ISSANTU TEMBE, ISSA – GROUP 119

OL 301 – GROUP DYNAMICS

Nov 20, 2008

The group as arbiter of justice and the rule of the minority influence

The film 12 Angry Men is depicting a jury attempting to render a unanimous verdict

in the murder trial of a teenage boy. The process whereby the decision is reached in this film

is illustrating a situation where a minority arrives to transform the opinion of a majority by

exerting effective leadership. The jury in the film is a typical group of a dozen of men, a fairly

homogeneous group isolated within a locked room, operating in a high stress atmosphere of

heat and time concerns, with pressure to come to a unanimous decision. One of the film's

posters described how the workings of the judicial process can be disastrous: "life is in their

hands - death is on their minds! At the end, the lonely man with a different opinion among

the twelve has changed all the jury’s perception of this murder, so they all as one decided that

the teenage boy was “not guilty”.

In this paper we are trying to come back on the management of this conflict among the

twelve members of this jury. Revisiting the film and some attitudes of the actors, we try to

analyze the social dynamics in this group and the opposition between the majority and

minority influence (Forsyth 2006, p. 207, fig. 7-1). Our reflection will be set in 5 following

parts:

 Datasheet of the movie

 The Gallup StrengthsFinder Profile and the Keirsey Temperament Sorter of the jurors

 The started situation

 The intermediate situation

 The final situation

 Conclusion
 2

1. Datasheet of the movie “Twelve Angry Men”

Original title 12 angry men

Director Sydney Lumet

Script Reginald Rose

Music Kenyon Hopskins

Decoration Robert Markell

Photos Borris Kaufman

Producer Henri Fonda

Running time 95 minutes

Casting Henry Fonda (Juror 8)

J. Lee Cobb (Juror 3)
Ed Begley (Juror 10)
Jack Warden (Juror 7)
Martin Balsam (Juror 1)
Jack Klugman (Juror 5)
John Fiedler (Juror 2)
E. G. Marshall (Juror 4)
Ed Binns (Juror 6)
Joseph Sweeney (Juror 9)
George Voskovec (Juror 11)
Robert Webber John Savoca (Juror 12)
Production Orion Nova Production

Exit 1957

2. The Gallup StrengthsFinder Profile and the Keirsey Temperament Sorter of the
jurors
A summary of the anonymous characters of the twelve jurors helps to flesh out their

Gallup StrengthsFinder Profile and their Keirsey Temperament Sorter of each Jury members.

None of the jurors are named, and they don't formally introduce themselves to each other

(except for two of them in the final brief ending). Jurors are labeled with numbers based on

their jury numbers and seats at a conference table in the jury room (in clock-wise order).

We list them here in the order each votes “not guilty”

 3

• Juror #8: (Henry Fonda) An architect, instigates a thoughtful reconsideration of the

case against the accused; symbolically clad in white; a liberal-minded, patient truth-

and-justice seeker who uses soft-spoken, calm logical reasoning; balanced, decent,

courageous, well-spoken and concerned; considered a do-gooder (who is just wasting

others' time) by some of the prejudiced jurors named Davis.

• Juror #9: (Joseph Sweeney) Eldest man in group, white-haired, thin, retiring and

resigned to death but has a resurgence of life during deliberations; soft-spoken but

perceptive, fair-minded; named McCardle.

• Juror #5: (Jack Klugman) Naive, insecure, frightened, reserved; grew up in a poor

Jewish urban neighborhood and the case resurrected in his mind that slum-dwelling

upbringing; a guilty vote would distance him from his past; nicknamed "Baltimore" by

Juror # 7 because of his support of the Orioles.

• Juror #11: (George Voskovec) A watchmaker, speaks with a heavy accent, of

German-European descent, a recent refugee and immigrant; expresses reverence and

respect for American democracy, its system of justice, and the infallibility of the Law.

• Juror #2: (John Fiedler) A wimpy, balding bank clerk/teller, easily persuaded, meek,

hesitant, goes along with the majority, eagerly offers cough drops to other men during

tense times of argument; better memory than # 4 about film title.

• Juror #6: (Edward Binns) A typical "working man," dull-witted, experiences

difficulty in making up his own mind, a follower; probably a manual labourer or

painter; respectful of older juror and willing to back up his words with fists.

• Juror #7: (Jack Warden) Clownish, impatient salesman (of marmalade the previous

year), a flashy dresser, gum-chewing, obsessed baseball fan who wants to leave as

soon as possible to attend evening game; throws wadded up paper balls at the fan; uses

baseball metaphors and references throughout all his statements (he tells the foreman
 4

to "stay in there and pitch"); lacks complete human concern for the defendant and for

the immigrant juror; extroverted; keeps up amusing banter and even impersonates

James Cagney at one point; votes with the majority.

• Juror #12: (Robert Webber) Well-dressed, smooth-talking business ad man with thick

black glasses; doodles cereal box slogan and packaging ideas for "Rice Pops";

superficial, easily-swayed, and easy-going; vacillating, lacks deep convictions or

belief system; uses advertising talk at one point: "run this idea up the flagpole and see

if anybody salutes it".

• Juror #1 (The Foreman): (Martin Balsam) A high-school assistant head coach,

doggedly concerned to keep the proceedings formal and maintain authority; easily

frustrated and sensitive when someone objects to his control; inadequate for the job as

foreman, not a natural leader and over-shadowed by Juror # 8's natural leadership.

• Juror #4: (E. G. Marshall) Well-educated, smug and conceited, well-dressed

stockbroker, presumably wealthy; studious, methodical, possesses an incredible recall

and grasp of the facts of the case; common-sensical, dispassionate, cool-headed and

rational, yet stuffy and prim; often displays a stern glare; treats the case like a puzzle

to be deductively solved rather than as a case that may send the defendant to death;

claims that he never sweats.

• Juror #10: (Ed Begley) A garage owner, who simmers with anger, bitterness, racist

bigotry; nasty, repellent, intolerant, reactionary and accusative; segregates the world

into 'us' and 'them'; needs the support of others to reinforce his manic rants.

• Juror #3: (Lee J. Cobb) Runs a messenger service (the "Beck and Call" Company), a

bullying, rude and husky man, extremely opinionated and biased, completely

intolerant, forceful and loud-mouthed, temperamental and vengeful; estrangement

from his own teenaged son causes him to be hateful and hostile toward all young
 5

people (and the defendant); arrogant, quick-angered, quick-to-convict, and defiant

until the very end.

3. The starting situation

Forsyth made a good comparison of the minority influence when he evokes the formal

conflict between the church’s authorities and Galileo. When speaking about the “power of

few” (Forsyth 2006, p. 220) he could list some cases like the jury of Oklahoma City Bomber,

Martin L. King and Igor Stravinsky who “stood firm against the majority’s pressure” and

“became the sources of influence in their group rather than targets of influence”. (Forsyth

2006, p. 220)

Illustration1
The first time the jury votes all the eleven
members voted « guilty ». The isolation of the
Juror 8 as shown in this picture is illustrating
the Majority Influence at the starting situation.
There was a clear majority group sentiment
that was expressed as the eleven all focused
their attention on Fonda, the lone dissenter

A lone dissenter at the starting position, Henry Fonda (Juror 8) will have all along the

95 minutes of this movie first a character, a deep personality, a temperament and many

strengths profile. The behaviour of the rest of the jury who voted originally “guilty” shows

signs of a decision making based on the majority process. Under majority influence, the

decision making process showed symptoms of groupthink. Stereotyping of the opponent was

apparent in the prejudiced references to “those slum kids” (Film, 14:40), and there were

pressures to maintain conformity by mind-guards such as the juror who exclaimed, “Look,

you voted guilty, whose side are you on?” Mind-guards serve to encourage agreement by

declaring those who deviate from the majority as disloyal. Self-censorship also occurred when

people laughed at something the Adman said, so he didn’t finish his thought (Film, 1:01:15).

4. The intermediate situation: between the compliance and the conversion

 6

Despite the strong pressures of the majority, the Juror 8’s presentation

of interpretations of the case eventually stimulated divergent thinking in

the majority members. The fact that he finally presented his idea to the group illustrates the

fact that minority influence tends to foster a wider search for information from all sides. As

new information begins to emerge various jurors show transformations in their non-verbal

behaviour. Smelly, at the outset of the film, showed low-status kinesics through his posture,

keeping his arms close to his body.

His gestures grew progressively more confident as he shifted to the minority position.

Juror 8’s unwavering desire to discuss the issue led to the first majority-minority shift, when

the Old Man sided with him solely because he stood by his position (Film, 31:20).

Interestingly enough, this shift was brought on by the group’s first anonymous ballot, an

effective way of reducing the effects of conformity. At this intermediate position, after the

first anonymous ballot, we could see the sense of this statement made by Forsyth, stating

Clark:”a minority of two against four is far stronger than a minority of one against one”

(Forsyth 2006, p. 211)

5. The final situation: the leadership of the Devil’s Advocate

The film 12 Angry Men demonstrates that a majority position and the processes that

support it are not infallible. This paper shows that through effective leadership, a minority

influence can go so far as to convince eleven previously pro-guilty jurors of a reasonable

doubt. The Juror 8’s character possesses the two orientations as identified by Forsyth (2006)

that parallel successful leadership: task and socio-emotional. The fact that this Juror 8’s

character is task-oriented is embodied in the scene where he crumples up a tic-tac-toe game

the other jurors were playing while he was talking.

This action serves as an emphatic reminder to abide to their objective by not

trivializing the group’s role as jurors, reflecting the essence of a task-oriented leadership role
 7

(Film, 40:50). Furthermore, his attention to the socio-emotional aspect of leadership is

demonstrated by his offering of a cup of water to the Old Man and by gratefully accepting a

cough drop from Mouse. More important is the following statement that the “prejudice

obscures the truth” (Film, 1:20:44) said the Juror 8. This results in the formation of a common

group identity, and allows many Jurors to gracefully enter the minority camp. In this third part

of my reflection I want let emerge the shift from the “Devil’s Advocate” position to the

“authentic dissenter” one. The Juror 8 has become more outwardly aggressive when he tried

to convince the group. At the beginning of the film he is seen slumping in his chair, smiling

frequently, and speaking in a passive tone. As the film progresses and more jurors’ side with

his case, Fonda stands more often, smiles less, and is more forceful in his speech.

Conclusion: Critical analysis

The film was seen first in 1957. Even in the 50s, it could have been more exciting if

the jury wasn’t an all-male and all-white. However, it's slightly forgivable since the play made

the jury and trial largely symbolic and metaphoric. The jurors represented a cross-section of

American attitudes towards race, justice, and ideology, and were not entirely realistic. The

Juror 8 for what concerns him has acted all along the film like as a defence attorney. He

investigated on his own by purchasing a similar knife. At all, after reviewing the film more

than 7 times, it emerges that the 'angry' interactions between some of the jurors seem overly

personal and exaggerated.