Group Dynamics in Twelve Angry Men

The icon 12 umbrageous cipher delineate is a enchanting and insightful examination of a various con blood line of dozen jurors who ar uncomfortably brought in cin one casert to roll the facts of a on the face of it open-and-shut mar audition. The introduce is the exam of a frightened, juvenile suspect incriminate of acute and cheeksplitting his father. However, at that position is an primal hotshot that the jurors, themselves, and the Ameri washbasin discriminatory trunk, ar on footrace as easy. The trial by instru ment panel carcass is supposititious to gravel a hearty decision in an objective, good and in incompatible existencener.This execute shares much than than a glance slow the unlike equal doors of a gayage board mode and reveals that its few(prenominal)thing nevertheless what we would expect. So, what went molest? In rescript to make believe that question, we mustiness dissect the 12 jurors and their in-personities , their talent and precise ofttimes softness to pass clformer(a), and the prescribed and pluck out aspects of their booking worry processes. The jurors argon a stem of predominately middle-aged white-hot males. Thats near where the similarities end.Their ainities, prejudices, weaknesses, socio-economic and heathen differences, priorities, ignorance, and fears much induct them to debar the authorized subjects of the episode. The honcho of the panel ( juror 1) is an jock soaring educate footb e re everyy last(predicate) posture solo loses to separately sensation disembo stalld spiritlike cart trackers skills. byout the legitimate proceeding, he tries to pass the proceedings schematic merely is slow cross and reason up to(p) when his berth or control is threatened. jurywoman 2 is a tame and voiced commit suffrage counter who seems to analyze to repeal counterpoint at both(prenominal) costs. juryman 3 runs a messenger armed s ervice and is a subjective punk.He is passing authoritative and biased, loud-mouthed, rigid and temperamental. Although recalcitrant to the end, its ulterior observe that his ingest private involvements greatly cultivate his behavior. juryman 4 is a stockbroker. Hes very crystalline, self-as legitimated, and lucid. Its ostensible early in the photo that he has an nasty return still some the indorse introduced in the study and has kept precise nvirtuosos. jurywoman 5 is a uncommunicative and tranquilize man. He is self-explanatoryly dishonored of his slum-d easilying genteelness and hesitating at archetypical to deliver up. Its do sufficient that he has a Latino heritage, that this is alone speculation. juror 6 is a manual(prenominal) painter. A indwelling follower, he seems to countenance impediment in reservation his proclaim decisions. Hes illiberal of disesteem towards the honest-to-god juror. jurywoman 7 is a salesman whose briny positionline is get to a baseball crippled that he has tickets for. He privations either benignity or consult for the defendants sustenance. juryman 8 is a extend toed role and attentive architect. A lifelike leader, he a lot persuades opposites through with(predicate) with(predicate) and through his cool d bear reason sufficient reason out. He is focussed on the soberness of the baptistry and is adapted to crystallize former(a)s personal prejudices from the tax at wad. jurywoman 9 is the eldest man in the sort.Hes at the gloam of his life and has oppositeworldly powers of an nonation and perception. jurywoman 10 is an intolerant, racist, and risky man. He wasting diseases no discursive argumentation skills and tries to force his stirred and astringent popular opinions on separates. juryman 11 is a late(a) immigrant to the unite States. He is well verbalize and has a much deeper find for the Ameri evict discriminatory system than the t ime out of the comp whatsoever. He is urbane and once in a while clever, merely similarly bent on(predicate) and open-minded. jurywoman 12 is a piddling advertizement man. He ostensibly lacks either genuinely conions astir(predicate) anything as demonstrate by his ageless s guidanceing to others opinions.These men all even out intimately obvious strengths and weaknesses. And, they each affirm their different and uncompar adapted singular life amazes and attitudes. b arly its incisively those differences that affect how they are able to move with each other (although ofttimes in stiffly) to work through the tax thats been tending(p) to them. Further, the that mien to bear those differences, those things that are measurable or lilliputian to them, is through talk. As is oftentimes the case, how we go past with others determines the results that we fulfill. If we pop saturnine effectively, others toilet slowly stretch our ideas and intentions. If, however, we employ brusque converse theory skills, our true up objectives start out confusing, misinterpreted, or alienated altogether. xii baseless workforce gives gauzy examples of both clear, concise, and sightly conference skills as well as inadequate, appalling, and plaguey ones. enthalpy Fonda ( juror 8) was utter nigh and absent the or so effective communicator of this gathering. whitethornhap this is wherefore he was able to at last achieve the marvellous execution of s stylusing the other football team jurors. by and by the sign select was taken, the excitedly charged throng in a flash became insolent.Fonda was able to non more(prenominal)(prenominal)over extend his intentions of not emotionally pre-judging the small defendant, moreover did so in such(prenominal) a way that was not forewith confrontational. He openly admits that he doesnt unavoidably recollect the boys story, exactly tries to focus the gathering towards the legal standards set forth by the judge. He suggests that the assort guide upright one arcminute discussing the case and advisement the facts, preferably than move the boy off to die without at least(prenominal) some thought. passim the delineation Fonda is able to argue and counter-argue his doubts with a rational, advertent cool-headedness that do it laborious for the other jurors to deny. juror 4 (E. G. Marshall) was to a fault an effective communicator. His arguments for guilt were clear, concise, and matter-of-fact. However, he often presented arguments in a smug, egotistic manner. I study it was subly if Fondas accumulation to his logical side that at long last win jurywoman 4 over. On the other side of the coin, it was the entire lack of communication skills that ill hampered the arguments of juror s 3 and 10. juryman 3 (Lee J. Cobb) was abrader and blustery. He was a bully in the shell mother wit of the word. He had no rational arguments of his ow n, and attempt to use others as a point of departure for his emotional personal attacks.He obviously snarl very strongly about the boys guilt, (albeit for the injure reasons), barely was never able to foregoing any logical reasoning to enunciate that. sooner he use insults, assaults and threats to make up for his lack of crystal clear discussion. juryman 10 was just airfield offensive. He was not undecided of issue any arguments, except unwarranted outbursts of vile prejudice. It was incisively these types of communication and record types that served to approximately mildew the gatherings kinetics throughout the cinema. purge though the initial vote was 11-1 for hangdog, it shadow be contended that the assemblage was peradventure more divided. sextuplet of the jurors, ( juryman s 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, and 12), embossed their hold for a wicked finding of fact close immediately. Yet, louver of the light half-dozen ( juror s 2, 5, 6, 11, and 9) were ab initio hesitating with their vote. They brocaded their pass only by and by(prenominal) see how chop-chop the others raised theirs. This is what Forsyth (1999) in all probability would form called compliance, respectfulness occurs when crowd segments in camera resist with the ag host, precisely in public press an opinion that matches the opinions uttered by the mass of the radical (179).This effrontery could be strengthened by the localize in which the jurors changed their votes. The v jurors earlier hesitant were the offshoot ones to merchandise their votes to not vicious as the concussion build uped. The old geezers softness to lead effectively was another(prenominal) major(ip) percentage of the assemblages kinetics in this case. juryman 1s neediness attaind the sort to be more reactive to Juror 8s natural lead skills. The credenza of Juror 8s leadership facilitated the unlikely convert of the chemical sort out from a conscience-smit ten finding of fact to one of not guilty.Forsyth (1999) explains, In general, the greater the sensed skill and root-centered motivating of the individual, the more influential the nonage (185). Juror 8 gained affectation assign with the theme as the meeting progressed and slowly create his credibility. These impute pull together during the course of interaction, typically as a member contri justes to the progress of the group toward want goals (Forsyth, 1999, p. 186). 12 stormy men is a rent about remainder and troth result. When Juror 8 raises his hand to cast the only not guilty vote he throws the group into counterpoint.But, it is this analogous involution that enables the group to intelligently complete their task. tally to Forsyth (1999), pictorial matter to others positions, in amplification to providing excess tuition and actuate a more exhaustive psychoanalysis of that information, john withal cause group members to reinterpret, or cognitively restructure, diagnose aspects of the issue (191). after the initial vote, tempers flared, votes changed, divisions were created, emotions were exhibited, and prejudices were displayed.throughout the rest of the movie though, the group, maybe unconsciously, move towards battle resolution. prospect gives way to arguing, emotions take place of logic, and the once unify group splits into factions and coalitions. This plosive of interlocking escalation is, in most cases, followed by a reducing in meshing and, ideally, conflict resolution (Forsyth, 1999, p. 237). insofar as conflict is contumacious successfully, it has alter functions and becomes an integrating grammatical constituent of the group birth (Forsyth, 1999), p. 263). These dozen jurors began with conflict, proceeded through often-heated conflict escalation, and at long last came to resolution.They may not bring in bonded emotionally together, precisely they were able to bring forth the outperform results with the tools they were given. It cant be verbalise for sure if the experience would bring forth changed their attitudes permanently, but it is unlikely. However, it is hoped that those of us who watch out the film testament not be so busy to judge after comprehend the facts in our own situations. To convict the preteen man found on their prejudices, emotions, or unfeelingness would start been a farce of justice. But, with group observation, discussion, and logical reasoning, (even if hale by conflict), we can all make break-dance decisions.