12 ANGRY MEN

FROM THE MOVIE

Formal group
12 jury members have come together to decide
on a verdict
Ideal size- (7-8)
Too many cooks spoil the broth
DiversityCreated a problem till some extent in getting to
a unanimous decision as Jury members were
from different strata of society
NormsA common understanding among them that
nobody would leave or cut the other person
speaking

Characteristics of Jurors and

their Verbal Communication
Juror 1 initially mediated the discussion
with a friendly tone.
Juror 2 was hesitant in his speech, and
was not very confident in giving his views.
Later this changed.
Juror 3 was brisk-like and fact-oriented.
He was also very loud and dominating
during his speech He shouts and gets
violent during many instances in the
movie.
Juror 4 was task-oriented, firm in his
opinion and he was articulate in

Juror 6 was kind and assertive while stating

his opinions. His compassion towards Juror 9
and when he reprimanded Juror 3 for being
rude to him, indicated the same.
Juror 7 was impatient, did not bother about
the discussion and was not concerned about
the verdict, which was apparent in his
comments as well.
Juror 8 was compassionate and perceptive.
His manner of speech was calm and logical,
and during some instances he became
tensed. In his speech, used his intelligence
and gave relevant examples to prove his
point. Eg:- the possibility of the witnesses
being wrong or the neighbouring woman

Juror 10 was biased in his speech

and insisted on the boy being guilty
without any concrete reason. He
causes disharmony in the group by
shouting, and questioning group
members without solid grounds for
the same.
Juror 11 was logical, brought
interesting points to the table. He
says assuming the boy had
committed the murder, why did he
come back at all? He was firm in his
manner of speaking.
Juror 12 was a people pleaser. He

F
O
R
M
I
N
G
S
T
A
G
E

S
T
O
R
M
I
N
G
S
T
A
G
E

N
O
R
M
I
N
G
S
T
A
G
E

P
E
R
F
O
R
M
I
N
G
S
T
A
G
E

A
D
J
O
U
R
N
I
N
G
S
T
A
G
E

STAGES OF GROUP DEVELOPMENT

Forming:- two jurors had introduced each
other, when they were cut off by a third juror.
Another observation was that though the
members had not formally introduced
themselves to all members of the group, it
happened among
2-3 members .
At the end of the movie, after the adjourning
stage Juror 8 and Juror 9 had introduced
themselves to each other.
Storming:- During the transition from majority
of people voting for guilty to majority of people
voting for not guilty, there were continuous

 Norming:- Violation of norm occurs when

Juror 9 was explaining his view, and Juror 7
leaves without warning.
Following the norm occurs when one of the
jurors leave again and all the other jurors
decide to take a break and wait for him to be
back.
Performing:- They finally decided on the vote
as not guilty.
Adjourning:- once the decision was made in
the end, they departed without a proper
introduction or any emotional connect, they

SOMETHING
ABOUT
GROUP
for consensus
overrides
the
realistic
THINK appraisal of alternative
Norm

course of action
Illusion of Morality
Illusion of invulnerability
Closed mindedness stereotypes
Pressures towards uniformity
Entrapment Commitment to initial
decision

GROUP SHIFT

Change between a group decision and

individual decision that a member
within a group should make.
Shift towards the more extreme version
of the groups original position
Example from the movie

CONFORMITY
Conformity was apparent upon the initial
hand vote, when the Juror no-1 asked the
other jury members to explain their vote
Few jurors had their own thought process,
others were influenced by the majority of
the group and raised their hand just
because everyone else was doing the same
And in the end everyone changed sides and
Confirmed to exactly the opposite decision

GROUPS ULTIMATE NON VERBAL CUE

TO THE PREJUDICED, JUROR NO- 10

EXTERNAL FACTORS
AFFECTING GROUP DECISIONS

Hot weather was affecting the

temper of the Jury, people were
getting irritated as they wanted to
leave early
One person had to go for the ball
game and seemed uninterested in
the discussion, taking Guilty as the
for granted decision

Power Tactics
Rational Persuasion:- Juror 8s train
example, the easy availability of the knife
that was used to commit the crime, were
explanations that caused some of the other
jurors to be convinced.
Consultation:- This happened continuously
throughout, seeking each others opinion,
conducting the secret ballot to understand
others viewpoints or garner votes to decide
on guilty or not guilty.
Pressure:- There was pressure on all 12

 Juror 2 states guilty in the beginning without

having a proper reason for it. He says I dont
know. It just seemed obvious from the word
go.
Similarly, Juror 12 also bends under pressure.
His decision keeps changing from guilty to not
guilty and again guilty, for fear of facing
reproach from the other jurors.
Juror 8 towards the end of the movie nearly
demands for a reason to still say that the boy
is guilty, from Juror 3.
Exchange:- Clear give and take of views

REAL LIFE
EXAMPLE

THE DECISION TO KILL OSAMA BIN

LADEN

THE GROUP STAGES

Forming
Storming
Norming
Performing
Adjourning
Verbal Communication affected by
Background?
Diversity?
External Factors?

NON VERBAL
CUES

THANK YOU!!
R.PRASHANTHI
R.VAISHNAVIE
RITURAJ PANDEY
TRIPTI SINGH
TANVI KAPOOR