12 Angry Men

How a lone dissenter can transform the opinions of a steadfast

majority

Rules of Engagement
Watch for:
Insults & outbursts
Heated discussions
Formation of alliances
Frequent re-evaluations
Revelation of experiences
Changing opinions, votes, &
certainties
Role of possibilities
The dynamics of group decision-making is the central focus in the film 12 Angry Men.
The film depicts a jury attempting to render a unanimous verdict in the murder trial of a
teenage boy.
The process whereby the decision is reached illustrates a situation where a minority
transforms the opinion of a majority by exerting persuasive tactics and demonstrating
effective leadership.
Jurors
Juror #1
The Foreman
Asst. Football Coach
Juror #12
The Ad Exec
Juror #4
The Stock Broker
Juror #11
The Immigrant
Watch Maker
Juror #6
The Working Man
(Painter)
Juror #5
The Kid from the Slums
Juror #3
The Businessman
Juror #10
The Garage Owner
Juror #9
The Old Man
Juror #8
The Architect
Juror #7
The Salesman
(Marmalade)
Juror #2
The Bank Teller
The jury 12 men from different backgrounds


The foreman, who acts as the facilitator for the group in arranging the ballot. An
assistant high school football coach.
A meek bank clerk , who has a childish voice , easily dominated by others. However
becomes courageous as the deliberations goes on
A businessman and distraught father whose son has left him, stubborn with a
temper
A rational stockbroker, unflappable, self-assured, and analytical
A man from a slum
A house painter, tough but principled and respectful
A salesman, sports fan, superficial and indifferent to the deliberations
An architect, the first to say not guilty
A wise and observant elderly man
A garage owner; pushy and loudmouthed
A European immigrant watchmaker
An indecisive advertising executive

Walk through the movie
Not Guilty : Jurors are sent to a room to decide on the fate of a young accused
Not Guilty : Jurors being ready to vote
Not Guilty : Only one, Juror 8, calls Not Guilty, rest jurors are convinced of the crime
Not Guilty : Juror #10 makes bigot and prejudiced remarks against the accused,
which other find offensive
Not Guilty : Juror #8 tries hard to convince others to find a reasonable doubt
Not Guilty : Juror 5 is the most articulate person in the entire team,
who doesnt even break sweat at all
Not Guilty : Juror 9, an old man, is supportive of Juror # 8 approach in analyzing the truth
Not Guilty : Juror # 8 makes some insightful criticisms on the evidences and witnesses provided
Not Guilty : Juror 3 is the one who is most stubborn and declares Juror 8s reasons a filth
Not Guilty : Juror 3 tries proving the method of killing to Juror 8
Not Guilty : All the jurors find Juror #3s remarks against the case very offensive
Not Guilty : Juror #5 and #6 watch Juror #3 as he blabbers about his personal angst against
criminals in general which no one else in the room is at all convinced of.
Situational and Behavioral
The situational and behavioral elements of
majority group processes were evident from
the onset of the film
Mouse and others (highlighted in blue) look to their peers for
informational influence. They are the first to side with Fonda as
the film progresses. 11:10

Illustration 1# Informational and
normative influences
Conformity was apparent upon the initial hand vote; we can infer that
informational and normative influences played a role.
A freeze frame in the middle of the hand vote revealed six men with their
hands up, while the others looked around (Film 11:25)
Normative influence was also evident in that others who were on the
fence about the issue may have sided with the initial majority in order to
avoid being seen as the odd man out.
The Old Man certainly would fit in this category, as he was one of the last
to raise his hand and the first to be persuaded

All eyes are on Fonda when he does not side with the groups
decision. 11:20
Illustration 2# majority group
sentiment
When these men first took turns explaining their
position, a polarization effect occurred.
They gained added confidence in their position due to
strength in numbers and the full range of supportive
evidence that comes from collective expression
There was a clear majority group sentiment that was
expressed as the eleven all focused their attention on
Fonda, the lone dissenter (see Illustration 2). The
Adman illustrated it well when he said: Its up to the
group of us to convince (Fonda) that hes wrong and
were right (Film, 15:33).
Fonda is slumped and appears unsure when he first declares his
minority position. 12:08




Fonda stands tall and defends his position as more people side with his
case. 40:10


Illustration 3# an authentic dissenter (one who believes in his case because
he wants to) is significantly more effective at garnering support and changing
opinion than a Devils Advocate who is assigned to the same position
This shift from Devils Advocate to authentic dissenter is
evidenced by his becoming more outwardly aggressive.
At the beginning of the film he is seen slumping in his chair
(see Illustration 3/1, smiling frequently, and speaking in a
passive tone.
As the film progresses and more jurors side with his case,
Fonda stands more often (see Illustration 3/2, smiles less, and
is more forceful in his speech.

Smelly demonstrated low-status posture when first
asked for his opinion. 17:50
Illustration 4# minority influence tends to foster
a wider search for information from all sides
Despite the strong pressures of the majority, Fondas presentation of
unique interpretations of the facts eventually stimulated divergent
thinking in the majority members.
At one point, Mouse, while outwardly remaining in the majority, states
that the angle of the mans stab wound had been bothering him, in that he
didnt think it could have caused by the boy (Film, 1:12:30).
As new information begins to emerge various jurors show transformations
in their non-verbal behavior. 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. Proxemics also comes into play with Mouse, who travels
to Fondas side of the table when he begins to agree with their position.
This forms a visual of unity, reducing their interpersonal distances
Fonda: Leadership Angle
In 12 Angry Men, Fonda was able to eventually convert the opinions of
those initial 11 jurors through his strong leadership.
At the outset, Fonda took on the role of self-appointed Devils Advocate
and employed a democratic leadership style.
That is, he outwardly expressed no adherence to either position, but
instead encouraged his fellow jurors to simply discuss the case in an open-
minded manner: I dont know if I believe (the boys story) or not, maybe I
dont (Brown, 2000, 94; Film, 12:40).
This non-committal position serves to shield Fonda from much of the
hatred typically directed at lone Studies have shown that such
acquiescence gives subsequent legitimacy and lends credit to his
emergence as a leader.


Fonda: Leadership Angle
Fondas role as a leader also derives from his ability to identify with
the other jurors. Fondas character possesses the two orientations
as identified by Bales (1950) that parallel successful leadership: task
and socio-emotional. The fact that Fondas 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 groups role as jurors, reflecting the essence
of a task-oriented leadership role (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 importantly, his statement that prejudice obscures the
truth (Film, 1:20:44) following a particularly distasteful outburst by
Grumpy, results in the formation of a common group identity, and
allows Grumpy to gracefully enter the minority.

Fonda: Leadership Angle
At the same time, Fondas strong leadership is contrasted with the poor
leadership posed by the majority. We witness that within the majority,
leadership is undirected (there is seemingly more than one leader), there is
a lack of attention to procedures (multiple members speaking out of turn),
and members are unmindful of their objective (playing game).
Furthermore, there are many instances where the primary leaders within the
group prove themselves undesirable to the other majority group members.
For example, when Muscles threatened Angry for his attack on the Old Man,
or when the entire group left the table when Grumpy made his last stand of
bigotry.
These events create resentment and alienation within the group, thereby
reducing the membership of the initial group identity.
The combination of Fondas strong leadership and the defective formation of
the initial majority judgment offer the opportunity for the minority group to
transform a majority opinion.

Conclusion
All groups will have these phase or sequences of talks , but
every situation will be different. Some groups for example,
will remain in the conflict stage until something takes a turn
for the good or bad
12 Angry Men explores many techniques of consensus-
building, and the difficulties encountered in the process,
among a group of men whose range of personalities adds
intensity and conflict .
The film 12 Angry Men demonstrates that a majority
position and the processes that support it are not infallible.
The introduction of dissent has the ability to stimulate
divergent thinking that may challenge unquestioned
opinions.

Thanks