12 Angry Men

| 27 Comments | 0 TrackBacks

 

-

Watch 12 Angry Men (you can watch the old version, or the 'new' 1997 version).

Next, write your comment. Your comment does not need to provide an overview of the movie (we have all seen it).  Discuss the movie in terms of the psychological principles operating (particularly as relevant to social psychology).

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://www.psychologicalscience.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/2682

27 Comments

“Twelve Angry Men” is a film with a lot to offer in terms of social psychology. For instance the jurors’ deliberations demonstrate examples of polarization, conformity,, group-think, normative social influence and foot – in- the- door technique.
The first vote was 11 to 1 for guilty and the eleven majority jurors gained strength and confidence from the support of the majority against the lone dissenter. The individual jurors in the majority gained comfort from conforming to the majority view, and began to reinforce their own vote with group-think. None offered a reason not to go along with the group. Normative social influence was at work as the majority influenced each other to conform in order to be liked and accepted.
The process toward not-guilty resulted from the sole not-guilty juror getting individual majority jurors to agree to one small potential discrepancy in the testimony and moving them toward his point of view. He got his “foot in the door” with each juror and then persuaded them to change their vote. His minority influence on the majority was slow but steady, as each convert to not guilty was persuaded. As each of the jurors accepted one problem with the testimony, the others also agreed with that one discrepancy.
The second most adamant guilty voter was the one who relied on stereotypes in justifying his vote giving characteristics of “them” without focusing on the individual accused. His guilty vote was based on bigotry and he did not change his vote until the other jurors isolated him by standing and turning their backs to him.
The last to change his vote was the father who was estranged from his son who was about the same age as the accused. He and his son had a volatile relationship including physical violence, and he may have identified with the father who was the victim of the murder in the film. His conversion came with being able to identify with the accused, who had been hit by his father.
The movie clearly illustrated the powerful impact of eyewitness testimony. The woman eyewitness, despite distance and looking through the windows of the train car, convinced the majority of the jury that she had been able to see the accused kill his father. The stock broker, who seemed to be professional and reasoned, held out for guilty on the basis that the eyewitness said she could identify the accused. It was only when the other jurors reminded him that the woman had the marks of eyeglasses, like his, that he was able to place himself in the shoes of the witness and realize that she could not have seen through the train without her glasses.
Terms: social psychology, conformity, persuasion, minority influence, polarization, normative social influence, foot – in – the –door technique, stereotypes, identification, eye-witness identification, group think, isolated.

12 Angry Men begins with the end of the trial. The judge is explaining to the jury that if they find him guilty, it needs to be beyond reasonable doubt. The judge explains that they should not have any doubt in their mind that the defendant is guilty.

The first thing that is visible is that there may be some issues of bias. The 1986 case of Batson v. Kentucky ruled that a black man had been denied his Fourteenth Amendment right by being convicted by a jury of all white me. The jury in 12 Angry Men consists of twelve Caucasian men. The defendant, however, is Hispanic. This is something that may have been done intentionally by the prosecuting attorneys. They may have had challenges for cause to not use minority jurors or they may have used their peremptory challenges to remove those jurors. Attorneys are not supposed to use peremptory challenges to remove people that are part of certain cognizable groups. Another possible reason for this is that voter registration lists are the primary source of information for the initial jury selection. Using only voter registration lists already decreases the jury pool greatly and may introduce bias. Also, many people may not show up which shrinks the size of the venire. From there, potential jurors complete a questionnaire to determine whether or not they may be eligible. This would cut out anyone that cannot speak English. Since the defendant is Hispanic, many people similar to him may not speak English, which would remove them from the venire. Although, one juror does have a bit of an accent. However, the laws that appeared after the Batson v. Kentucky case would have been after the time of 12 Angry Men since that movie was released in 1957.

An important aspect to look at is how the jury made their decision. This is what makes up the majority of the movie. The jury used a verdict-driven style for initiating their decision. The first thing they do is vote to determine if the defendant is guilty or not guilty. Eleven of the jurors voted the defendant guilty. This case called for a unanimous decision or it will be deemed a hung jury. The men are forced to discuss the case. In this case, Henry Fonda is a strong juror. Strong jurors have an impact and influence on the process of deliberation. We can tell Henry Fonda is a strong juror because he opposes the majority and forces them to discuss the actual evidence. The foreperson, however, is not a strong juror. In the movie, he actually rarely voices his own thoughts on the case and asks as a mediator when discussions become intense. The majority of the movie is in the second phase of deliberation called open conflict. This is the phase where the differences become visible. We can really tell when the jury reaches this phase because more men begin voting not guilty and one man confronts and yells at each of them. The men are being swayed through informational influence. After more information is released, men begin changing their votes from guilty to not guilty. This becomes extremely relevant when they begin discussing the old man’s hearing. The old man had testified that he heard the boy yelled, “I’m going to kill you.” However, the jurors are looking at the facts to determine if it was actually possible for him to hear that. They also looked at forensic evidence when they analyzed the angle that the knife blade entered the body.

The final topic that I’ll discuss is personality traits. The book discusses three personality traits in trials: locus of control, belief in a just world, and authoritarianism. The third personality trait, authoritarianism, has many different facets that make up the definition. One important area is authoritative people submit to authority figures and are suspicious toward people that don’t fit into norms. Many of the jurors at the beginning discuss that the kid is from the slums and figure that means he did it. One juror discusses how he called his father “sir” and viewed his father as an authority figure. He mentions that he tried to do the same with his own son. Since he attempted to establish himself as an authority figure and was one of the men that didn’t like the boy since he was from the slums, he would be considered high in the authoritarianism personality trait.

The final personality trait that I will discuss is the locus of control. An internal locus of control is the belief that what you get in life is a result of your own behavior. An external locus of control is the belief that what you get in life is due to other forces like other people. Most of the jurors believe that the young man has an internal locus of control at the beginning. They believe that he was a bad kid after viewing his criminal history and many believed that meant he did it so he should be considered guilty. However, Henry Fonda’s character believes that growing up in the slums led him to a life of getting beat around constantly and that he was a product of the environment he grew up in. Since Henry Fonda is attributing the young man’s behavior to the environment, he views the boy as having an external locus of control. However, we never learn what the boy actually thinks of himself so we can’t determine what his personality trait actually is. We are only able to understand what the different jurors believed his locus of control personality trait to be.

Aspects of social psychology were used in the group dynamics and their group decision-making. Towards the end, the eleven jurors ostracized the juror that still said guilty and used isolation at one point on another juror. This eventually worked and led to the jurors each voting not guilty. Their individual personalities impacted how they interacted with each other and their view of the case. Their personalities also influenced how they perceived the information that was presented in the court case and what the information actually meant.

Terms Used: Trial, Guilty, Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Bias, Prosecuting Attorneys, Jurors, Peremptory Challenges, Challenges for Cause, Cognizable, Jury Pool, Venire, Verdict-Driven Style, Unanimous Decision, Hung Jury, Strong Juror, Foreperson, Open Conflict, Informational Influence, Forensics, Personality, Locus of Control, Authoritarianism, Internal, External, Social Psychology

12 Angry Men is a movie about jurors deliberating the verdict of a homicide trail. Almost the whole movie takes place in the jury room where the 12 men dispute the case on the basis of reasonable doubt. In the beginning of their discussion, it seems as though they all believe the boy is guilty except one man, Henry Fonda. Henry insists that they talk about all the details thoroughly because it is such a serious matter with a guilty verdict meaning death sentence and he believes the boy should have a fair deliberation regardless. Important aspects of the case and the defendant play into the social psychology of the group dynamics, primarily the fact that the boy is an 18 year old foreigner who comes from the not so great part of town. This characteristic influences the jurors' opinions based on their own background and/or opinions concerning racial differences.

Bias is certainly prevalent in this case, as several jurors openly admit their prejudicial views. Ed Begley straight up says he thinks everyone from the 'slum background' is evil, while two other jurors have similar views & mistrust foreigners. One man says, "you know how these people live. It's born in them. They don't know what truth is. They don't need a reason to kill someone, either." This personal prejudice interferes with the right to a fair trial, which is why, as our textbook explains, jury selection can be a long process and many people are dismissed from jury duty if things like this are revealed beforehand. On page 121 it says, "modern juries are intended to be impartial," so if there are any outside motivations that could influence the juror one way or another, they are supposed to be dismissed because it can definitely change the way they cognitively process the case. In the movie, some of the jurors make assumptions that might not have been thought of or relevant if they had been neutral to the case. An example is when one juror brings up a witness' claim that the boy said, "I'm going to kill you," but another juror argues that the phrase is not always meant in a literal manner. An individual's bias or neutrality can influence their interpretation of evidence like this. An interesting topic in our book that relates to this is the defendant-juror similarity and its influence on the verdict. While some people think jurors would favor a defendant who shares their ethnicity, studies suggest that when "jurors are outnumbered by members of another racial group, they may feel compelled to treat a racially similar (but probably guilty) defendant more harshly" (134). This was the case with one of the jurors who shared the same background of being from the streets who voted that the boy was guilty.

Along the same lines of personal bias is the effect of the range of personalities in the jury. While every jury probably does have a wide variety of personalities, the jury in this movie is the epitome of diversity. Their personalities come into play with social psychology as far as their individual behavior and group behavior. While some dominate the conversation and are vocal about their opinions without hesitation, others refrain, observe, and ponder the evidence & conversation occurring. Whoever is more vocal or confident at that moment seems to have the most influence on the group at that moment, but that focus switches throughout the movie. The current situation also affects the men in different ways, like the man who has a baseball game to go to and will agree with anything that will get him out of there sooner. As some men grow increasingly impatient, others grow increasingly angry. There are men that are laid back and calm or others who are anxious and impatient. Both those who aren't talking & those who are talking portray their emotions or thoughts through their body language and facial expressions.

Memory was something that the jurors discussed because it was somewhat of a controversy. Some men questioned the boy's alibi because he said that he was watching movies, yet could not tell the officers what he watched only 3 hours later. Henry explains to the other jurors the effects of emotional stress & how that can make someone forget things. Lastly, perception was a factor that was somewhat of a pivotal point later in the movie when one man realized he noticed that the older woman witness had glasses impressions on her nose during trial. This sways 3 votes when they point out that if she was sleeping, woke up, and looked outside, she would not have had time to put them on, so her eye witness testimony was kind of disregarded since she probably could not perceive the events accurately. So her perception, or lack of, as well as the juror's perception of the glasses marks on her face were important in the trial.

A lot of jurors' conclusions are based more on speculation than fact. It seems like a combination of the two is probably most common by taking the evidence into consideration while also using common sense and intuition about how one feels about that case and the sentence. In this movie, the decision of the verdict is almost more about whether or not the boy should die or not, rather than if he is guilty or not. They cannot seem to unanimously agree that he is, without a doubt, guilty for the majority of the movie. While group-think could have ended the deliberation within minutes when they were originally 11 vs 1, the jury went through the process of discussion and debate and ultimately decided not to convict the boy.

terms: social psychology, group dynamics, bias, prejudice, motivation, cognitive psychology & assumptions, defendant-juror similarity, personality, behavior, confidence, emotions, body language, memory, stress, perception

I watched the old 1957 version of “12 Angry Men” since I have already seen this version for a social work class and I believed watching it again would help me get a better feel for the movie from watching it a second time. This movie was very good at getting in depth with the decision process of a jury, social psychology, and even the environment factors that affect the jury as well. The movie begins with the jury being told by the judge on how to properly handle the case decision which brings the men to entering the room just for them which takes up majority of the movie.

At the moment the men entered the room they were over whelmed by environmental factors one factor such as the heat which stated in the movie “This is going to be the hottest day of the year”. One man was even shown to have some form of a heat cold which right off the bat was doing something to his behavior. Several of the men who sustained their vote of guilty for the most part of the movie were shown to have some personal issues which kept them where they stood till they changed their vote. The man who wanted to go to the baseball game tickets really just wanted to go to the game so he wanted to get done with the jury’s decision as fast as he could. The man with the cold was not only affected by that he also had some major prejudice issues against those who lived in the “slums” whether that was the cause of being raised that way or may be from just seeing only the bad in those who came from that life style. The man who was the most stubborn was probably the most affected by his environment which was due to the fact he had raised his son to stand up to a fight which back fired on the man and made his son resent him after a big fight that resulted in exchanging punches. The man was taking out all his anger he had for his son onto the boy in the trial who was believed to have killed his father.

Social psychology played a very large part in this movie from the beginning to the end. When the first vote was casted when all the men voted by raising their hands you can tell that several of the men were very unsure how they wanted to vote until majority of the jury voted guilty then they conformed to everyone else. Conformity was much easier to see when the men tried to explain why they believed he was guilty, but they could not give very good reasons even a few said they were not sure why and even one passed his turn. A lot of intimidation and peer pressure also played a part several different times throughout the movie as well. Some ways that these had played a role were of the two men who yelled constantly at those who voted not guilty even to the point of almost getting into a fight. Another was of the man with the cold when he began to yell everyone who just did not want to hear his prejudice comments anymore got up and put as much distance as they could from him which worried him greatly since no one would listen to him anymore, and he asked what was going on several times and he was told to sit down and never speak again. The lone non guilty voter through good analytical and cognitive skills thought through the case and the evidence to come to several different conclusions that slowly convinced the rest of the jury men to see his side.


Terms: jury, social psychology, environmental factors, behavior, prejudice, social psychology, conformity, intimidation, peer pressure, analytical, and cognitive skills

The movie 12 angry men centers around twelve jurors deciding the fate of a young boy from the slums. The boy is accused of killing his father. If the boy is found guilty, he may face the death penalty according to state laws. The movie starts out with the end trial first. Here we discover that the jury decided the boy was guilty by an eleven to one vote. A mistrial was then issued because the vote was not unanimous. Therefore, group think was high in that they all reached the same consensus without giving it much thought. The jurors had to then reconvene and deliberate the case in further detail.

While the twelve jurors were discussing the case, I found many aspects of social psychology to be present. For one, the movie centers around a group. Which, groups in and of themselves are a large part of social psychology. Groups must interact with each other in order to form a consensus. Here there can be good and bad conflict. Most of the time, like we saw in the movie, the group will just go along with the majority vote to get out of there quicker. They also go along with the majority because they don't want to cause too much bad conflict. However, things do start to clash when Henry Fonda (the man who voted not guilty) decided that the other eleven jurors should vote without consulting the group. Personalities and opinions start to become very different as conflict arises in group and people start making different decisions as they had previously. Prejudices also come in to play in this movie. One of the jurors, Ed Begley, starts going off about how no one in the "slums" can be trusted and that he most definitely is guilty because of that sole reason. Finally another juror gets tired of his false accusations and basically tells him to sit down and shut up.

As the movie goes on, the power of group think and group polarization decline noticeably. People start aligning themselves with who they think is right. The group dynamic changes indefinitely throughout the whole movie. In the end though, it is not personal opinion that wins, it is physical evidence that sways the group to determine the boy "not guilty." One of the jurors notices that the indentations left on the nose of another juror match the indentations on the primary witness's nose. Therefore, it was concluded that she couldn't have seen properly without her glasses and not have known for sure whether or not she spotted the right person at the scene of the crime. This really goes to show how eye witness testimony can be both beneficial yet very harmful.

It was interesting to see the different personalities play out in the movie. The 12 jurors came from various backgrounds, from a football coach to a stock-broker. All of them had their individual roles within the group, but then acquiesced when the majority ruled. The fact that Ed Begley had such a strong opinion on people from the slums really struck me. He was judging without even knowing the true facts. It wasn't until Fonda explained to him the truth about living there did he back down.

Terms Used: group think, group polarization, social psychology, eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, personality.

This was the first chance that I had gotten to watch 12 Angry Men (1957), and I thought that it was a pretty decent movie. I was able to pick up on multiple psychological principles that were portrayed throughout the entire thing.

The movie started with the judge giving the jury instructions after the trial. He told them that they must reach a unanimous verdict and that there must be reasonable doubt upon deliberation. Right off the bat, the jurors decided to have a preliminary vote. The foreman ran the vote, and eleven of the men stated that they thought the defendant was guilty, and one man said that he did not know whether or not the defendant was guilty, so his vote for the time being was not guilty. The rest of the jurors started getting fired up with the man who voted not guilty, and they all started to push their views upon him in the hopes that he would change his mind. This represented groupthink and group polarization. In this situation, I was surprised to see that the lone man did not conform to what the rest of the group believed. In fact, he stood his ground and calmly explained his reasoning behind why he thought the boy was not guilty. The other men just wanted to reach a decision and get out of there in a hurry, but the lone man wanted to discuss things for a while because of the fact that there was a possibility that the defendant could be found not guilty.

It was stated that the burden of proof was on the prosecution, which means that the prosecution had to prove to the court that the defendant was guilty. All they provided, though, was circumstantial evidence. They brought two people to the stand to testify, one being an old man who claimed to have heard the murder happen, and one being a woman who claimed to have seen it happen. As the jurors deliberated, though, they came to realize that the eyewitness testimonies provided might be wrong. During this deliberation, the story method of juror decision-making was used. This means that the jurors created stories to make sense of evidence presented at trial. The jurors also used a verdict-driven style throughout the whole deliberation, which mean that the discussion was structured around encouraging the jurors to sort the evidence into two categories of either supporting conviction or supporting acquittal.

The similarity-leniency hypothesis also played a role in this movie. According to the textbook, the similarity-leniency hypothesis predicts that jurors who are similar to the defendant will empathize and identify with the defendant. Consequently, they will be less likely to convict (p.134). This was an issue that was brought forth when the jurors took a second vote, but this time it was anonymous. Just prior to the vote, one of the men said that he grew up in the slum just like the defendant had. After the vote, the foreman said that another person decided to switch their vote to not guilty. All of the men assumed that the man who lived in the slum was the one who changed his vote because he could empathize with the defendant because they had similar backgrounds. Yet, it wasn’t him who changed his vote. It was an old man instead. Another thing that kind of stems from this was when the old man was describing the old man who testified against the defendant. It was almost like he was able to come up with characteristics because he could relate to being an elderly man as well.

Bias also played a large role throughout the movie. For instance, all of the people chosen to be jurors were white, middle-aged men. This in and of itself creates bias because different genders and races are not represented at all. Another place that bias can be seen is between the jurors themselves. Some of them, depending on their jobs and their status in society, held strong views that they would never allow to be changed. Some of them wouldn’t even listen to the rest of the men when they attempted to describe why the defendant might not be guilty. Bias could also be seen when the jurors discussed how the defendant’s attorney did not really try all that hard to prove that his client was not guilty. They said it seemed as though the attorney did not really care whether or not he won the case. Bias can definitely sway the outcome of a verdict, which is something that might not necessarily be a good thing.

Other psychological factors that were brought up during the movie were locus of control, belief in a just world, and authoritarianism. According to the textbook, locus of control refers to how people tend to explain what happens to them (p.132). There is an internal locus of control as well as an external locus of control. At the beginning of the deliberation, most of the jurors believed that the defendant had an internal locus of control and that he committed the crime on his own accord. They saw him as a bad kid who was in and out of trouble constantly, so they figured that he should be punished for this crime as well, which is where the belief in a just world comes in. The belief in a just world goes along with the notion that “people get what they deserve and deserve what they get” in life (p.132). Many of the jurors agreed with this thought. They assumed the defendant to be guilty because of certain things they had learned about his life throughout the trial. According to the textbook, people with authoritarian personalities tend to have conventional values, rigid beliefs, intolerance of weakness, are suspicious toward people to violate rules and norms, and identify with and submit to authority figures (p.132). A few of the jurors could definitely be associated with these authoritarian views, which is why they may have held such strong beliefs about why they thought the defendant was guilty.

All in all, social psychology really played a large role throughout 12 Angry Men because it mostly focused on how different people interacted with each other. I thought that it was a good movie and that it provided us with multiple examples to use when comparing it to the textbook and to lecture. I am excited to move forward and learn what comes next!

Terms: judge, jury, trial, verdict, reasonable doubt, preliminary vote, foreman, defendant, guilty, groupthink, group polarization, burden of proof, prosecution, circumstantial evidence, testify, eyewitness testimony, story method, verdict-driven style, conviction, acquittal, similarity-leniency hypothesis, bias, attorney, client, locus of control, internal locus of control, external locus of control, belief in a just world, authoritarianism, crime, social psychology

Twelve Angry Men demonstrates several relevant aspects of social psychology. In addition to social psychology in particular, this movie depicts a lot of the problems we have discussed regarding eyewitness memory. When a young Hispanic boy with a history of getting into trouble was accused with murdering his own father, I wasn’t surprised when the jury full of white men began to raise their hands, one by one, to cast their guilty vote. However, I was pleased to see that one man, Juror 8, wasn’t affected by social status and racial influence, and was able to step out of the picture and gaze in, realizing that the evidence he was presented with in court lead him to have a few reasonable doubts. Because the vote had to be unanimous, the jurors were forced into discussion, and that unveiled all of the social psychology at play.

I noticed the issue of conformity as soon as the initial vote was cast. The strong-willed, opinionated jurors raised their hands up instantly. The rest of the men seemed unsure as to which way they were going to vote until more and more of the other jurors began to vote guilty. Conformity continued to be evident when the men began to explain the reasoning for their guilty vote. Some jurors had strong reasons as to why they were sticking with their guilty vote. However, there were a good number of jurors that did not have a valid reason, saying that they just felt that he was guilty. One juror even passed when it was his turn to elaborate on his vote, further illustrating the effect of conformity.

A very evident aspect of social psychology in this film is minority influence. Juror number eight went from being the only juror with a not guilty vote (the minority) to being able to sway all eleven jurors to agree with him and change their votes. Juror number eight was not able to do this on a whim, however. He was very confident and persistent, and used different techniques to get the other jurors to realize where he was coming from. He never insisted that the boy was innocent; he simply wanted to raise question about some of the testimonies given in court. Juror 8 was very logical when he explained the doubts he had regarding the evidence and testimonies given by the witnesses. He even got some of the most hot-headed jurors to contradict themselves by setting them up! He was very understanding to the points that each of the jurors presented, but he just felt very uncomfortable sending the boy to be executed when reasonable doubt was present. By using logic and persistence, he was able to persuade all eleven jurors to reconsider their votes, thus creating a decline in groupthink.

The power that the eyewitnesses have on the courtroom alone, let alone the jury, is simply remarkable. The only reliable evidence that the jury was presented with that linked the young boy to the murder of his father was the testimony from two eyewitnesses. Juror number eight was unconvinced that their testimonies were accurate, and brought up very valid reasons for why they were questionable. Although some jurors were convinced at this point that there was a reasonable doubt within this case, others were not and continued to stand by their decision. This demonstrates the power that eyewitnesses have over the entire court. Even when the testimonies aren’t very credible, such as the woman’s sensation of sight affecting how she perceived the crime, jurors are still persuaded by their statements.

Juror 8 wasn’t the only juror bringing up valid points to defend the young boy. Juror 9, the older man, brought up the issue of assumption. By this point, it was clear that both eyewitnesses had holes in their testimonies, but a few of the jurors couldn’t wrap their heads around the fact that the eyewitnesses would give false statements under oath. He explained that they did not lie, but rather assumed that it was the boy that they saw and heard, based on prior knowledge of the boy. By assuming, they were subconsciously strengthening their testimony to feel as if they were playing a significant role in the case, as compared to their everyday lives.

Many factors were added together in the minds of the jurors to justify their guilty vote. The boy’s social status, race, criminal background and weak alibi was enough alone to convict the boy of murder to some jurors. Eyewitness testimonies and other evidence such as the knife also influenced their decisions. Some jurors even voted guilty just so they could get out of the hot room and eat a decent meal. However, the biggest reason why they were more adapt to voting guilty in the first place was because of conformity. Luckily, there are a few people in the world that are not afraid to stand out and voice their opinion, especially when someone’s life is on the line.

Terms: social psychology, reasonable doubt, social status influence, racial influence, conformity, guilty, innocent, groupthink, evidence, murder, testimony, execution, eyewitness, sensation, perception, subconscious.

I had not previously seen the film Twelve Angry Men, however, after seeing it I have concluded that it not only deals with multiple aspects of psychology but also depicts how jurors interact and are able to come to a common agreement of guilty or not guilty. The film showed aspects if cognitive psychology, but in particularly, it portrayed how social psychology can be seen when it comes to jurors, and how they make their decisions. The movie follows the twelve jurors that are responsible for the case of a young, Hispanic male who was on trial for the gruesome murder if his father. The jury was made of twelve, white men, ranging from middle age to elderly. Upon entering the room to make a decision, which had to be unanimous, it seems that almost all of the men think it is an open and shut case considering eleven of them chose guilty. However, one lonely juror makes the point that although he is not sure whether or not the boy on trial is innocent, he does have reasonable doubt, which makes him decide not guilty.
The aspects of cognitive psychology that are involved are when it comes to the eyewitness testimony. Although in the past we have discussed how memory has failed and led to wrongful convictions, however in this film we see that the jurors use cognitive psychology to prove their argument of not guilty. For example, when the old man testifies and states that he saw the boy running down the stairs fifteen seconds after hearing a loud thud from the upstairs apartment, the juror gets the map out and lays out a replica of the length the older gentleman would have to travel to see the young boy running down the stairs, and it is when he proves that it would take forty-one seconds because of his limp, not fifteen that would help to sway another jury member to gain reasonable doubt. It is also depicted when one of the jurors asks why the old man would have a reason to lie for his testimony, the elderly juror uses cognitive psychology to explain that the older man is forgotten, and for once in his life would gain the attention.
Social Psychology is also heavily portrayed in this film. From the very beginning, it seems that the jurors feel most comfortable when they are on the majority’s side, and when the numbers start to shift it seems easier to sway one’s vote, showing how prevalent conformity is in a situation like this one. Also, throughout the film the bigger men seemed to try to use their size or knowledge as an imitator to gain support for their decision of guilty. It was very obvious in specific scenes, like the beginning when it was eleven jurors to one, or when the man who tended to get excited begin to yell at the other juror who changed his decision to not guilty. Groupthink is exemplified by the way that the jurors tend to make hastier decisions about their decision when others around them are voting that the boy be found guilty. The race of the defendant and his social status also played a role in why some jurors believe him to be guilty right from the beginning. The facts that he was a minority and grew up in the “slums”, made some believe that he was a criminal because of the way he grew up. It was evident that bias also played a major factor in the decisions that were being made about the boy’s conviction. Even if the boy’s alibi had been stronger, or the knife that was used to kill his father was not so “rare”, considering his societal standing, one can assume that many jurors would still find it easy to convict him.
Social psychology also played a part in how strongly influenced the jurors were due to the two eyewitness testimonies. The first one, from the older man who lived down the stairs made them believe that the boy killed his father because he saw him fleeing down the stairway right after the loud noise. The woman’s eyewitness testimony was also very influential, and at one point during the movie was acknowledged as being one of the most important, if not the most important piece of evidence. Although the eyewitness testimonies proved to not be as reliable as most of the jurors previously thought, it was interesting that they relied so heavily on another person’s account, when it seems that they can be the most faulty. Social psychology in this film shows how humans can identify with each other, and can easily sympathize or believe one another when they are not the perpetrator in the situation. Overall this film portrayed different aspects of psychology, including cognitive and social. It helped to portray how groups and social pressure can heavily affect one’s decisions.
Terms: cognitive psychology, jurors, social psychology, groupthink, intimidation, conformity, bias, convict, memory

Twelve Angry Men is one of the movies that made me start to study law. The concept of the jury is an interesting one. It serves the dual purpose of giving the case twelve objective minds to help sort through the evidence to ensure that it is sound. It also serves to generate a firing squad mentality. The purpose of the firing squad was to obscure whose musket fired the shot so nobody could be blamed for the death and nobody felt guilty over it.
Voir Dire is the stage meant for eliminating bias that would render them unable to be impartial in the case. In the movie, this process failed horribly. Three of the men are pretty racist, one of them discriminates on the basis of income and one of them has issues that make it impossible for him to be impartial toward men near the age of his son. It isn't really anyone's fault. Ideally people like this wouldn't slip by but it can be incredibly hard to detect. In Twelve Angry Men, there is another solution.
Within the course of the movie, it was remarked on several times that the defendant's own lawyer knew that he was guilty and that he wasn't really in the case to begin with. This could lead to the defense attorney failing to challenge for cause as often as he should have. On the other side, the ADA in the movie is listed as a very driven individual but one in a minor position. One of the criticisms of the jury system is that challenge for cause is used to stack the jury in favor of either side of the case.
The evidence in the case inside the movie was pretty strong to start. It was stated that it even looked like the defense attorney blew his cross-examination. The fact that the evidence gets picked apart shortly thereafter speaks for itself. The biggest piece of evidence was the knife, and it was an interesting knife. The ADA took the stance that it was for all intents and purposes a unique knife, and even called in the pawn shop owner to make it seem as if it was. The fact that the architect was able to procure one for six dollars (even adjusted for inflation), and with great ease at a shop within two blocks of the defendant's house indicates the use of a false scarcity sales tactic. It also indicates that the defense attorney didn't look very hard to counter that claim.
There were two different and distinct eyewitnesses testimonies. Though the movie predates the term Loftus Memory it makes reference to it in that the idea that neither of those witnesses intentionally lied about seeing the boy. Those are relatively simple bits of psychology compared to the psychology actually happening within the jury room.
There is only one jury member opposing a guilty verdict in the beginning. The architect holds to reasonable doubt in the beginning because of how he perceived the defense attorney, and because of the knife he purchased in a pawn shop that was nearly exact. From that point forward, the room is his. He is very charismatic. He is soft-spoken, and respectful toward the rest of the room, despite the fact that much of his opposition is not. This only works toward his cause. Better yet, he takes the time to address several of the jury members one on one. He does it just about every chance he gets. Whether it's in a corner, or the time that he goes into the bathroom and just washes his hands and his face. He also is one of the few people who frequently makes physical contact with other members. He makes a lot of reinforcing gestures.
The architect frequently calls for votes. The very first one, he takes a gamble. It was right after his big reveal with the knife, so it was one of his strongest position. He also knew that if that wouldn't sway even a single member of the jury then literally nothing would. After that, calling for votes served two purposes. One, the architect liked to show that he was gaining momentum and changing minds. Two, the architect frequently interrupted when he felt that the other side was beginning to build steam and change minds back to guilty. By calling for votes he could shut down their momentum and cause them to lose track of their arguments.
The architect also goes out of the way to prove bias about his fellow jurors to the rest of the room. He intentionally provokes one to show that words said in the heat of the moment don't count for much. In the beginning he holds time as a hostage, knowing that a quarter of the room is chomping at the bit to go. He plays the room to his advantage the entire time. His opposition is not nearly so organized in their methods and it shows.

Terms

Jury System
Voir Dire
Challenge for Cause
Cross-examination
Loftus Memory
Reasonable Doubt

In the movie, “Twelve Angry Men,” a lot of the time is spent watching the jury deliberate to come to a decision on whether or not the defendant is guilty or not guilty; therefore, the social element of psychology is represented in great detail throughout.

As in most debates, the jurors went back in forth arguing their opinions on whether or not the defendant was guilty and trying to get other jurors to see the defendant in the same light that they do based on the witnesses and evidence presented throughout the trial. As in this case, not everyone is going to agree due to differences in life experiences whether personal and/or professional. The social element was in play when it came down to making a final decision, when all but one juror found the defendant to be not guilty. The job of the eleven jurors that decided on not guilty was to try to influence that one juror to come their way on the final decision. In order to do this, there was a lot of debate and anger within the deliberation room. At the end of deliberation instead of it being a hung jury, the jury influenced the final juror and was able to make a unanimous decision of finding the defendant not guilty.

This movie did a great job of showing how people truly have an enormous ability to have an influence on each other and seeing this unfold in a jury deliberation room is a perfect example.

The other two key elements of psychology that were seen in this movie were the elements of sensation and perception. The witnesses in this case based a lot of their testimonies on how they perceived the event and how they put two and two together as to the timeline of events in the crime.

The psychological element of personality was also seen in the jury deliberation room as you seen different aspects of each jurors’ personality sway their interpretation of the trial and evidence, as well as, how their personalities impacted making a final decision on the case.

Overall, this movie was a great example of how people can have a profound influence over others and how that impacts the social environment as a whole.

12 Angry Men is a great depiction of how psychology and law are related to one another. This movie portrays how psychology plays a major role in how jurors interact with one another and how jurors arrive at a verdict.

Jury deliberation is connected with social psychology in many ways including groupthink, ostracism, and personality psychology. In 12 Angry Men, the preliminary vote is an 11 to 1 vote in favor of a guilty verdict. Henry Fonda is the lone juror who votes not guilty based on his feeling that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the young boy killed his father. I believe that some of the other voters said the boy was guilty due to having to voice their verdict out loud. This scene ties into the concept of groupthink, where people make a decision as a group and discourages individuality. Each juror voiced their decision out loud which may have affected the decision made by the rest of the jurors who proceeded. Also many of the jurors in this movie, especially juror 7 (Jack Warden), wanted to spend as little time making a decision as possible, in order to be able to attend prior engagements, such as a baseball game. This lack of interest is the actual outcome that can play into groupthink, where people would side with the majority of the group in order come to a final decision faster. The result of groupthink and those that go against the group’s decision is ostracism or making people feel left out. The difference in votes amongst the jurors created open conflict in which the jurors separated into two groups. Henry Fonda is somewhat ostracized by the group due to this separation and is made to feel as an outsider who must prove himself to be considered part of the group. Fonda had to provide evidence to the other jurors to show why he believed the young boy was innocent or that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the boy was guilty. Groupthink and ostracism also play a role at the end of the movie where 11 of the jurors find the boy not guilty and 1 still believed he was guilty. The 11 jurors made Juror 3 feel on the outside and that he had to prove to them why he still believed the boy was guilty. Personality traits also played a large role in how the jury deliberation was conducted. Henry Fonda is depicted as the strong juror who has a clear decision made and has the capability of persuading other jurors to change their minds. Juror 3, I believe, is somewhat portrayed as a strong juror, however, instead of using facts, he uses intimidation on other jurors in trying to prevent them from changing their verdict vote. Henry Fonda had an informational influence on the other jury members by changing their opinions because he had a compelling argument. Juror 4, I believe, would also be described as having an authoritarian personality due to his ability to calmly state facts which cause jurors to consider that the boy may be guilty. Henry Fonda and Juror 4 both presented facts that made their case seem plausible in a calm and professional manner. Although Juror 4 changes his vote to not guilty in the end, his well structured argument and composure made him a strong juror. All the jurors had their own personalities which made the deliberation and discussion harder. Many of the men were alpha males, which made them feel the need to be in charge and voice their opinions loudly. On the other hand, some of the other men were reserved and voiced their opinions when necessary. This difference in personalities makes coming to a unanimous verdict a difficult task.

Biases and prejudice play an important role in jury deliberations and how verdict decisions are made. In 12 Angry Men, the 18 year old on trial was Hispanic and grew up in a rougher part of town referred to as the slums in the movie. Ed Begley voices his racial opinion very aggressively several times, that he feels those who grow up in the slums are evil in nature. Ed Begley’s personal bias was how he decided the young boy was guilty rather than listening to the facts that were presented. Bias is a very powerful psychological phenomenon that can cause people to do irrational things and make irrational choices, such as sending an innocent man to the electric chair. Ed Begley was not the only juror who voiced his opinion about the boys circumstances in which he grew up and how that affected their decision. The other jurors had the same misconception about the young boy due to his ethnicity, where he lived and his criminal record. The accused boy’s criminal record can also inject bias into the jury’s decision. The boy had a record of fighting and assault with a knife, which was the same weapon used to kill his father, this piece of evidence swayed many of the jurors to claim the boy was guilty. Prejudice can have a negative effect on jury deliberation where jurors convict someone based on their discrimination. However, prejudice can also impact a verdict by creating empathy for a certain group of people and letting that affect the decisions made. This can be seen in the explanation that Henry Fonda gave to the other jurors for why he believed the young boy was not guilty. Henry Fonda explains that the boy had a hard life growing up, such as beating beaten by his father and growing up in a rough area where fighting was a way of surviving. He suggested that the boy’s criminal record may be a result of his hard life and a large amount of emphasis should not be put on the fact that he had priors.

Memory and its credibility as evidence was a key factor in many of the jurors’ decision of claiming the boy was innocent or guilty. The boy’s alibi was shaky and was causing some of the jurors to question where he really was during the murder if he was not at home. The boy claimed that he went to the movies but could not remember the titles of the movies or the actors/actresses that were in them. However, Henry Fonda points out that the boy was questioned in the kitchen while his father’s body was lying in the room next to him which may have caused him to forget the movie titles due to the emotional strain of learning his father had been killed. Research has shown that emotional strain does have a negative effect on recalling events, even if they had occurred recently.

Cognitive psychology is another factor which needs to be taken into consideration when jurors hear testimony. The most compelling evidence the prosecution had was eye-witness testimony from an older man who lived below the boy and his father and a woman who lived across the street. The woman across the street claimed she saw the boy stabbing his father through the window of an elevator train. Juror 9 describes how he noticed the woman had indentations on the bridge of her nose where glasses seemed to be placed. His detection of this small feature on her face led the jurors to believe that she wore glasses and, from personal experience, Juror 4 proclaims that no one sleeps with their glasses on. The jurors then decided that the woman may have seen the murder be committed but not with clear vision, and because she knew the boy lived there she assumed he was the one who killed the father. This is an example of cognitive psychology and how taking in a stimulus, such as the murder scene, can be manipulated. Her blurry vision did not allow her to take in the whole scene so her brain filled in the parts she did not know such as who the killer could have been based on her knowledge. The old man claimed he heard the boy state he was going to kill his father and then heard the body hit the floor and saw the boy running down the stairs. The jurors reenacted the old man’s testimony and decided that in his physical state and the sound of the elevator train there was no way he could have experienced all the events he claimed to have. The old man used his knowledge of the father and son’s relationship and manipulated the stimuli he heard, such as the woman across the street screaming and footsteps running down the stairs, to determine that the son had killed his father. The old man and the woman manipulated stimuli they heard and saw based on their knowledge of the relationship between the boy and his father.

Terms: social psychology, groupthink, ostracism, personality psychology, open conflict, beyond a reasonable doubt, strong juror, authoritarian personality, bias, prejudice, memory, cognitive psychology, eye-witness testimony, stress

I had heard the name of the movie 12 Angry Men many times but I had no true understanding of what it was about because I never watched it. Turns out, it’s about a jury and what they go through to reach a decision on a trial. I feel like, even though the movie took place in the same room the whole time with the same 12 people, it was interesting enough to keep my attention because of all the details that were talked about from the trial. Also, the movie was filled with aspects of social psychology and how they relate to a jury deliberation.
I feel like the jurors in this movie used a combination of the story model and the mathematical model. Some of them, like the guy going against everyone, formed a story in his mind. He knew certain events had to have happened at certain times but not the details like who did what. He also looked at many options of the story, finally coming up with the fact that the murderer could have possibly not been the son. Other jurors used the mathematical model. They got stuck on the eyewitness testimonies and considered them better information compared to the lack of true evidence.
The deliberation that took place with these 12 jurors was very interesting to watch. It started off with one guy who wanted to know more about the trial. He was not choosing one side of guilty or not guilty, just wanted to talk more. He was the only guy though that voted not guilty, therefore going against the majority.
The other 11 jurors that voted not guilty had a lot of strong jurors on their side. These people were very out-spoken and had a big influence on other people in the room. They acted like they were better and smarter than everyone else. In turn, the one juror that stood alone was also a strong juror but he showed it in a different way. He wasn’t for yelling or trying to use power to get everyone on his side. This juror mainly just used evidence and a confident way of speaking to slowly get everyone to see that maybe the verdict should be not guilty.
I think it takes a very strong person to go against the majority in a situation like this. The other 11 jurors used a lot of peer pressure in the beginning to try and influence the lone juror to change his vote. It takes a lot of will-power to deal with 11 people yelling at you and telling you that you’re wrong. It takes even more will-power to not be persuaded by them and change your beliefs just to make others happy.
The lone juror seemed to have a belief in a just world personality. He wanted to find the truth in the story of the trial. He had said that the accused in the story could possibly not have done it and wanted to make sure the outcome was fair and just for the trial because they were dealing with someone’s life.
One other juror seemed to have an authoritarian personality. This is because he had very strong beliefs and wanted to uphold them. He used a lot of yelling and insults to try and get others to see his viewpoint. This juror tried scaring the others into siding with him and influencing their decision. This tactic did not work as well as solid reasoning and good evidence.
I thought this movie was good for being in the same setting with the same 12 individuals for the whole movie. It also demonstrated well how peer pressure plays a huge part in the jury process and our judicial system. However, this process was long kind of boring. The jury also feels this way because many of them became impatient during this, just wanting to leave and carry on with their lives. I think it was interesting how the one jury member wanted to stay and really think about what they were doing to this young man. This jury ultimately held the man’s life in their hands and it took a lot of convincing to get all the jury members to care about what happened to him. I think being a jury would be fun to see the trial but hard because of how long it would take. It also makes me wonder how much strength it would take to be in that position. I don’t think anyone will ever know how strong they are in their beliefs against a majority until they are put in that position like a jury deliberation, seen in this movie.

Terms: jury, trial, deliberation, story model, mathematical model, eyewitnesses, evidence, social psychology, strong juror, majority, peer pressure, belief in a just world, authoritarian personality

The movie “12 Angry Men” featured twelve men after a trial trying to decide whether a young boy was guilty of murdering his father or not. The jury members were sent to a room after the trial to vote on his fate. Eleven men voted in favor of him being guilty and one man voted not guilty because he had reasonable doubt. The eleven men who voted guilty looked down on the one lone man who voted not guilty. The majority of the men felt pretty confident that the way they voted would be the end result and that the boy would go to jail. Little did they know that the lonesome ranger who voted not guilty would persuade more people than anyone could have imagined.

This entire movie represents social psychology in the aspect of all of them having to do group work together. They each had to communicate their view on the trial and why they voted the way they did, also trying to convince the man who voted not guilty. Social psychology is how people influence the stimulus and each other. While watching this movie all I could think about is how they were influences each other’s opinion every time they thought something out from the trial. When the men went into detail about certain aspects from the trial they noticed that it couldn’t have happened that way. For example, the man who voted not guilty reenacted a part from the trial where the old man who “saw” the boy run away from his apartment. They noticed that the old man couldn’t move very quickly and he was very fragile. He old man said it took him 15 seconds from his bedroom to the front door and when it was reenacted it actually would have taken the old man around 42 seconds to make it to the front door. That made at least one jury member change his mind to reasonable doubt. So when they re-voted he changed his vote to not guilty. There were definitely some men who were so strong willed and confident that the boy was guilty of murder and I didn’t think they would ever change their mind but the more examples that came up throughout the movie the more “reasonable doubt” came into their minds. The one jury member who voted not guilty from the beginning used his tactics persistently to persuade the other men to question themselves. An interesting point that I found in the movie was that the man fighting for the boy never admitted that he was innocent he just thought they were enough evidence that showed there was reasonable doubt.

A part that was made clear in this movie that was witnesses aren’t exactly the best evidence. Especially in this movie, the old man was dramatically off on his timing of the events. When someone appoints themselves as an “eye witness” I think it gets into everyone’s mind that everything happen the way the “eye witness” saw it. However, one jury member did quote that “witnesses can make mistakes”. As we have previously read in the psychology and law book the memory might have a tough time, encoding, processing, and recalling the exact facts from a certain situation. With that said, I don’t think a person’s fate should be dependent on an “eye witness” recollecting of events.

Terms: jury, trial, guilty, social psychology, memory, encoding, processing, recalling

12 Angry Men had many social psychology aspects throughout the movie. The main aspects that I witnessed while watching this movie was: in-group homogeneity, groupthink, and definite environmental stressors.
In-group homogeneity is when people of the same group view those of different groups (ages, races, genders, etc.) much differently and most times with negative connotations. This was clearly seen throughout this movie in the form of stereotypes. The jury members were all white males, most of a middle-class socioeconomic status. Today, it is encouraged to find a jury of mixed backgrounds, genders, etc. to not have in-group homogeneity. However, in this movie there were many statements that reflected views of the "out-group" being the suspect. One jury member said that "they" are born liars and you can't believe a word they say. Another suggested that children from the slums are a grief to society and a common ignorant slob who doesn't even speak good English. Clearly, the jury members are relying on their stereotypes of this out-group, and many held their decision on personal biases, rather than evidence and fact.
The second social psychological aspect that I saw in this movie was groupthink. Groupthink is where a group makes a decision together to keep harmony and not to let any voice speak out higher than another. It stifles creativity, many times looking negatively upon those who question the decision or add to the thought processes of making a decision. At first, everyone believes the suspect is guilty except for one jury member. This creates stress in the room and irritation towards this one jury member. By watching the storyline unfold, it is clearly seen that the other jury members are timid of what others think or might think about them, trying to stay with the majority, until this lone jury member who believes the suspect is not guilty provides commentary to make the group think individually for themselves. He stated that nobody has to prove otherwise- burden of proof is on prosecution and the defendant and doesn't have to open his mouth- it is in his constitution. He also stated that it was not a throuough enough cross examination, and the witnesses could very well be wrong as people make mistakes. He believed that could be or maybe could not be possible, which caused the other jury members to reconsider their thoughts, making them tear apart from the concept of groupthink. Eventually, everyone reconsiders their initial thought, changing their mind to not guilty except for one, very controlling and powerful man. Throughout the movie, he encouraged to keep groupthink the main concept, however he found himself to be the only one out. The line that really caught my attention was when he said, "How can you be positive about anything?" which basically proved the point of the jury member who remained a not guilty voter throughout the movie.
Finally, the jury members were all undergoing various forms of stress. First they were experiencing emotional stress due to their conflicting views, personal biases, and anger. Secondly, they were all experiencing environmental stressors which added to their level of anger and frustration. Environmental stressors can be location, noise, smell, and heat to name a few. During the deliberation, it was very hot in the room with no air conditioning, fans, or any relief from the windows being opened. As we know from many psychology classes, environmental stressors are important to any situation, making for a positive situation all the way to the most negative of situations.
Overall, I thought this movie was interesting and a great example of in-group homogeneity, groupthink, and environmental stressors.
Words Used: in-group homogeneity, groupthink, and environmental stressors, out-group, stereotypes, emotional stress, cross examination, prosecution, suspect, socioeconomic status

I have personally never seen 12 angry men. I decided to watch the remake of the movie. This movie turned out to be amazing. I loved it. 12 angry men is about 12 jurors deciding if this 18 year old boy killed his father. The movie starts at the end of the trial with the judge telling the jurors that if they find him guilty they have to have no doubt that he committed the crime. The 12 jurors are put in a room to vote if the young boy is guilty or not. After they voted it was 11:1 in favor of guilty. This causes a huge scene with the jurors. The lonely man that was the only one to say he was for not guilty explained to the other jurors that he just wasn’t sure if he was guilty or not guilty. He wanted all of them to talk about what happened and figure out if he was actually guilty or not.

This movie focused a lot on social psychology. The twelve jurors had to work together to come to terms they all agreed on. The jurors went around in the circle and explained their view on why they think he is guilty to get the one man that said not guilty to change his mind. The jurors went into detail about the evidence that was brought to the trial. For example an old man that lived below the apartment where the murder happened said he heard a body fall to the floor and 15 seconds later he looked out his door and saw the boy running down the stairs. The jurors had to work together to figure out if this been true or not. They asked for the floor plan of the apartment and figured out that the old man with a bad leg had to get out of bed, walk twelve feet, then walk forty three feet, then unlatch the door and open it in 15 seconds. As the jurors acted this out they came to find out that it actually would have taken this man around 42 seconds.

Another example was the lady that stated she saw the boy stab his father. One of the jurors pointed out that she has marks on her nose from glasses she had been wearing. The lady stated in her statement that she was in bed when she looked out of her window. The jurors came to a agreement that she must have seen a blur from that far away in the dark with no glasses on and that it was not possible for her to have seen clearly enough to make out that it was actually the boy.

This move gave a great example of social psychology and how people have to work together. Some of the men were very confident about their opinions, but after hearing different examples in the case about how something else could have happened it slowly started giving the jurors reasonable doubt which made them change their votes to not guilty.

Another aspect this movie gives a great example is that witnesses aren’t always the best evidence. In another one of my psych classes we were talking about memory and that your mind can alter your memory which won’t make your testimony correct. Witnesses can make mistakes which doesn’t help your case in a trial. All in all this movie was very good and it related to psychology in many ways.

I really enjoyed watching 12 Angry Men. I think there was a lot of different concepts that relate to social psychology in this movie. For the most part the entire movie was gentleman on a jury of a murder case involving a father and a son. The prosecution was trying to prove that it was the son who murdered his father. The defense was a court appointed lawyer for a what I believe to be a hispanic boy who had a history of abuse at the hands of his father. When the jury first entered the room it seemed as though it was a pretty cut and dry case. The men seemed to give off the impression that everyone, even the defense lawyer saw the kid as guilty and there were two witness statements given to back up that theory. One by a women who saw the murder from her apartment window and one by an older man who went to his door and saw the boy running down the stairs just after he had heard the kid say he was going to kill his dad and heard something hit the floor.

This movie involved a lot of social interaction leading to many different phenomenons talked about also in the book. The first being that there was obviously prejudice towards the boy by the man who kept calling him part of "them". He claimed that "they" were the kinds of people who were always getting into trouble. "They" were violent all the time and it was all part of "their nature" incinuating that there was nothing the boy could have done about it it was just the way that he was by nature. The way he was born. Towards the end of the film this man gets very frustrated and eventually during his outburst people start to get up from the table and walk and stand somewhere else not facing him. This is definately an example of group think. Everyone had their own opinions about the trial throughout much of the movie, but this was the one thing that everyone seemed to agree that this was wrong and they did not see it as even worth listening to. It can be assumed by this scene that the reason that man thought the guilty verdict had more to do with his biogitry than it did with actual facts.

Another concept in this film involved when there was obvious group dynamics in the beginning but eventually through the careful examination of facts and a small foot-in-the-door with each juror, Davis the archetect eventually got everyone to vote not guilty because he gave them all reasonable doubt. This group was polarized in the beginning of the film and eventually that group polarization came to the verdict of not guilty. This is a good example of how even though a group can be very bias and very set in their ways in the beginning one man can make a difference in a lot of opinions.

The one thing I found interesting when the man was arguing for not guilty was that he made a lot of assumptions on the basis of other evidence. Now I do believe he was correct in that the legal system means to prove reasonable doubt and he did just that but not by twisting words or making false statements, instead he simply created an alternative. He made it possible to the other jurors that the eye-witnesses could possibly not be telling the whole truth even though they may truely believe it to be so. I also thought it was interesting how the lawyers in the case had many of their points brought up that they didn't mention themselves in court. THe defense attourney, as they said, was court appointed but this movie shed a very negative light on those types of lawyers. In this instance they questions the motives of the lawyer in that he was told he had to do this case and had no choice and he wasn't getting any money or recognition. Nothing mattered to him whether the boy lived or died and that deeply affected his analysis of the case.

Eventually the jury came to a verdict of not guilty because they all believed they had reasonable doubt. I find it fascinating about his movie that if that one man hadn't stepped up and showed the confidence and compassion for another mans life that that boy would have been sent to death without what I would consider a fair trial. It's similar to what we talk about in class about how the legal system is not perfect and truely there are flaws that we have not yet found a solution for but that also means many people are falsely sent to jail or even death.

Terms: verdict, jury, prosecution, defense, lawyer, reasonable doubt, court-appointed, group polarization, group think, foot-in-the-door, social psychology, eye-witness, prejudice, group dynamics, bias, evidence,

Twelve Angry Men has been one of my favorite play since I was in 7th grade. I’ve read the play, seen the play performed at the Des Moines Civic Center, and seen the movie twice (before last night). However, I haven’t seen the movie (or play or read the book) since I’ve taken any of my psychology courses. This movie is ripe with social psychological principles involving persuasion and group norms.

First, let’s discuss the application of the Elaboration Likelihood Model, which states the that persuasive messages can cause attitude change in two ways, each differing in the amount of cognitive effort or elaboration it requires. The first is central route to persuasion which revolves around the use of logic and “people think carefully about a communication and are influenced by the strength of its arguments.” The other option is peripheral route persuasion or “persuasion that occurs when people do not think carefully about a communication and instead are influenced by cues that are irrelevant to the content or quality of the communication. Over half of the jurors (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11) were influenced by the central route to persuasion of the case, but the others (3, 7, 10 and 12) were more influenced by peripheral route to persuasion. For example, Juror Number 3 (the one who was last to change his vote) paid more attention to the defendant’s similarity to his own son and viewed the case as a way to get back at his son. He ignored the strong argument primarily provided by Juror Number 8 and stuck to his guns and to counter every statement made by people voting not guilty kept asking “What does that have to do with anything, huh? What’s that got to do with it?” He never made logical arguments, but focused on things that really had nothing to do with the case. Juror Number 7 seemed to not really follow any sort of persuasion, but just wanted to get out of there. Juror Number 10 focused on his attitudes towards people living in the slum and ignored all logic. He generalized his stereotypes to the defendant. And Juror 12 just did what everyone else was doing.

An additional social psychological principle is how counterargument can further certainty in one’s own opinions. This is evident with Jurors 3, 4 and 10. I think the most applicable would be Juror Number 4. As I said before, Juror Number 4 was most influenced by central routes to persuasion and was easily the most reasonable of the “guilty” cohort. He listened to all of the arguments presented, but they just solidified his own views. He also appeared to have supreme confidence in his own intellect, which lead him to discount the views of others. Though this latter point was more subtle and I may have misconstrued it. It wasn’t until each and every one of Juror 4’s arguments was shot down that he changed his vote.

Juror 3 is prime example of further research in the aforementioned principle. This further research illustrates that when people “try to find fault in a persuasive message and fail, the new attitude will be held with more conviction and certainty.” This is evident when Juror 3, when confronted with more and more arguments with which he could find no fault, became more adamant in his beliefs and much less reasonable. He started out fairly reasonable, at least compared with Jurors 7 and 10, but ended up being utterly despicable.

Another aspect of that research, stated the opposite, that compared to someone who has not heard strong counterarguments, their confidence is much less in their view. This is harmonized by suggesting that though they’re actual confidence in the original belief is shaken, their outward attitudes would exhibit stronger belief in the original argument. I believe personality or social needs may have some impact on which would happen. Juror Number 3 struck me as someone who was high in neuroticism, but low in agreeableness and openness, which would make sense with his actions.

Perhaps the most common aspect of social psychology found in the film is the principle of social influence, which is the “exercise of social power by a person or group to change the attitudes or behaviors of others in a particular direction.” This was evident when the people voting for guilty tried to influence Juror 8 to change his vote. This was further depicted when each group, with one growing and the other growing smaller, tried to change people’s minds on the opposite side. Conformity, or the yielding to perceived group pressure by copying the behavior and beliefs of others, is also prevalent in the film. It can be shown by how many people in the beginning raised their hands for guilty when they saw there was a majority of people who felt that way. Also, when Juror 7 switched when the other side became the majority. Other evident principles are independence, or not being subject to control by others, which is illustrated by Juror 8 not giving into the others. A third prominent part of social influence is compliance, or publicly acting in accord with a direct request, which is found by Juror 3’s eventual yielding to the not guilty push.
I could go on and on, but due to time, I’m going to call this good.

Terms: compliance, conformity, independence, social psychology, persuasion, elaboration likelihood model, central and peripheral route processing, social influence

I think the most enjoyable thing about 12 Angry Men is that the whole movie takes place in the court room. It almost makes you feel like you are there the whole time with them also. The whole movie is based on a case/trial about a young boy and whether or not he murdered his father. As you see in the beginning of the movie the judge lays out the case for the jury. He discusses pre-meditated murder, 1st degree murder and says it is not the jury's duty to separate the facts and make a decision. Also right away you hear the judge discussing reasonable doubt, in which you would decide not guilty, and if there was no reasonable doubt you would vote guilty. The decision HAS to be unanimous. If the verdict is guilty he is sent to the chair.
After the jury makes their decision you learn that 11 out of the 12 voted in favor or guilty, while just juror votes not guilty due to reasonable doubt. Because of this one vote, the whole jury is persuaded. Due to this one vote you see the huge role of social psychology come into play.
Being a part of a jury has so much social psychology that comes into play. You watch as the jury deliberates their opinions and listens to others. They discuss all the facts and what had been mentioned throughout the whole trial. I enjoy how this movie doesn't let you see the cross examination and those parts of the trial, it just goes straight to the jury deliberation. This movie allows you to see how the jury understands the facts and case not just listening to the lawyers etc.
In the beginning all the jurors just agreed with each other to get the trial over with. Once Henry Ford decides to vote not guilty you then see everyone's true opinions come forward. Personalities begin to clash and it's almost as Ford got the ball rolling Ford stood his ground on his opinion and explained to every person why he viewed the way he did even when people are taunting him and making fun of him. Ford is honest in the very beginning that he isn't sure if he is innocent but he isn't sure if he is guilty. I enjoy how Ford is adamant about actually discussing the case instead of just making a decision.
As everyone begins expressing their beliefs you hear someone say, "well i don't know he's just guilty, someone saw him do it." You learn eye witness testimony is brought forth in the case. The next guy gives a timeline of events. How reliable is this timeline? The question is raised: If you believe the women's story? How come you don't believe his?
Cognitive psychology is also in this movie. As each juror talks, you learn what part of the case they are looking for. One assumes that you need a motive for a crime like this, so all he looked for is a motive. One talks about the eye witnesses which Im sure that jury based their opinion on that aspect. Its interesting to see how each person processes what was said on the stand and once they heard what they are looking for, they made their decision regardless of what else is said.
As the movie continues you watch the jury argue, agree, and begin to look as the case and evidence as a whole and not just in bits and pieces. You see how one persons opinion can eventually influence others and make them begin to question themselves. It makes everyone really think. As the movie ends, the case becomes based solely on physical facts and not the eye witnesses etc. The boy is found not guilty.

key terms: guilty, not guilty, jury, case, prosecution, eye witness, 1st degree murder, pre-meditated, witnesses, judge, juror, evidence, reasonable doubt, vote, social psychology, cognitive psychology

In “12 Angry Men,” the power and influence of social pressure was demonstrated. The dissenting juror, Davis, initially was up against an 11-1 vote of guilty. Davis can be classified as a strong juror because he was able to persuade all of the other jurors to vote “not guilty.” According to the book, strong jurors are uncommon and majority decisions tend to have more influence.
At first, the group of eleven felt very comfortable because they were in the majority and heckled Davis. Davis did an excellent job of making his points without alienating the other jurors (except the last juror to switch his vote). Davis used logos and pathos-based arguments to defend his vote. He used pathos by stating that the accused was “just a kid” who had been “hit on the head once a day for his whole life.” In other words, he was arguing that the boy was a product of his environment and not naturally evil. He used logos appeals several times by producing a knife that matched the murder weapon, stepping off the distance that the old man witness had to walk, and saying that the L train would have obscured the sound of shouts and the view of the murder. These various arguments appealed to the differing personalities of the other jurors and Davis was able to separate the other jurors from the “guilty” group one by one. Initially, the “guilty” group was plagued by groupthink. Essentially, Davis seemed to have a good understanding of cognitive psychology and was therefore able to change the perceptions the other jurors had of the “poor, slum kid who always got into trouble.” Some members of the group did not feel the need to back up their opinions because they were in the majority.
Group dynamics were especially important throughout this film. Davis was able to sway the votes of other jurors because he came across as quite intelligent and reasonable. If Davis had had the same personality as the man who changed his vote last, he may not have been as convincing. In social settings, persons tend to ostracize the unreasonable and the minority groups. However, Davis seemed more reasonable and pleasant than some of the members who initially voted “guilty”. He also strongly believed that the jury should talk longer before deciding to convict the boy. Because he felt very strongly about his position, others who were unsure of themselves were swayed.
Some members of this jury were highly prejudiced. When one member of the jury began spewing his biased opinion against the kid because the kid came from the slums, another member of the jury left the table. The juror that left was exhibiting an element of behavioral psychology by leaving the table, perhaps part of the fight-or-flight response or to prevent himself from attacking the prejudiced juror. Soon, most of the other jurors followed suit and stonewalled the bigot. The bigot caved under social pressure because no one would support him.
Near the end of the movie, the “not guilty” voters began to exhibit the same characteristics that the “guilty” group had exhibited near the beginning of the group. The majority group pressured the holdouts to change their votes. The last man, who was prejudiced because of his own relationship with his estranged son, caved under extreme pressure.
This movie also shows how juries can be influenced by the attorneys rather than the evidence. Throughout the movie, it was quite apparent that the defense attorney did a poor job of representing the kid. Davis conjectured that the defense attorney had been appointed and therefore may have not cared about the kid or the outcome of the trial. Again, Davis used cognitive psychology to come to this conclusion.
The members of the jury were heavily influenced by the eyewitness testimony presented in court. Davis brought up the point that the eyewitnesses may not have intentionally lied, but may have remembered the information incorrectly. Convincing the other members of the jury that this was true was crucial in convincing the other members to change their votes.
The foreman of the group conducted the discussion in a verdict-driven style. In other words, they initially focused on the votes of the members instead of evaluating all of the evidence. Because the vote led to a hung jury, the jury members then went over pieces of evidence to try and convince others to change their votes. The twelve men then moved into open conflict by forming coalitions. One man even said that “you would have to be an idiot to vote not guilty.” One man flip-flopped his vote during the middle of his vote because he was easily persuaded by other members of the jury. This juror was swayed by normative influence, in other words, group pressure became too much for him and he changed his vote.
strong juror, product of environment, cognitive psychology, reason, prejudice/bias, fight-or-flight, bigot, holdouts, verdict-driven style, open conflict, normative influence, social psychology, behavioral psychology

12 Angry Men was a film with numerous terms that relate to jury thoughts and behaviors as well as social aspects of psychology.

Orientation phase) strong jurors, liberation hypothesis: During an orientation phase, jurors selected one person to organize things, talk things out about the case, and ask who believes if the defendant is guilty or not. In this phase during the movie, one juror (at first) is the strong juror who organizes the discussion by asking who believes guilty and not guilty and then proceeds to respectably let everyone talk. Eleven of the jurors vote guilty and one votes not guilty. After they ask the one person who votes not guilty, he claims that he cannot just send an 18-year old kid to the chair without first discussing the evidence. Everyone else who voted guilty has most likely fallen under the liberation hypothesis of letting the ‘compelling’ evidence of the old man and woman’s testimony override the actual strength of the evidence provided. At first, everyone’s attitudes are pretty prejudice against the young defendant because he was raised in the slum area of the city where most crimes happen and most criminals live. Their attitudes cause most of them to believe he most likely did it because of this.

Open Conflict) similarity-leniency hypothesis, authoritarianism, story model, and strong juror: During the open conflict phase of a jury discussion is when people begin to discuss more of the evidence and realize who is still not agreeing with one another, which can cause some slight tension. This phase is the most important part of the jury’s discussion since the evidence is strongly talked out during it. The ‘organized’ juror, as mentioned above, is somewhat overruled and the first juror who voted not guilty becomes the strong juror within this phase. He uses his persuasion of his belief that he does not know if the defending is actually not guilty, but since he does not know if he’s definitely guilty he wants to talk it out. He uses a story model of the evidence and connects that if the woman saw the boy kills his father through the last two windows of the train, that the old man could not have heard the boy yell “I’m going to kill you!” and the body hit the floor a second later because the train would have been too loud. Also, he explains that the old man could not have gotten to his door in fifteen seconds while covering 45 feet with his limp. The man who is confused about why the boy did not remember the names of the movies or actors is tested by the strong juror who asks him what he did the few nights before the trial. The man’s social cognition is proven to match that of the boys since he as well could not remember certain names, and was not even under stress. Another man chimes in during all of this and claims that he was raised in the slum and that not all are bad kids or criminals. He proves the similarity-leniency hypothesis to be true and displays this by finding that no one else has seen a knife fight. He shows how a switch blade is used during a fight, and that it would never be used to stab down, like the woman claimed the boy did. One man, who is very authoritative, refuses to believe that the boy is innocent. This is most likely due to his self-schema of himself that he can’t admit he probably treated his son wrong, which caused his son to hit him and then leave. To me, it seemed as though if the boy were innocent, that would mean the father who was killed would have been in the wrong by hitting him continuously throughout his life, yet the boy still loved him and would never murder him. That means this authoritative man also proves the similarity leniency hypothesis because he is relating to the father’s side of the story, and if the father was in the wrong, then maybe he is in the wrong himself of how he treated his own son (which to him would be weakness if he admitted so).

Reconciliation) leniency bias, belief in a just world, beyond a reasonable doubt: This is the last phase of the juror decision making process, but in most cases is not reached. In 12 Angry Men, this phase is expressed when the authoritative man finally realizes he is wrong and emotionally agrees that the boy is not guilty. Once everyone agrees, they are supporting the leniency bias in which a split jury is most likely end up to come to the decision that the defendant is not guilty. Everyone comes to an agreement that the boy is found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt due to the eye witness testimony’s not matching up correctly. The strong juror eventually persuades everyone to follow the belief in a just world.

Terms: belief in a just world, authoritarianism, similarity-leniency hypothesis, beyond a reasonable doubt, story model, liberation hypothesis, strong juror, leniency bias, orientation, open conflict, reconciliation, attitudes, persuasion, social cognition, and self-schema, eye-witness testimony


12 Angry Men portrayed an excellent example of the social psychology that went into the deliberation of 12 jury members in a trial. Many of the jurors shared different viewpoints, and each had back grounds that made their opinions influential in different ways to express the opinions that would ultimately decide the fate of the perpetrator.
The story behind the trial was that a teenage boy , who was Latino, murdered his father. At the beginning of the film the judge clearly tells the jurors that if their is any reasonable doubt that they should have a not guilty verdict.
The evidence provided to the jurors were two witness testimonies and also the weapon that was used for the murder. The jury members seem to vote unanimously in the beginning with the exception of one juror. During the case there is also one juror who holds firm to his guilty verdict and poses to be both an agressive and aggravated part of the jury.
As the deliberation begins, most of the jurors find the defendant guilty, except for one. Juror # 8 is the first to find reasonable doubt and tells the other members of the jury that they are not assessing the fact that there are small things that dont compute with the story and that they need to consider the things that would cause him to have reasonable doubt. Juror #8 seems to have no bias towards the defendant and has logical reasoning when it comes to examining the case.
The knife, the first piece of evidence examined, was the weapon used in the and the jury asks themselves whether another person could have used the weapon in the murder. Jury member number #8 produces a knife that is identical to the weapon and jury members realize that the weapon used is more common than what was once suspected.
A few of the jury members were very hard headed. One in particular even says that he has problems with his own child, and informs the other members that the youth of the present time is corrupt and disrespectful. These thoughts that were presented by this juror member proves that he has a bias towards the defendant and may have a skewed perception of what really happened. This also could hinder his vote as he seemed to have a personal vendetta against the defendant.
Another main part of the evidence was the woman who allegedly witnessed the crime. After being awoken from a dead sleep, and saw the murder from her bed and recalls from memory seeing the defendant stab his father. However when the woman witnessed the crime it was also nighttime. This could have possible made it difficult for her to get an accurate witness account of both the defendant and his father, but also the crime itself. As the jury members analyze whether or not the woman's testimony hold's weight, one jury member notices that she has marks from a glasses around her eyes, and tells the members of the jury that she probably would have not been wearing glasses in bed. This examination of the evidence convinces a few members that validity of her testimony was not to be accepted as plausible.
The second witness to the crime was an elderly man who lived above the defendant. His testimony claims that he heard the defendant say "Im going to Kill you", and also claims that he witnessed the defendant run from the scene and down the stairs. As the jury analyzes this piece of evidence, the realize that the witness may also not be viable for hard evidence as he is elderly and would lack the quickness to witness the defendant leaving and the jury realizes that the the witness may have false identification on the witness. During this particular part of the discussion, we find the jurors becoming defensive and angry. Two of the members get into an argument. The stress of the trial seems to be weighing on both of them. One of the members even says that he will kill the other one, and this makes all of the jury members uneasy.
Throughout the entire examination, each of the jury members seems to have their own personality in contributing to the final decision. Juror # 8 challenges each of the other members opinions about the case thoroughly. During each of these oppositions it is clear that the case is beginning to take on strong reasonable doubt and we slowly see each juror change their vote to not guilty. The group dynamics also begin to change and juror #4 seems to be losing the support of the other members which is infuriating for him. One thing that juror #8 displayed in a superb way was his cognitive abilities think clearly about the trial. He displayed an open mind during examination and helped the jury do the same.
Emotions seemed to play a significant role in the shaping of the opinions behind each member. At times there was a lot of tension and juror #3 portrayed much during the argument where he threatened to kill another member. This is an example of how an emotionally driven opinion can be hindered by those emotions and can also cause the jurors to stray away from the facts behind the evidence presented. Juror #3 shows the most emotion among the members at the end of the film and his vote gets personal when he describes how he can relate to the problems between the defendant and his son. A tearful juror #3 eventually changes his vote after he is reminded that the defendant is not his son. This is the best example of why the juror's emotions may alter their opinions and can create a skewed verdict among those who may have personal problems that relate to the trial.
The final thing that was important to this deliberation was the majority-minority issue. As the jurors began to change their votes, the other jurors also wanted to change their vote. This aspect played an important role because the pressure and stress increased as the guilty opinions became the minority of the group. Juror #4 & #3 showed increased distress when they were the final two that held the guilty verdict. After the eye witness testimony from the woman was dismissed, juror #4 changed his vote, and Juror #3 was the final guilty vote. After talking about his own life and problems with his own family, juror #3 finally changes his vote to not guilty and the unanimous verdict has finally been reached by the jury.
The cognitive and social psychology aspects that went into the deliberation of the trial provided not only an emotional bias but also showed the intelligence behing logistic thinking. Many of the jury members had emotionally driven opinions before finally reaching what they found to be the best possible decision based on the reasonable doubt that was found after examining the evidence. The film was a great example of how all of the aspects play a significant role in the forming of their votes and opinions and also how a social setting such as a jury deliberation can bring out the truth when it is reached correctly.

Twelve Angry Men tells the story of a first degree murder case’s battle with finding a verdict. This case is an interesting investment in learning the jury side of trial. During the part of the movie I saw there was no viewing of the actual trial. The beginning show’s a scene of the child on the stand, and the end views the court room with a verdict. The twelve angry men are the jury. The group of gentlemen seem to be averagely intelligent and of a good age. There are many aspects of the case that get analyzed further in discussion throughout the movie including; witness, weapon, reenactments of the crime, and just plain thought process.

When the jury walked into the room of discussion it seemed to be a no-brainer case. This idea was present in side chatter and the overall look on the jury’s faces. However, one main character voted not guilty. This man is the key factor in finding the reasonable doubt of this case. The use of multiple regressions is what brought him to persuade the entire group. His belief in a just world also factored in to his successes. Many key points were addressed in his discussion. One of the main points he brought up was the facts about the weapon. The weapon was supposedly a one of a kind knife that he bought the night before the crime. He then bought a knife just like the one used in the crime scene and brought it into discussion to show how not rare it is. The finger prints were also wiped from the weapon to leave no trace evidence. This was one of the first aspects that built the foundation for reason of doubt. The fact The gentlemen were all brought in at this point to think against what they had thought before. The eyewitness also had some issues with being reliable. The text states that eyewitness is the leading factor of false conviction. The physical well-being of the witness was also at question. This discussion just continued to build some doubt it the case and its justifications. They casted another vote and the count went up for not guilty. All it takes it a slight doubt that he is guilty and they are voting not guilty. They also started considering the mental state of the boy during the crime and interrogation. At one point he was questioning the other man about his existence over the past few nights and he struggled on details, and then afterward recognized that he was not under any stress. Being under-stress can affect a persons emotions and make them act in a way they would not if otherwise The weapon use also takes the stakes higher for memory and recollection. Another thing the jury discussed as a main factor would be the motive for murder. The fight before the murder may have served for some slight motive but the child had came from a life of violence. The all white jury then goes on to the prejudices of the 18 year old Latino boy and his lifestyle. There are some definite prejudices held against this boy. The discussion brings up some personal life experiences that help the jury connect as a group and feel relation to the boy. There then comes a turning point when the votes are casted as half guilty and half not guilty. There are also some other environmental events that may have effected their moods. The rain began as well as the fan started to work. Its not proven that those things can change the situation, but the moods were lightened and therefore functioning of each individual was better.

In the end the working out the crime scene and reenacting the crime helps unite the group. This movie shows the importance of jury and the court room. The suppressing factor of this movie for me is thinking of how many cases get shut because that one person is not willing to say not guilty. Although, this movie is very old I would like to know more about the present procedures for jury discussion. The complexity of each case can give ambiguous explanations. However, in the end there was reason of doubt and therefore he was found not guilty.

Key Terms: Multiple regressions, jury, eyewitness, testimony, weapon, crime scene, murder, mental state, motive, guilty, trace evidence, reasonable doubt,

The movie 12 Angry Men was based on an 18 year old kid who was charged with murdering his father and was facing the death penalty. His fate relied on 12 men who most of them were 100% sure that he was guilty, but when you watch the movie you realize that it's a very good possiblity with how the evidence was talked about in the juror room.

When the jury had their first vote, it was a vote of 11-1, and in order for the defendant to be guilty or, not guilty all of the jurors had to vote the same. During the deliberation there was a lot of social psychology presented. The juror who voted not guilty wasn't trying to persuade people to go with not guilty, he just wanted to talk about the evidence that was presented and mostly he just wanted to talk. He had a valid point because he said that the death penalty lied in the hands of these jurors and he felt like they should just talk about it instead of make a decision right away. He would be known as the "strong juror" because he was mostly in charge of the deliberation and the talking about the case. There was a lot of the jurors who didn't want to talk about anything and just wanted to leave because there was no way that the defendant was not guilty. Throughout the movie the jurors talk about the evidence, present why or why not something that was presented during the trial could or could not be possible (such as the women seeing the killing and the old man hearing the kid yell that he was going to kill his father, which turned out to be not possible), which eventually led the jury to slowly begin changing their mind about the guilty verdict. One problem with the jury was the prejudice of the defendant. He had been in trouble a few times, was being beaten by his father, and he lived in the slumps which some thought for sure that means he was a trouble maker. One of the jurors found that offensive because he had also lived in the slumps and that doesn't mean anything because he didn't turn out to be a killer. The jury argued and fought a lot throughout the movie, mostly because most of them didn't want to be there and I dont think the heat helped either. The jurors discussed a lot of aspects of the crime and would even act out the scene to see if they were true or not. The jurors worked together through this entire deliberation to figure out the truth, even though some of them didn't want to. They came to the conclusion together that there was no way that what the two main witnesses seen and heard could be true and a lot of that was from what some of the jurors knew personally about living in the city.

Another type of psychology that the movie presented was cognitive psychology. A lot of memory was used in this movie. The defendant on the night of the murder said he was at a movie theather but he couldn't remember what movie he went and seen which caused the jurors to believe that he was the one who killed his father. The "strong juror" then presented this during the deliberation by asking another juror questions about the past few nights and what he had been doing. He proved to them that it is hard to remember exact specifics such as movie names and who exactly was in the movie. Even some details people would forget that happened throughout the trial, and that's why it was a good thing that people kept notes during the trial to know exactly what was said. Another type of psychology was perception. The jury perceived many things during the trial and one such example of that was the defense attorney wasn't exactly doing his job in defending the suspect. The defense attorney seemed as if he didn't really care and wasn't asking a whole lot of questions to those witnesses on the stand. The defense attorney was appointed to him by the state because he couldn't afford his own which some believe they don't do as good of a job as those they are able to hire themselves. By the end of the deliberation they jurors had come to the conclusion together that the defendant was not guilty and I believe that was the right verdict. It was a good thing that the "strong juror" started the deliberation because he didn't know whether or not the defendant was guilty or not and the discussion needed to happened which caused them to conclude that the evidence presented in the trial wasn't true which means the defendant couldn't have been guilty of the murder.

terms used: defendant, jury, strong juror, jury deliberation, defense attorney, evidence, cognitive psychology, perception, social psychology, murder, death penalty, guilty, not guilty, witness, prejudice, verdict.

12 Angry Men is an excellent movie that depicts a jury’s process of deciding a verdict. Although the movie events are possible, they are fairly unrealistic and unlikely to occur in real life. The movie does however provide an insight on how the verdict process occurs within a jury. It also provides many psychological references, and a testimony and evidence based analysis.

The movie begins with the jury entering the room in which the verdict of an 18 year old boy will be determined. The first event occurs which is a vote to see who is in favor of guilty and not guilty. The manner in which the court proceedings played out and the evidence behind the murder, provides the majority of the jury with a substantial belief that the boy is guilty. Everyone therefore votes in favor of guilty except for juror number eight who votes not guilty. Once number eight votes not guilty, everyone in the room attempts to persuade him to conform in changing his verdict to guilty. Jury number eight does not conform however, and shows empathy to the boy whose life is at stake.

Jury number eight throughout the movie points out flaws in the prosecution’s and eye witness testimonies. The first flaw included the murder weapon, a switch blade knife and its supposed rarity as stated by the prosecution. The prosecution argued that the young boy had purchased this blade specifically and the murder weapon had to be his because of its rarity. In reality however, jury number eight pulls out a switch knife identical to the murder weapon clarifying that the knife could have easily been anyone’s.

Other evidence that jury number eight contradicts is the eye witness testimonies. It is pointed out that the old man who claims he heard the young man and his victim father shouting, actually couldn't have. He would not be able to hear any shouting due to the noise of a passing train. The old man also claims to have ran to his apartment door in time to see the perpetrator (the young man) fleeing the scene. The old man however had a limp and when the scene is reconstructed, it took almost three times the amount of time he testified for him to be able to reach the door in time to see the fleeing man. The other eyewitness claims she was attempting to sleep when she saw the crime scene. After farther review however, it is believed that the woman had glasses in which she was not wearing at the time she “saw” the crime and the perpetrator. There could be many contributing factors in the inaccuracy of the testimonies. One contributing factor could include cognitive dissonance. This theory predicts that once you commit yourself to a course of action you will be motivated to justify that course of action. Once the two eye witnesses provided their stories to the police, they continue to provide the same story regardless if aspects are not accurate.

The memory of the defendant’s alibi is also questioned. The defendant claims to have gone to a movie during the time in which the murder took place and arrived back at the scene around 3 A.M to discover his father’s body. When questioned about what movie picture he saw and who was featured in the film, the boy could not remember. Juror number eight highlights the factors that may have caused the boy to have trouble remembering. One such factor is the fact that the police questioned him in the same room as his dead father which produced high stress. Juror number eight then provides an example of how easy it is to forget events when he questioned another juror who had seen a movie a week prior to the case. It is also discussed that the fact that the young man returned to the scene did not make sense. One juror provides a possibility that the young boy returned to retrieve the murder weapon because he was under an immense amount of stress and forgot it. Juror eight then points out that if he was under such stress and could not think clearly, how was he then able to wipe the trace evidence of finger prints on the knife off?

As Jury number eight continues to contradict the prosecution’s claims and evidence, the jury members slowly begin changing their votes to not guilty. Although evidence of reasonable doubt grows more convincing, some jury members have other contributing factors that cause them to keep their votes guilty. Such factors that are evident include scapegoating, sadism, projection, and prejudice. One juror in particular (juror number ten) is prejudice towards minorities and “city slums”. Due to this prejudice, juror number ten practices the phenomenon of scapegoating in which he blames all the “city slums” for the problems in the city. Another juror (juror number three) is outraged by the conflicting evidence and states that the defendant “must burn” and that “he is slipping through their fingers”. Juror number eight points out to the man that he is a sadist in which he derives pleasure and gratification from inflicting pain on others, specifically this young defendant. At the end of the movie we discover that jury number three was actually projecting his anger from his relationship with his son toward the verdict of the young man on trial.

Overall 12 Anger Men provides a court case from the jury’s point of view. Many people including myself have only seen in person, on T.V., or heard about court cases themselves. What is not generally seen, heard, or reported is the process of the jury determining a verdict. It was very interesting to see how the court case in the movie was interpreted and how the final verdict was formulated. Overall the movie provided many social psychological and psychology and law references and was entertaining to watch.

Terms: scapegoating, prejudice, empathy, conformity, victim, eye witness testimony, sadist, finger prints, jury, verdict, prosecution, defense, projection, trace evidence, perpetrator, social psychology, psychology and law

In class we watched the remake of 12 Angry Men. In this version a diverse jury is in deliberation to determine the innocence or guilt of a young man accused of murdering his father. Any situation with stakes as high as the death penalty will come with a great amount of stress, especially when adding in other social interactions. Throughout the film we see multiple aspects of social psychology in play.

The first thing the jury does when entering deliberations is take an initial vote. As a group they vote 11-1 guilty. I believe that a large reason behind this wide margin is due to groupthink. The first vote was a public or verbal process where everyone knew exactly how the other voted. It was clear from the onset that some of the men wanted to get out early so the guilty votes just seemed to fly. In the movie they also show a few of the jurors look around as if they are not sure what to vote but then side with the majority. This groupthink scenario greatly shows how the actions of a group can influence an individual’s decision. Luckily there was one dissenter who played the role of devil’s advocate.

One of the main arguments presented by some of the jurors had to do with the neighborhood in which the boy was raised. They repeatedly stated that no good could come out of the slums. Because of where the defendant was raised they had already placed him within their schema for that area; criminal. It was the repeated insulting of the area and “type of people” it produced that final caused juror number 5 to lash out in defense of the boy because he himself had been raised in the slums. This served as a disruption to their schema and made a few jurors begin to question their logic.

As more time passes the jurors begin to discuss the evidence presented at trial. Initially the 11 men who voted guilty did so because of the murder weapon evidence, and witness statements. Juror 8, the devil’s advocate, begins to logically dissect the evidence and challenge the other jurors. In order to effectively convey his message his tries to stay calm and respectful rather than loud and forceful as others have been. People tend to be more perceptive to those who display respect and courtesy, I believe this was a great aid to juror 8 as his presented his view of the trial.

Witness testimony is one area of the trial that was extensively questioned in jury deliberations. Most of the jurors relied heavily on the 2 eyewitness accounts placing the boy on trail at the scene. As we know eyewitness memory can be greatly altered and influenced by many factors like how the information was obtained and what was happening around the time of the incident. One of the eyewitnesses was an elderly neighbor that claimed to see the boy running from the scene. The jurors were able to conclude that the neighbor could not have gotten up fast enough to see the murderer run away, rather he was trying to become known. This desire to be known or heard is known as self-verification. The elderly neighbor just wanted to be known, have his name printed or recorded so he would die forgotten and this trial presented him with the opportunity.
In matters of passing judgment, like being on a jury, people often look to others for both verbal and nonverbal cues. During the trial it was said that the defense attorney appeared as if he knew he would lose, that his court appointed client was guilty, and that there was no point in trying. This would serve as a highly influential cue to the jury that the defendant may actually be guilty. It also raises a question about the rights of defendant and if they were somehow violated by not receiving fair representation.

One final factor in the jury deliberations was bias. It appeared as though many of the men came into the situation with their minds made up for one reason or another. The most extreme was juror number 3. Juror 3 had had a falling out with his son around the same age, this led him to believe that all boys that age were disrespectful and needed punishment. He then placed all of that frustration and those beliefs into the trial at hand.

There are many aspects of social psychology that occurred in the jury deliberations. There were also a few that reference the defendant, like social learning. The defendant was raised in the slums and lost his mother at an early age (9). He then had to look solely to his father as an adult figure or role model. This was not the most conducive of decisions because the father was involved in crime and had been convicted of forgery. The father was also abusive and this produced an unstable environment.

Many psychological factors come into play with every trial. It is jurors like that of juror 8 that make the legal system work by questioning the group and using deductive reasoning to interpret the ongoing of a case.

Terms: jury, guilt, murder, social psychology, deliberation, groupthink, schema,
Perceptive, eyewitness, memory, testimony, trial, bias, social learning, self-verification

12 Angry men is a very interesting piece of film because it only shows the deliberation of a jury, and there is no coverage of the actual case that they are discussing. This is particularly interesting because as a viewer, you cannot have an opinion about the case going into it. All you can know is what the men on the jury discuss.

I feel that the film is an accurate portrayal of a jury in a murder case. All but one of the men on the jury go into the deliberation dead-set that the defendant in the case was guilty and they tried to get out of there as fast as possible. They did a good job in making each of the characters very believable and real as people as they all had some sort of backstory that led them in one direction or another in their opinions about the case. It was particularly interesting to see tempers flare when disagreements about the case were taken personally.

The evidence in the case was all circumstantial except for the two eyewitness testimonies. Those testimonies were what really solidified the verdicts of most of the men from the very beginning. Once the clone knife was presented, it began to cast doubt because the knife was described as having been the only one of its kind because it was so unique. After that, the reliability of the eyewitness testimony came under some scrutiny. What had appeared initially from the prosecution's standpoint was that it was an open and shut case because of those testimonies. Once found to be relatively unreliable, these testimonies made it clear that there was indeed a reasonable doubt. The sound of the l-train would have prevented the downstairs neighbor from identifying the voice, and the impaired vision of the neighbor across the street made her testimony also unreliable. Even after all this it was difficult to convince some of the jurors that there was a reasonable doubt because of their own personalities and prejudices. I feel like this is just the kind of scenario that plays out in juries every day; thats what really made the movie real for me.


Terms: jury, murder, prosecution, evidence, verdict, guilty, defendant, reasonable doubt, eyewitness testimony,

At the beginning of the movie, the vote of the jury was 11 to 1 in favor of guilty. I think the social psychology part that has to do with this was groupthink. It seemed that some of the people in the jury wanted to be in and out of the trial because of other plans they had (such as a baseball game). Groupthink occurs when members of a group agree on something to minimize conflict. They usually do not think critically and rationally about the situation. Along with groupthink is conformity. It seemed people in the jury conformed to what most of the others had said. The person doesn't want to be "that guy" that is different or causes conflict with the rest of the group. They don't want to be different.
Also, I saw group polarization. When the single person did not agree with the rest of the jury on the verdict, members who thought the boy was guilty tried to convince him that he was guilty. Often making extreme and irrational logic just because everyone else agreed with them.
I also saw different types of social groups in the jury. You have the elderly, African-Americans, European, and whites. There were many prejudices in the jury amongst themselves. I recall that one of jurors kept referring to the elderly as "old guys". He kept saying they were all the same. Then one juror also stereotyped the Hispanics (I think) as all the same and how they were all bad and not one of them were good. He was preaching this to his fellow African-American members. That was also a good example of out-group homogeneity. He thought that since they weren't part of his group, they all were the same. I thought he was very racist and very disrespectful. Then you had the guy who said that all the Europeans were all the same. Immigrating to America and taking advantage of the opportunity.
Then at the end, a juror would not change his mind about his vote of guilty. This played in part of because of his own stereotype of kids that were the age of his own son. He had a falling out with his son that caused him to believe that all kids were bad. He finally got over it and used logic to think about the verdict.
Luckily for the lone juror at the beginning (juror 8 I think) that the jury came to a fair verdict with good reasoning. He made sure that they would not make a rational decision about a boy's life in five minutes. He used inductive and deductive reasoning to help the jury come to a verdict. Not only did he use those reasonings, he got the whole jury to think like that.

Leave a comment

Recent Entries

Welcome to Psychology & Law!
Familiarize yourself with the blog. You'll quickly notice that all of your assignments are listed here in chronological order.…
Using Movies
In time for Thursday's, please read the following link: http://www.psychologicalscience.com/kim_maclin/2010/01/i-learned-it-at-the-movies.html  as well as the 3 resource links at the…
Book Selection
There are several options for you to choose from to do your book report. They are: Lush Life, The…