'12 Angry Men Analysis – 2\r'

' nix could forecast that a low compute pic with 12 varied actors performing in unitary single path could chance upon in such a remarkable degree several sciences standardised law, business, psychology etc. The movie, base on the scenario that a 12 subdivision instrument panel gathering is about to decide finished and through a certain cognitive operation if a young son is going to salute the death penalty or not, arsehole be linked with m each(prenominal) theories referring to draws or group/team work. Influenced by the Group Effectiveness Model of Schwarz (2002), the bodily structure of the group along with the context and the move be spanking for its effectiveness (Eirini Flouri & Yiannis Fitsakis 2007).In the low gear infract of the understand when the stage of forming, as it is deed of conveyanceed by the Tuckman’s Team Model, occurs, we remonstrate the chief(prenominal) useistics of this group(David A. Buchanan & Andrej Huczynski , 2010). The group consists of 12 mannish middle aged white custody probably coming from the middle class. steady from this first impression, admiring the effort of the film to com get in diversity, signs of prejudice appear. Specific tout ensembley, the fact that all of them atomic number 18 custody and moreover white men represents main biases of that period.Additionally, as it is menti angiotensin converting enzyme(a)d to Sheldon’s theory about the biases, the somatotype of severally soulfulness declargons in a certain modal value its character and this stub be find by the selection of the characters and their match with the comp anenessnts (Big hombre is the tough one, smaller and thinner is the nigh innocuous, the croak or so is the sensible and sensitive one etc. ) (David A. Buchanan & Andrej Huczynski, 2010). Despite the fact that the movie is stressful to accuse such biases (which bequeath be underlined later) certain shipway of protrusion o f that period could not be avoided.This is one of the reasons wherefore in the remake of the film in 1997 black actors severaliseicipated as hygienic and later there even women were introduced in the team for certain theatrical versions. (Eirini Flouri & Yiannis Fitsakis 2007). The organism of a â€Å"one-off” situation like this in the movie diverges space for little forbiddance for conflicts. Moreover, ad hoc factors like the sizing, the external-internal purlieu and the explanation of the process play a essential eccentric in the structure of the group.Obviously, the size of this group is 12, solely the question is: why so umpteen? The reason is that by having a greater number of juries the arrangement of furtherice achieves taller levels of democracy with little possibilities of doting unfair decisions combining the memory, the friendship and the experience of all(prenominal) member and eliminates any prejudiced carriages. On the other hand as hea rty Impact conjecture mentions the more members there atomic number 18, the less business they feel (Latane and Nida, 1980).In the external environment we could control the clip of the procedure, which is unlimited at first simply with a deadline coming up laterwards, and the conditions of the place of run, which is characterized by the humidity and the high summer temperatures, the broken air-conditioning, the unavailability of space. such(prenominal) details could become the cause of stress, aggression and as it was sh make hope for fast takings (just finish the procedure). In the internal environment issues like experience of previous quasi(prenominal) situations, cultures, privateities, knowledge, mood, health, personal schedule and specialization could affect the result.Ending, a matter of signifi screwingt magnificence is the definition of the procedure. In this case, we observe that after the release of the 2 alternatives there ar 12 juries left. The juries hav e to decide if the boy is shamefaced or not guilty but there must be a full obligation (12 to 0) in each case; A democratic method which proves the importance of the situation. Alternatively, if they cannot reach an agreement they can decide a hung jury and then another trial will take place with different juries this time.The role of the foreman is usually for the closely experient person in this field or the first jury or for anyone who claims the desire and gets postulateed by all. In the movie, juror1 supports this role setting the basic norms of the procedure. It is worth mentioning that nowa mean solar days, in the selection of the juries there is a plane sectionicular procedure that is called â€Å"Voir fearful” procedure that clarifies the talent of the juries (Michael T. Nietzelt and Ronald C. Dillehayt 1982). Undoubtedly, the conviction of the biases of any kind is one of the main objects of this film. Primarily, in the first scheme, the mark seems reall y ninterested about the outcome and he seems to be sure about the result. The aura Effect is â€Å"a judgment ground on a single link characteristic” and is being remarked in many cases during the film (Edward Thorndike, 1920). Moving to the main part of the film and the central procedure we can emphasize on the juror3 and juror10 who atomic number 18 the main representatives of such prejudiced behaviors. Both of them were trying to fill the gaps of their knowledge using selective attention in certain facts and their personal experience (â€Å"Principle of closure” by Max Wertheimer 1880-1943).Everyone has his sort outs and if we imagine stereotypes as pictures in our head, jurors 3 and 10 have the image of a risk of exposureous criminal for the suspect, raise to act in certain ways (Lippmann, 1922). More specifically, juror3 expresses, from his first lines in the film, his recognition over against the young boy (â€Å"I ‘d slap those kids before… ”). But as the movie goes on, he expresses again and again his personal tenets connecting them with his personal disap rasement from his own son (â€Å" it’s these kids they ar these day”, â€Å"I used to call my render Sir”).Even more he presents his cultural stereotype against the elderly (â€Å"How could he be affirmative about anything? ”) Eventually, juror3 stands alone with his perceptions, believing in the boy’s guiltiness and through a psycho logical outburst admits that all his statements were based on biases. Similarly, juror10 uses his own belief to create his racial prejudice against the defendant (â€Å"I‘ve expected that”, â€Å"You know what we are doing with…”) as well as his past experiences (â€Å"I’ve lived with them… they are innate(p) liars”).Adding to this, juror10 weights the value of the young boy less than the cost of a trial. Finally, his â€Å"explosion” make the revealing of his real personality and the group’s mechanism accused his behavior through a visual closing off and oral prohibition. The existence of biases in each group can create an rebarbative internal environment for each member and be the reason of conflicts. The productivity or the effectiveness of the group is in danger if such behaviors are being tolerated. unconnected from the complexity which is created there is also a matter of fairness of the group’s function.As the movie flows, the settle of the group to each individual separately is obvious but a vice versa phenomenon is noticed as well. In this part, the different roles of the jurors and their influence on each other through the communication style of all-channel are being presented, as well as with some strategies followed by the leader-juror8. One thing that is common for most of the jurors is that they have common BATNA(Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) and this is the hung jury.Ho wever, this is not the case for jury8 claims that his besides endeavor is the delivery of the justice (Fisher and Uri, 1981). Starting with juror1 we can notice signs of leadership in the primordial beginning but he ends up being more like a manager, organizing the procedure. Excluding the moment he reaches his breaking point and suggests if anyone would like to take his place, juror1is the one who sets up the norms, accepts propositions, guides the conversation and the balloting procedure, avoids conflicts and respects privileges property a democratic way of thinking.Being the foreman can be characterized as the â€Å"co-ordinator” (Beldin’s Team Role Theory 1996, 2007). some of the jurors (2, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12) seem to have low self-pride not only because of their character but also because of the number of the team that forces them to get lost in the crowd or just finish the procedure and leave (â€Å"I just think he is guilty”, â€Å"Can I pass? â €, etc) This is obvious from the first vote where only 5 of the 11 votes come now and the rest are raised easily just to avoid being pointed out.They are becoming followers(2, 5, 6 and 11) or entertainers (7) or just dreamers (12). Of course most of them are open to hear more and accept different opinions (2, 5, and 7). The rest just do not care so practically about the result and these â€Å"free riders”, as Frohlich and Oppenheimer called them in 1970, are the proof that accessible loafing (or Ringelmann Effect) is a common phenomenon in big teams. The role of juror9 has a vital meaning for the outcome because he takes part in all the breaking points of the process.Firstly, he is the first supporter of juror8, secondly it is him who explains the rare witness’s psychology (â€Å" tutelage”) and lastly he is the fire neophyte for the fall of the woman’s testimony. The main opponents to the boy’s exoneration are jurors 3, 4 and 10. As was mentioned previously jurors 3 and 10 are mostly based on biases and stereotypes for children from slums. They are all unvoiced on general facts and obvious details. The encompassing use of loud voice is ofttimes the main argument of jurors 3 and 10, which could never strengthen their position.Alternatively, juror4 is using his logic and acuteness to support his facts and admits his fault proving his maturity, once he is convinced. Focusing on juror8 we can claim that he owns the position of the leader as his bargaining power is unique. Max weber (1947) claimed that â€Å"bargaining power is the ability someone has to achieve his goals no matter of the justification he faces”. Juror8 follows a series of strategies in order to be flexible and aline to the needs of each occasion. In the beginning, as it is shown from Jo-Hari’s Window, everyone has a bigger unknown-black side, so juror8 wants to get information as an input.Eventually, he adopts the strategy of a liste ner in order to get knowledge from the others without disclosure himself. after(prenominal)wards, in the first vote he stays neutral mentioning his points aiming to make some of the rest see the facts from a different angle avoiding any conflict. The brainstorming procedure just began. In order to wash up their consciousness he uses specific words like â€Å"maybe”, â€Å"supposing”, â€Å" attainable” and â€Å"assume”. In the main part he listens carefully and argues with all the elements one by one. There is also an elongated use of rhetorical questions and irony just to make his point clear.The first action scheme is when he places the similar spit on the table. The leader breaks the law in order to prove his point. He becomes more active for the first time and gets the livelong team upset. Eventually, he creates the first doubts. At this specific time he calls for a new vote. Apparently, the timing is not random. in all likelihood he recognize s some voices like his and decides that it is time to set up a densification strategy. He needs just one vote which will strengthen surprisingly his arguments and he gets it.The fact that he uses his mad intelligence to point out his views, slice he realizes that some other jurors are playing, proves once again his leading abilities. The coterminous step is to create personal dealing with some of the jurors. So, he finds the weakest of the group who are about to change side and have a bun in the oven for their opinions. It is not by accident that these jurors were primarily followers until this time. Having established these connections, he uses logic and science as well as the experience and the knowledge of the group in order to persuade the others.As soon as he realizes that one of his main opponents (juror3) loses his self-control, juror8 becomes war-ridden and pushes him to the limits using the technique of the irony to apocalypse the existence of his personal prejudice against the defendant. After completing his task, he shows his sympathetic character and supports the worried opponent. Based on Moscovici (1976) and his 5 Aspects juror8 is loyal to his beliefs(Consistency), responsible for his acts(Autonomy), flexible whenever it is appropriate(Rigidity), wild in the first secret vote(Investment) and will to bring justice(Fairness).The impact of this movie in our modern times is initially proven by the fact that after so many years it is still being taught in courses not only in Law schools but also in Business and psychology schools. Definitions like brainstorming, complaisant loafing, diversity, team-working, biases and preconceptions, attribution, personality, leader’s abilities, democratic voting and many others are part of any organization nowadays. This movie is the omen for the evolutionary development of a team structure, a team-worker’s behavior and a leader’s characteristics. References Atkinson G. 1990 â€Å"Neg otiate the best deal” Director Books, Cambridge Barkan, Steven E. , & Steven Cohn, 1994, ‘‘Racial Prejudice and apply for the Death Penalty by Whites’’ in â€Å"Journal of Research in nuisance and Delinquency” pp. 202â€209 Buchanan A. David & Huczynski A. Andrej, 2010, â€Å"Organizational demeanor”, ordinal edition, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow Cialdini R. B. , 1993 â€Å"The psychology of persuasion”, beam William Morrow, New York Ellsworth C. Phoebe, 1989, â€Å"Are Twelve Heads best Than One? ” in â€Å"Law and contemporaneous Problems”, Duke University School of Law Fisher R. & Ury W. 1981 â€Å" get to yes: Negotiating agreement without gining in” Penguin, New York Flouri Eirini & Fitsakis Yiannis, Oct 2007, â€Å"nonage Matters: 12 smoldering manpower as a Case study of a successful Negotiation against the odds” in â€Å"Negotitation Journal” pp. 449-46 1 Hackley Susan, 2007 â€Å"One Reasonable and meddling Man:12 Angry Men as a Negotiation-Teaching Tool” in â€Å"Negotiation Journal” pp. 463-468 Hall & M. Eisenstein (Eds. ), 1980, â€Å"Voir Dire and jury selection”, Clark. B. M. , in â€Å" iniquitous Defense Techniques”, New York: Mathew Bender convert B. L. 2007 â€Å"Fiftieth anniversary 12 Angry Men” Kent-Law Review 82(3) Chicago Heuer L. Penrodt St. , Sep. 1988, â€Å"increase Jurors Participation in Trials A dramatics Experiment with Jury Notetaking and Question communicate” in â€Å"Law and merciful Behaviour” Vol. 12 No. 3 Janis I. , 1972 â€Å"Victims of groupthink” MA: Houghton Mifflin, Oxford Kaplan M. , Jones & Christopher S. , 2003 â€Å"The personal effects of Racially Stereotypical Crimes on Juror Decision-Making and Information â€Processing Strategies” in â€Å"Basic and Applied sociable Psychology” pp. 1-13 Kew J. & Stre dwick J. , 2010, â€Å"Human Resource Management in a business context”, CIPD, capital of the United Kingdom Martin R. , 1992 â€Å"Bargaining Power” Clarendon Press, OxfordMoscovici S. , 1976 â€Å"Social influence and affable change” Academic, London Nietzelt T. Michael & Dillehayt C. Ronald, 1982, â€Å"The Effects of Variations in Voir Dire Procedures in smashing Murder Trials”, in â€Å"Law and Human Behaviour” Vol. 6 No. 1 Rojot J. , 1991 â€Å"Negotiatation: From theory to practice” Macmillan, London Scheepers, Daan, et al, 2006, ‘‘ conversion in In-Group Bias: Structural Factors, Situational Features, and Social Functions,’’ in â€Å"Journal of Personality and Social Psychology” pp. 944â€960 Weber M. , 1947 The theory of social and economic organization” Oxford University Press, New York\r\n'