying knowledge, experiences, cultural backgrounds, and perspectives, but the group will not realize its potential if they do not share what they know with each other. In conclusion, 12 Angry Men is an accurate representation of society and how group decision making occurs.
