12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men
Eirini Flouri is senior lecturer in psychology at the School of Psychology and Human Develop-
ment, Institute of Education, University of London. Her e-mail address is [email protected].
Yiannis Fitsakis is senior risk manager for the Kashagan Oil and Gas Project at AGIP KCO. His
e-mail address is [email protected].
10.1111/j.1571-9979.2007.00156.x
© 2007 President and Fellows of Harvard College Negotiation Journal October 2007 449
Minority Viewpoints and Social Change
In the late 1960s, French psychologist Serge Moscovici challenged the
dominant functionalist approach to social influence, promoted largely by
American social psychologists in the 1950s and 1960s, which emphasized
the unidirectional flow of social influence from the majority to the minority.
Moscovici argued instead that change, innovations, and new ideas are really
products of the influence of the minority.
In his celebrated book Social Influence and Social Change, Moscovici
(1976) contended that minorities influence change by creating conflict.
Because people wish to avoid conflict, they will often dismiss the minority
position. But when the minority refuses to be dismissed by remaining
committed to its position and by maintaining a well-defined and coherent
point of view, then the minority can make the majority reconsider its beliefs
and consider the minority’s position as a viable alternative (see Martin and
Hewstone 2003 for a review). Moscovici identified five key aspects of
the minority’s influential behavior: consistency, investment, autonomy,
rigidity, and fairness.
In this article, we analyze the negotiation process depicted in the 1957
film 12 Angry Men (Orion-Nova Productions), which was written by
Reginald Rose and directed by Sydney Lumet. This critically acclaimed film
powerfully illustrates the dynamics of bargaining and the use of informal
authority with a focus on the role of personality. The film illustrates how, by
adopting the five behavioral strategies Moscovici described, the minority —
in this case a lone dissenting juror — is able to successfully negotiate and,
against the odds, influence the overwhelming majority comprising the
other eleven jurors.
According to Jacques Rojot (1991) the goal of parties to a negotiation
is to reach agreement, often while operating under time constraints. They
do not primarily seek to destroy each other, and the chance that they will
fail to reach agreement is always present to some degree. Although the plot
of 12 Angry Men encompasses each element of Rojot’s definition of nego-
tiation, it does not exhibit many of the criteria typically present in “one-off”
negotiations: the jurors do not have quantifiable positions, and they stand to
gain or lose nothing of material value. Instead, highly emotional discussions
involve such deeply felt issues as civic duty. Personalities and conscience
seem to drive the negotiation.
The Story
12 Angry Men is a gripping drama that depicts twelve American jurors
confined to a jury room on a hot and humid summer day to decide the guilt
or innocence of a defendant in a murder trial.1 Before sending out the
twelve jurors to deliberate, the judge reminds them that their verdict must
be unanimous and that if they hold “reasonable doubt” as to the guilt of the
Negotiation Journal
defendant
Juror 11 Success of democracy and justice Blind faith in the American system
Information. When the jurors convene for the first time, Juror 8 sits
back, staring quietly through the window, but at the same time observing
the behaviors of his peers, presumably gathering information about them
without revealing anything about himself. This behavior is consistent
throughout both the deliberations and the break. In the bathroom scenes,
for instance, he seems almost oddly quiet, which seems to compel anyone
who walks in to speak, revealing personal information in the process.
Juror 8 reinforces this behavior with his own brief, neutral, mirroring
responses (“Aha. . . .,” or “Is that so?”).
People. Juror 8 approaches and forms alliances with the jurors who
seem most peripheral: the old man (Juror 9), the immigrant (Juror 11),
and the follower (Juror 2). Although he always remains opaque and
ambiguous, he elicits personal information from the jurors that allows
him to both guide the deliberations and encourage the other jurors to
bond with him. For example, when Juror 2, a somewhat meek, indecisive
man, offers cough drops to dissipate the tension during confrontations,
Juror 8 is the only one who accepts them. One assumes that he does so
not really because he needs them but in order to connect with Juror 2.
“Slip through our fingers? Are you his executioner?” asks Juror 8.
Juror 3 says,“I’m one of ’em.”
Juror 8 replies,“Perhaps you’d like to pull the switch.”
“For this kid?” Juror 3 answers,“You bet I would.”
NOTES
1. In the 1957 film version all the jurors are male, white, and mostly middle-aged and
middle-class. In a 1997 television remake some of the jurors are African-American. Some sub-
sequent theatrical versions have been renamed 12 Angry Jurors and have included women.
2. All quotes from the film are from Dirks 1996–2007.
3. Juror 8 has also, however, broken the law, as this action would be illegal in any actual
American court of law. And in introducing this plot twist, the scriptwriter would also seem to have
violated the play’s sense of realism, threatening the audience’s suspension of disbelief.