Topical Blog due 3/22 @ midnight

I watched the 1957 black and white version of the movie 12 Angry Men. I found it to be kind of boring because the ending was pretty predictable. The movie was hard to get into because the scene was the same for the entire movie, but the movie did get across what it was supposed to. It really showed how group situations can be effected, and how jury deliberation can work. The main thing I kept thinking throughout the whole movie was that it’s beyond a reasonable doubt. The people that thought he was guilty didn’t understand that as long as there was some doubt than he was not guilty. You have to be over 90% sure that the person committed the crime, but it seemed like they kept for getting that very important fact. I found it very frustrating that they kept saying, “You’re not sure, You can’t be sure,” because neither side was sure so it was very hypocritical.

Social psychology is scene a lot in this movie. This first situation I will discuss is with the guy who was last to turn his vote to non-guilty. He shows stereotyping and discrimination. His son also played a huge part in his decision. This plays a part in a lot of social situations because of people beliefs in other people. This is also seen in the majority of the men of the jury because at the beginning they were all talking about how kids from that area can’t grow up normal because they are poor, among other things.

Groups have been studied in social psychology and I noted some key things that happened in the movie that have to deal with how groups react to each other. Before they even vote for the first time everyone is talking to each other about what they thought. This could change minds. Also you right away notice the strong minds in the group. Strong, aggressive people are more likely to get their way because the quite people are less likely to talk or argue to them. I saw this right when they voted the first time. It was a raise your hand type of voting and that was a bad idea I think because people don’t like to feel judged so if the majority of the group is doing it than others will follow. It is a type of conformity. It just takes one person to set off everyone. Slowly hand after hand rises. I feel like this relates to the Jonestown massacre because of the fact that if one person does it than everyone will feel less guilty about doing it. It only takes when to stand up to get a lot to follow. In the end it is only one man, but the people against him were stronger and he didn’t go about persuading them in an effective way.

The man who said, “Not guilty,” used persuasion to get the rest of the jury to change verdicts from guilty to not guilty. It was easy for him to convert the quieter people because they wanted that verdict in the first place, but were too scared to do it knowing that the majority wanted guilty. Persuasion is a strong way of getting a group to agree with what you are saying, and the main guy did a very good job of using it. Once he started persuading people to his side others started to persuade as well. It was used for both sides of the argument. It was also shown, for the most part, that the more aggressive people will be heard since there was a lot of fighting and yelling, and not much of it was solved with calm communication.

When one of the last remaining men guilty verdict men went off on a rant almost everyone turned from him and showed their backs. This caused that man to feel like an outcast and throughout the rest of the movie he was quiet and didn’t say a word. When asked if he agreed with non-guilty he just shook his head yes. When everyone is against you it can cause you to get beaten down and join their sides because you feel alone.

I watched to older version of this movie. I had watched it previously in my government class in high school, so I knew how things would play out but I had forgotten how boring the movie can be. In light of this, I think it is quite representative of a real jury, especially one of that time period. Jury deliberations aren’t supposed to be fun, entertaining, and necessarily well-mannered. As with any jury, this entire movie was based in psychology. Throughout the movie, people tried to manipulate others to see things their way, which is where social psychology became a big player in the movie.

Throughout the movie, the jurors deliberate and interact with each other, whether at the table all together or off in smaller pairs such as in the bathroom. I think one of the most important point in which the impact of social psychology was evident was when voting. Once the votes became anonymous, the men began to feel less pressured into a verdict of ‘guilty.’ This really shows how the presence of others can very easily alter one’s decisions because he wants to conform rather than be the odd one out who is subjected to ridicule. It was evident at the very beginning of the movie with the first vote that not everyone was entirely sure of the verdict they believed in, but after many raised their hands for the guilty verdict, those who were unsure-- besides the main guy-- conformed. One of the jurors who suffered a lot from the influence of social psychology and his peers was the juror who changed to not guilty, then back to guilty, and to not guilty again by the end. He probably felt insecure about himself and did not like how the angry guy kept shouting all the time. One of the few people whom I felt took a side regardless of the impact of social psychology was the man who wore glasses and was relying heavily on the woman’s eyewitness account. This man pretty much held his ground through his own reasoning and did not falter until he was presented with sufficient evidence to doubt what the woman saw. Even the main guy showed weakness and susceptibility to the influences of his peers by means of social psychology when he said that he would give up and turn to a guilty verdict if the next vote again included eleven guilty decisions from his peers.

Throughout the movie, the most stubborn jury member who was unable to back up his claims and who yelled a lot presented a lot of stereotypes based a lot of his verdict on the kid’s background. He talked about how people from the slums are the way they are by nature as a way to justify his guilty verdict. His history with his son was also definitely a big factor in his decision throughout the movie, both which showed how big of an impact bias really can have on a juror if he is not willing to look past it.

When the term ‘reasonable doubt’ came into question, I definitely doubted whether many of the jurors really had a sense of what it was. Though it may have seemed demeaning when one juror asked the other if he understood it, I think that this was a very valid question. While the crazy guy kept yelling and asking how the opposition could be sure and know that what they were claiming could have happened actually did happen, he didn’t seem to grasp that it wasn’t their job to know; the prosecution had the burden of proof, not the defense. In the end, social psychology trumps everything and everyone because the one juror who was unsure was able to convince all of his peers that the prosecution did not successfully carry the burden of proof; he showed them where the doubt lied within the case. Some of the key factors in swaying the other jurors, however, were presented by the oldest juror through the use of social psychology from his observation of the testimony. He noted things about how the old man tried hard not to let others see how bad his limp was, the idea that maybe the old man was lonely and just wanted attention, and how the woman had marks from glasses on her nose and possible didn’t wear them because she didn’t want to ruin her first big public appearance.

Basically this movie showed how easily discussion and interaction with others can impact an individual and eventually a group, to the point where it can save someone’s life. This is truly social psychology; although it began with one man standing alone, others slowly began to appear at his side and aid his case, thus eventually convincing all remaining jurors.

I remembered watching 12 Angry Men in middle school, but I didn't really remember it. I watched the older version on the movie. I found it to be both interesting and boring. I think that it is a very good movie for it's time, and it shows a lot of information about a jury deliberation. I believe that the deliberation process was represented accurately for the most part. There was quite a bit of hostility in the room, which I would assume to be normal in a stressful case, such as murder. Some of the men stood strong on their point of view while others seemed to follow suite. I also believe this to be an accurate portrayal because some people have more leadership than others. There was a lot of psychology present in this film.

The first example that comes to mind is in the inital vote. When asked who cvoted guilty, some men shot their arms up into the air. Others looked around a bit to see what others were doing, and then they rose their hands too. These men wanted to feel like a part of the "in-crowd" and did not want to stand alone even though they may have doubted the verdict. When only 1 man voted "not guilty," the others immediately jumped on him trying to get him to change his vote. I found it interesting that he did not falter. In many situations, that kind of peer pressure would get people to change their mind. Them men demanded that he explain why he voted the way that he did. Shortly after, a revote was called, and another "not guilty" vote came through. In his explanation, the gentleman had persuaded an older man to change his vote as well.

Another example of social psychology is when one of the final three men started ranting about "those people who live in the slums." The man who actually lived in this area got up and left the table. Eventually all but one or two men go up and left the man at the table. He later sat in the corner by himself. This example shows that by people can influence the way people feel about what they are saying. It also shows how difficult it can be to get bias out of the jury. Everyone has their own experience and backgrounds. One can think that they can hold a non-bias view, but when it comes down to it, they may not be able to. This is also shown when the final man changed his vote. His background with his son is what led him to be so persistent in deeming the boy to be guilty.

A third example of psychology is in the way in which they jury members were acting towards the foreman. They were getting mad at him for attempting to keep the deliberation organized and open. Eventually this led the foreman to offer his chair to the other jury members to see if they could do a better job. The pressure that was put on by the jury members led the foreman to feel as though he was doing an inadequate job. The reaction from the foreman led the others to lay off a bit, telling him that he was doing a fine job.

An additional example is shown by the way in which persuasion occurs. There appeared to be two "teams" each had a leader that tried to get people to their side. The "guilty" side attempted to use force, yelling, and using facts presented in court to get others to go with them. The "not guilty" side attempted to question every point that was presented. By doing so, this made the jusy members question the facts that they had been told. This questioning led them to doubt the difinitiveness of the guilty verdict. Obviously the questioning of facts worked better in this case because eventually all members voted not guilty.

I watched the movie 12 angry men and i found it to be pretty boring. I say this because of how the movie scenes are produce. It was like the whole movie was just one scene. But as for psychology in the movie can be seen in a lot of different places. You can take into account of social psychology when the jury is deliberating. I say this because it is through human nature that we dont want to be wrong so people in a group will even follow group decision even if they were wrong. This can be seen because after dilberation the jury choose a different verdict and this is completely social psychology and how the self act in groups with social persuasion. The can be seen when they gang up on the old man about what his verdict of the case is. This whole move shows that jury deliberation can work but it is also very flawed because of the nature of the deliberation and the social psychology perspective on how the self with be social influence by others in a group atmosphere. In my mind it just keeps showing that the judical system is seriously flawed because of what i stated before and the other blogs that i have written. For example maibility of memory, bias on race, social influence of self in a group setting, and so many more.

Not a huge fan of this movie. This could very well be because I watched the older one. It was cheaper to rent, so that is why I decided to rent that one instead of the newer one. The other two movies we watched earlier in the semester I really liked, so I was a bit disappointed when it turned out that this one wasn’t as good. It never really grabbed my attention and I didn’t care about the characters like I have in the other movies. But none the less, I do see the importance of psychology in this film, especially social psychology when looking into the jury.

The biggest part of psychology and social psychology is, as I just said, seen in the jury. People have large effects on other people, and that is easily seen in this movie. The point where we really see it the most is when they finally get the last man to switch his vote to not guilty. In some ways, this reminded me of a previous social psychology experiment that I’m sure we have all heard about. It is the one where they have all of the different lines and they ask everyone which line is the shortest (maybe longest? Don’t remember, doesn’t matter). All the people in the group but one are already a part of the experiment, and choose an incorrect answer. Eventually, most of the people who participated in the experiment end up choosing the incorrect line just to be like everyone else. I was not for sure if the man truly believed the boy to be innocent or not. He may have just been doing what the participants in that social psychology experiment, and just agreeing with others. This example can also be turned around, and maybe works even better, for the first vote the jury gives. Everyone just starts raising their hands, more than likely because the person next to them/around them did this. In this type of voting situation, it is hard to come up with your own, personal views when you have the views of others influencing you so strongly.

Besides those two examples, we can see where psychology also plays a role in other parts of the movie. At one point in time, two men are arguing in the movie. Things escalate so much that it soon almost turns into a brawl. We can see social psychology at play here when we take into consideration the heated environment and the pressure from all of the other jurors. This reminds me of playing basketball and how my coach talked about being “mentally tough”. I have to admit, sometimes I was like the man who wanted to kill the other juror and wasn’t so mentally tough. With the pressure of the others around you as well as the added tension from having to come up with a life changing verdict, it is hard to keep focus on reality and reign in your strong emotions.

Honestly, many of the examples are the same throughout the movie. Though the context of the examples may change to some degree, it basically shows the importance of social psychology in a jury deliberation. Peers can obviously have a huge impact in thoughts and feelings. I’m sure we’ve all experienced peer pressure at some point in our lives, and have all given into it at least once. This is the same for this movie. You see how hard it is for someone to stand out of a crowd. However, this movie also shows the importance of being original and fighting for what you believe in.

The movie Twelve Angry Men is a very interesting look into both the process of deciding a verdict and the psychological aspects involved with it. The movie also offers a compelling story that forces the viewer to reconsider some of the possible actions they would take in the situation that they were serving on a jury. There were many situations in the movie that demonstrated psychological components involved in the legal procedure. This blog will address several scenes that I believed to illustrate such components the best.

The first scene that springs to mind is when the twelve men are deliberating and the one character who believes the defendant is innocent has made his first set of arguments. Following some pretty good points, the character asks for another vote to occur. However, this time he asks for the a written tally. This demonstrates the psychology behind how the majority group can sometimes influence individuals on their decisions. For instance, with the written tally vote there was another not guilty vote, which probably not have occurred had the vote been visible. This is because the added pressure of other individuals knowing where others stand can influence the votes of everyone in the direction of the majority. Another reason for this is that persecution from majority members can discourage individuals from expressing their true views. This scene was a very good example of the psychology involved with the jury deliberation, especially pertaining to the voting process.

The second scene that springs to mind is when the old jury member is analyzing the testimony of the old man witness that was heard in the trial. In this scene the juror explains how he believed the appearance and actions of the witness seemed to be inaccurate. The juror described how the witness' tattered clothes and timid speech painted entirely different picture not so obvious. The juror believed that the witness appeared to be an old man who was seeking recognition rather than giving an accurate account of the crime. The deeper interpretation of the witness demonstrates the psychology behind evaluating an individual's character and appearance to determine the methods behind their claims.

The final scene that I want to discuss is when the jury is determining the accuracy of one of the witnesses time approxiamation. In this scene the jury uses the diagram of the apartment to understand the distances relative to the time estimate of fifteen seconds. The apartment layout offered a visual and quantitative display for the jurors to digest. Next the juror who is convincing the others of the defendants innocence reinacts the time estimation by walking the distance layed forth in the apartment diagram. The experiment reveals that the distance covered takes well over fifteen seconds. This display acts as a major turning point for most of the jurors in their verdict choices. It shows both that the old man's testimony is inaccurate and also the cases possible overlooked parameters.

Twelve Angry Men was a very interesting movie. I thought is compelling for the fact that one juror could take the time and consciousness to work out the facts in a case with such heavy consequences. It definitely changed the way I think I would approach being on a jury. Furthermore, the attitudes of the jurors initially really appalled me. They seemed to want to convict the defendant so haphazardly without even considering discussion of the facts. I just hope that the majority of juries do not reflect the initial attitudes of the eleven jurors in reality.

I watched the older version of this movie, and I didn't like it. I found the first two movies we watched more interesting. This movie was about a murder case. A boy was being prosecuted for shooting his father. Although the movie was about the case, the main focus was about the drama among the jurors. The first fight occurs during deliberation because one of the jurors voted that the defendant was innocent. It supported his decision with valid points and then asked for a revote, except this time he wanted a written tally. The concept of having the jurors write their vote down rather than saying it aloud is to avoid deciding with the majority. If people don't know what everyone else is writing down then they are more likely to write their own opinion. My favorite scene of the movie was when the older juror was evaluating the older witness' testimony. He pointed out that the appearance and actions of the witness were not corresponding with his testimony. This is an important method when the jurors are deliberating for a case. What comes out of a person's mouth could be completely false from what they saw or who they are.

Overall the movie was okay. I wouldn't watch it for fun but I think it gave excellent examples of what can go on during a case and how much jurors can miss if they don't pay attention.

I watched the older version of this movie and I thought it was pretty interesting. It definitely ties in with our discussion on jury selection and burden of proof. We don’t see any part of the trial but we do hear what instructions the judge gives the jury before they leave to decide on a verdict. The instructions the judge gave in this film didn’t seem to be too hard to understand. I think that in real life, the instructions given to juries are more detailed and in legal jargon making them harder to follow.

Right form the start the majority of them thought the defendant was guilty. Many of them even stated that it was a easy case to solve and they knew what the verdict would be right away. Other jurors didn’t even talk about the case, instead they starting in talking about baseball and their jobs. They definitely didn’t seem too focused on the case. Juror number three, who is the last one to vote not guilty, admitted that he almost fell asleep during the case. I find this very interesting because he was sure that the defendant was guilty. However, if he was about to fall asleep during the trial it doesn’t make sense that he would invest so much effort into swaying the jury to vote guilty. There was clearly some other reason for him wanting to reach a guilty verdict. At the end we discover that his personal relationship with his own son is what is really bothering him but he is taking out this anger on the defendant. It also annoyed me that many of them wanted to just vote and be done with it. They didn’t even want to discuss the facts are take time to question them. I think this could be a big problem among jury members. People are on a jury because they have to by law not by choice. In some cases, but not in all, members are not going to want to exert much effort into coming up with a fair decision.

Thank goodness one man out of the twelve had the courage to stand up to the others. Quite honestly, I don’t think many of the other men had a clue what “beyond a reasonable doubt” means. Even after the jurors who voted not guilty raised up questionable facts of the case some of the jurors still strongly believed he was guilty. If the jurors had any doubt what so ever then they should not go with a guilty verdict.

For a while, when it was just the one juror who voted not guilty, the other jurors were trying to persuade him or make him feel guilty for potentially wanted to let a murder go. The other jurors were trying to use psychology on him to get him to change his mind.

Another fact about the film that causes some problems in the fairness of the jury is that all of the jurors were obviously men. I’m sure this has to do with the age of the film, in the 50’s maybe it was only men that could serve on juries. In any case, I think it would be interesting to see how a woman would have voted. This jury was definitely biased in that regard and many others.

This was my first time I have seen the movie 12 Angry Men. At times it got really interesting but overall I thought the film was a little dry. It seemed as if it never really switched scenes. A majority of the movie was about the jury deliberating over whether or not the man being a accused was guilty or not. The man being accused was a white male and the jury members were white males of a middle age. This film was some somewhat informative for me though as I am a part of the jury for the mock trial. Again this was what the whole movie was basically about. From this movie I learned that a jury’s decision must be unanimous. All twelve members must come to an agreement or there will be a hung jury. Basically what this means is that if not all the members agree the case will be dropped or the court will get a new set of jurors and start a new trial. All it takes is one member to not agree for this to happen. This is basically what happened in this film.

The aspect of psychology that really stuck out to me was social psychology. Actually this is was that whole movie was really about. The majority of the movie was about the jury deliberating and trying to come together on a verdict. At the very beginning 11 of the 12 members of the jury agreed that the defendant was guilty. But yet there was still that one member who didn’t believe he was and that the court didn’t provide enough evidence. It was up to him to use social psychology to convince the other jurors that what he that was right. The deliberation went on for a long time and many of the jurors were getting pretty upset because that wanted to get out of there as they thought they have been there long even. But yet they kept going over the case and all of the facts and the one juror ended up persuading the other 11 men that the man was not guilty.

There are several aspects of psychology in the film 12 Angry Men.
Discrimination is one psychological element seen in this film. One juror in particular, has a huge hatred of hispanics. He uses derogatory names, and makes generalizations. Despite the facts he allows his prejudices to get in the way of delivering a fair judgment.
The attribution theory of psychology is also seen in the beginning of the movie. The jury begins their deliberation claiming that the young man's actions were due to the external situation. They were talking about how his father beating him and how he was raised might've lead to the boy killing his father.
Juror 12, I believe, was the character that best showcased the willing to conform. It was obvious at first he was merely basing his opinion on the like of cohesiveness. He was very wishy-washy.
Empathy was also seen in this movie. I believe the second juror to vote "not guilty" was siding with the other juror primarily due to empathy. He felt for the other man and did not want him to be alone. He chose to join the outgroup. This made many of the other jurors quite upset.
Group polarization was a huge part of this movie. The two groups has thoughts are feelings of their own. As the argument became more intense, each side seemed to be feel more strongly about their opinion.

12 Angry Men proved very intriguing to me due to the overwhelming vote of 11-1 in favor of guilty. One person was brave enough to go against the majority vote and defend his thoughts on why he believed the defendant was not guilty. The setting of the movie is in the deliberating room for the entire movie and it held my interest for every second. In this deliberating room, psychology is evident in every discussion which takes place.

Appearances were a large influence in the juries debates. The older man brought up the witness who had a torn jacket and a softer speech. The others did not notice the man's appearance as having any relevance whatsoever to the testimony the witness provided. The old man saw this man as a person who had never gotten attention before and had gone through life feeling like a nobody and never having been recognized for anything in his life, not even 15 seconds of air time on the news. This person's appearance gave the impression as if he were fabricating his testimony for the fame and attention in which he was receiving in the trial. Another aspect in the deliberation in which one of the jurors pointed out were the marks on one of the witness's nose. This part of the movie also helped one of the juror's move from guilty to not guilty. One of the jurors noticed the marks on another juror's nose due to wearing glasses. This witness was wearing younger looking clothes unsuitable for her age, had dyed hair, and was also not wearing her glasses at the time of trial. This stood out to the juror because she claimed to have seen the murder in the middle of the night while she were lying in bed. She obviously does not have good vision and if she woke up from a scream and saw the boy's face, she would have had to have her glasses on. The crime happened in too short amount of time for her to wake up and put her glasses on Also, a person does not go to sleep with his or her glasses on, making her testimony doubtable.

Conformity was evident in this movie. There were different types of conformity to occur in this movie, conformers and non-conformers. There was a person who was what is known as a deviate. A deviate is a person who chooses the opposite of what the group chooses. As the group started to become more and more on the side of not guilty than guilty, the man in the hat did not have much of an argument or evidence to help his cause. It seemed as if he were being a deviate and only going against everyone else to be different and not change his mind. This character was very stubborn and did not want to be proven wrong. There was also a person who was known as the mode. The mode is a person who goes along with whatever the group votes. There was a man who wanted so badly to make it to a baseball game. In order to make it to the game, he decided to go with whatever way everyone else voted in order for the trial to end. Once more and more people switched to not guilty, there was a scene by the window when it was raining in which he asked one of the jurors why he switched to not guilty. This showed to me he wanted to be on whichever side was the majority instead of deciding for himself if the points proven were reasonable or not.

The scene towards the beginning of the deliberation demonstrated psychology when one of the jurors called for a written vote rather than a show of hands. I believe he called for this because people are easily swayed by the majority. When the majority votes a certain way, there are many people who will go with the majority in order to avoid conflict which I feel some of the jurors were, especially as the movie went on. There were some examples throughout the movie when a couple of jurors were called out on their argument and they did not know what to say. They did not want to have conflict or be refuted by the other jurors. The written vote was anonymous which helped people vote the way they really wanted to without having the fear of people attacking that certain person. This was a huge deal for the movie because of the situation under which the vote was taken. The one man who voted not guilty would have gone with the group if everyone else said not guilty, but because of the written anonymous vote, the deliberation went on.

Another aspect in which I felt psychology was included was the overall mood and emotion of each juror. The main person who voted not guilty spoke in a very soft and calm tone in comparison to some of the other jurors who would lash out in anger by shouting and slamming doors. I feel this helped the man because he was not in a person's face yelling at him to switch his vote because this would lead a person to rebel against the man even more. His calm manner led people to want to listen to him more and generate more of a relationship with him, allowing him to speak at times he was being attacked. The others who would lash out in anger and protest would be shot down after speaking because they would push the other juror's buttons and go farther than needed in their argument.

The last aspect I am going to talk about occurred at the very end in which the old man who was the last person to vote not guilty broke down. This man was determined to take the defendants life and prove him guilty due to the old man's bias. Earlier in the movie, he shared the story of his own son hitting him in the face and never talking to him again. This took a toll on the old man and the way he saw this case. He felt as though this could have happened to him or very well could happen to him due to his past experiences with his son. This man came into the jury with a sort of bias in this way which was unfair because the case was not his story, but someone else's whom he did not know.

This movie was very interesting to me. I enjoyed it a lot and found psychology evident in every part of the movie.

I've seen the original 12 Angry men and the Remake version of the film as well. I liked both the original and the remake! There are many examples of social psychology throught the movie. From the very start social psychology plays a role in the film. When everyone was seated and ready to start there was a man in the restroom. Many people in the room asked to begin but the man who was there to control the jury waited until the man was out of the restroom before they began. He Respected the man who was in the restroom and treated everyone equal. Even though the jury was antsy to get started and being persistant the man who was in control asked them to wait until the man was finished. Also when the only man who chose "not guilty" at the start of the movie was standing by the window. When everyone was asked to be seated he was gazing out the window and wasn't paying attention. He seemed clueless. After he was asked a few times to sit down he eventually heard and asked if the man was referring to him to sit down. I believe he broke a social norm and was acting out of the ordinary. Also by him being the only man who chose "not guilty" at first showed that he went with what he believed was the right thing to do even if it meant going against the group. The environment of the room also had an affect on the men in the room. The heat caused them to be irritated which had an effect on their behavior. Most felt that they had other things better to do and would rather get it over with. The man who first said "not guilty" got everyone to think outside of the box rather than just being closed minded and instantly deciding that the man was guilty. He used logic, persuasion, and possible scenarios to convince people that they could infact be wrong. He also wasn't afraid to state that he wasn't sure if the man was guilty or not and that he just felt that a mans life is worth more than five minutes of everyones time. To me by saying that even though he was unsure he was acting normal but the rest of a group was breaking a social norm by quickly deciding a man's life. Also when the last man who said not guilty lost control of his temper and told the man he was going to kill him. This showed how the people and the environment of the room could have an effect on normal behavior. By him saying that he would kill him proved that sometimes people say what they don't mean in the heat of the moment. This opened up everyones eyes and made them think about the other possibilites rather than just going with their weak facts. The black man with the hat on tried to convince the older black man that he change his answer because he was afraid of white people. He wanted to try to persuade him to change his vote because another black man believed the same thing. Also When the man who wanted to go to the Yankees game was called on to go first he wasn't sure what to say so he came up with the idea to go in order from jury member in order to take the pressure off of himself. He wanted to know what the people before him said so he wouldn't embarrass himself. He was afraid to speak his mind in fear that the group wouldn't agree. Another example was when the last man to change his vote to not guilty accused the poor black man of changing his vote because he was touched with the other man's talk about how the boy grew up in a poor black neighborhood. When really the oldest man in the room was the one to vote not guilty in order to give him more time in order to say his beliefs have more time to change the juries mind. When the black man with the hat questioned the jury leader's authority he was then asked by the leader to take his place and run the jury. He gave him the opportunity but he wouldn't accept it because he was afraid that he wouldn't be able to handle the position and that he would lose everyones respect. So he came up with an excuse that the leader was treating them like kids and to continue leading.

My favorite scene in the movie was when someone listed the evidence of the case and stated that the switch blade used in the crime was unique and was the only one of its kind. Then later the man who first said not guilty pulled out the exact same knife and threw it down on the table. I blieve that was when people really started to think differently about the case and actually tried to help come up with information that could help prove the boy to be not guilty. Even though not many people spoke out after they saw the knife I believe they finally started to believe the man who originally went against everyone else. At that momement people actually thought it was possible that the boy could be innocent.

What I learned about this movie is that it's important to speak your mind instead of keeping your mouth closed because you fear that a group wont accept what you have to say. Also that peole typically go with the group in order to seem like they know what they are talking about. Some people in the jury actually believed he was guilty because of the supposed facts that were given in the court. This goes to show that even if the majority votes a certain way that infact they could be wrong. It just takes a different way of looking at things and an individual to stand out from the rest and fight for what he believes is right.

I had watched this movie before in a class in middle school. It was the older version and the only thing I remembered about it was that it was really boring. I decided to watch the older version to see if I had matured enough to perceive the movie in a new way. I noticed a lot more things the second time around, probably I was motivated to pay attention this time around. The first thing I noticed was that some of the jurors took a last look at the defendant before going into the deliberation room. It was like they were trying to find something, anything that might give them a hit as to why this kid would murder his father. The judge’s instructions were also very short and simple, although we probably only saw the tail end of them. I also stared to wonder about the fact that if the jury found him guilty, it was mandatory to give the death sentence. I would definitely think long and hard about the evidence before decided, but 11 out of the 12 jurors didn’t seem interested in giving it a second thought.

I also noticed that most of the jurors were middle-aged white males, with a couple exceptions; one really old man and one possibly Hispanic man. This made me think back to the reading when they described a typical jury of 40 years ago. This seemed interesting to me because you would think that all of them having a similar demographic background that they would have the same sort of personalities and views on the trail. It turns out that a lot of the jurors had an array of personalities and as the movie went on, each showed signs of interpreting the evidence differently. The juror that voted not guilty from the very beginning was the most obvious one. He saw the trial and evidence in a way that they others didn’t. It really seemed like he understood thoroughly the meaning of reasonable doubt.

There were many external factors that had a significant effect on the attitudes and moods of the jurors. For example, the room was extremely hot and one man was even sick. This seemed to make the men more irritable and hot-tempered. Another man had tickets to a game, so he just wanted to get it over with. The effect of this was evident when he selfishly changed his vote to not guilty when the majority favored it. The juror who initially voted not guilty said he felt bad about sending the kid to die without even discussing it, which either indicated high moral standards or a feeling of empathy for the kid. You could tell that most of the jurors were not taking the deliberation very seriously because they often got off topic, talking about their jobs and playing games.

Overall, the biggest aspect of psychology that stuck out to me was throughout the whole movie when the one juror was trying to convince everyone that there is reasonable down. He really emphasized it being “possible” that he didn’t do it. He kept going back to that in each on his arguments. It uses psychology in a sense that he was getting into the minds of the other jurors and creating or implanting reasonable doubt. Another aspect of psychology was social psychology. I also noticed this throughout the whole movie, but particularly when one of the jurors really demonstrated a personal prejudice towards the defendant and his “kind.”

I thought that the movie "12 Angry Men" was overall pretty great. It has it's obvious flaws, things that aren't realistic, and I wasn't a huge fan of the fact that except for about five minutes in the beginning the entire movie took place in one room, you have to bear in mind that even the "update" version is 15 years old. Therefore you can't really expect the movie to be a masterpiece. It did, however, make some great points in the areas of psychology and more specifically social psychology.

Throughout this movie, the 12 jurors are made to work together. They must decide, and agree, on whether or not they think a man is guilty of murder. While at the beginning everyone seems to go into the room to deliberate thinking it will be an easy decision, they soon realize it isn't, and that lots of psychology and thinking must be done in order to arrive at the truth.

When the first vote is 11 to 1, it's safe to say the other men were pissed. To them, it was obvious that the man on trial was guilty. The twelveth juror makes a good point however when he says that it's a man's life at stake here and if it were him he would want people to actually talk about it before just assuming he was guilty. As they deliberate, the men become heated, in more ways than one. The room has no working air conditioning, which can make many aggitated and short-fused. This was definitely an issue when many of the men found it hard to believe this old man could really believe that maybe the man shouldn't be found guilty. All they wanted to do was leave, and this guy was keeping them. You see them all trying to convince him, not only in the group setting, collectively, all making their points about the facts given at the trial as to why this man was so obviously guilty, and individually, during breaks. In the bathroom, we see more than one man talk to this juror and try to talk some sense into him. Not once does he conform however, which is a huge part of social psychology. Conformity, or social influence, is the social power of a person or group to change others behavior. This is what all the men were doing in the movie, trying to make him conform, they figured if it was 11 to 1 eventually he would crack and agree with them. This was not the case however, because eventually he started to convince them.

Slowly throughout the film, the men start changing sides and agreeing with the not guilty verdict the original juror was trying to get across. He does this by going over some of the evidence that was presented in court and showing the men how flawed it was. Little by little, they realize he is right, and that even if the man isn't entirely guilty, he may not be guilty of the murder itself, or at least not guilty enough to make a snap decision without discussing it first.

These are some of the examples of social psychology we see throughout the movie "12 Angry Men". Conformity, nonconformity, and the tension that comes with all of that is shown very obviously. Even though this film isn't the best film I've ever seen, it was perfect for this sort of psychology.

I watched the 1997 version of the movie. The first thing that struck me about the film was the fact that there were only men on the jury. I find the realistic odds of something like this happening to be very low. From what we saw from the textbook, there is a perception that women are more sympathetic jurors. In jury selection, I think the defense attorney at least would have tried to have a woman on the jury.
There were definitely a lot of psychological factors in place during the film. Social psychology played an important factor. One factor of social psychology is mood. Environment and conditions can have an effect on mood. The room was very hot and uncomfortable. Because the room was uncomfortable, the moods of these men were already soured. They had also been put in a stressful situation. The moods of these men were very volatile as evidenced by the numerous arguments that broke out.
The social psychology of peer pressure was also prominent in the movie. An interesting thing we witnessed was the difference in public vs. blind voting. When the vote was open, only one man that the courage to claim not guilty. They showed some of the men looking around and timidly raising their hands for a guilty verdict. This is an example of peer pressure. Of course it was dramatized (because it IS a movie) but you could see that some men might not have been entirely confident in their answers, but they raised their hands anyway because the majority was doing just that. When the vote was blind, another person was willing to vote against the majority. The anonymity of that vote could have been a factor in why another was able to go against the majority.
In the movie, several people tried as hard as they could to stick to a guilty verdict. One man gave a blatantly racist speech as to why the defendant had to be guilty because of who he was. I found this particularly interesting because in the 1997 version, it is a black man discriminating against a Hispanic man. This segment made me want to see the older version of this movie, to see if the discrimination was between the same races or if it was a white man speaking about a black man. The black man, in this case, was buying into stereotyping and out-group homogeneity, two more social psychological principles. That man assumed that because the defendant was Hispanic, he was a criminal. This was a stereotype that Hispanics must have faced. The juror also seemed to believe that they were all the same, even stating "There's not a single good one." This shows his belief in out-group homogeneity. People tend to lump all people of a group they don't belong to into having the same characteristics.
The last man to hold out for the guilty verdict claimed to be competitive and excitable, so he was happy when people voted guilty with him and angered when they changed their votes. He seemed to feel particularly betrayed when the man who wore glasses changed his vote. Previously, those two men had bonded on their shared belief that a non guilty verdict was ridiculous. They spoke amiably to one another in the restroom. When the man who wore glasses changed his vote, the last man asked why in an almost tortured and betrayed way. He seemed to be honestly hurt by the other man's change of heart. This can somewhat be attributed to a false consensus bias. This social psychological idea states that we tend to think that people who are similar to us and share opinions on some things must think the same way we do about everything. The last man thought that the man with glasses and he were on the same page, when in actuality, the man with glasses was willing to be much more open minded than the last man.
There are numerous other examples that could be pointed out in the movie, but it would probably take all night to do so. Overall, I think the movie was very entertaining and partially realistic when it comes to the portrayal of an actually jury deliberation. Obviously some things have to be dramatized in order to make the movie entertaining.

I watched the version that was filmed in 1957 and it did a great job of showing what jury deliberation sometimes is like. Unfortunately, I am not a huge fan of movies created before 1980, so it was quite boring for me. It was also a pretty predictable movie, but at the same time, it really went well with the chapter that we read last week and the lecture that we had in class on Tuesday.

I think the form of psychology most relevant to this movie has to be Social Psychology. Social Psychology studies jury deliberation and ways in which to improve it. Anytime you have a group of people, social psychology is involved. In this movie, we saw 12 men deliberating as a jury. One scene in particular that I found to be interesting was the scene that involved the Blind and Open ballot voting. When it was open, only one person wanted to say that the defendant was not guilty. After they did Blind voting, another man said Not Guilty. This can be directly linked to a study done by Asch on "Line Conformity." I won't go into complete details about this test but basically Asch did an experiment in which three confederates gave a completely and obviously wrong answer and in almost every case the actual participant would conform to the wrong answer even though they knew it was wrong. More details regarding this experiment can be found here:

http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/p/conformity.htm

Persuasion was also obviously used in this film. It started with one man who said Not Guilty and ended with all saying not guilty. This is clearly the result of the art of persuasion which is a psychological technique. I really wish that I had taken a psychology course on the art of persuasion because I believe it will be very useful in my future. After watching this movie, it sparked an interest and I did some digging to find some information on the psychology behind persuasion, and this is what I found:

http://www.spring.org.uk/2011/01/the-psychology-of-persuasion.php
This is a website from the UK that talks about different ways in which you can persuade someone. Apparently, a LITTLE swearing at the beginning or ending of a persuasive speech can really help your argument.

Although I did not find this movie to be extremely entertaining, I found it to be informative and sparked some interest that I didn't have before. I think besides the psychology behind it, it should make us all stop and think about our actions and should show us that we should stand up for what we believe in. Just because the majority rules, doesn't mean the majority is right. If it hadn't been for the one man who stood up for himself and said NOT GUILTY, we would have seen an even more boring movie with a jury that fell victim to GroupThink. We just can't forget to stand up for what we believe in, because sometimes it can make a big difference.