“12 Angry Men” (Year 2)

I have to say that I was really impressed by the man who, against the odds, did everything to convince the other juries, despite the pressure from the “more angry” men. He used the the informational social influence to gradually make the others have doubts about their intial statements, not to vote so hastly on a decision, that someone’s life may depend on.
To be honest, I don’t really think that I would have enough courage to voice my doubts like that. I guess I’d be scared of being ostracized by others. I think that I’m a conformist myself, afraid to voice their mind, usually being the “yes-man”, desperately craving for approval. I wish I could be more like that man. To stay honest to myself at all times.

When I’ve watched ‘12 angry men’ I was terrified how at first it was easy for assessors?? jury members to vote someone guilty and sentence him to get electrocuted. Even if the boy was guilty I think it’s necessary to take some time to discuss verdict.
I think I would be scared to oppose to the others because they were quite hateful and relentless. But maybe I’d make an attempt to convince them or just to try to see my point of view.
Also quite terrifying for me is fact that not so long ago assessors without legal knowledge and forensic knowledge were the ones to decide whether the accused will be sentenced to death or not. In my opinion their voices should have only advisory nature and shouldn’t be decisive.
Quite interesting is also how men change their mind as the case study goes deeper, even though they were convinced at first of the accused’s guilt. They’re slowly becoming more favorable to hearing the opinions of others. They’re not so sure about their own opinions anymore.
This movie shows how easy it is sometimes to change our opinions and also how hard it is to examine the case on the basis of testimonies of others. Being the person who takes part in such hard decisions is huge responsibility and I’m really thankful that I don’t have to make such decisions and hopefully I will never have to.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by admin.

I was really amazed by this movie because it was so interesting. I think that the main character was just perfect since he was so calm the whole time while he was trying to convince others that they may be wrong. In my opinion this helped him so much since he was just more convincing to me. The other guy, who was always screaming and was angry lost at the very beggining for me just because you could see he was just arrogant. The main character was had doubts and wasn’t afraid to share them and didn’t really care about what opinions others had. There was also this one man who also had doubts but was just scared to say something.
I think that this situation is special because you decide about someone’s life so i think i would 100% try to convince others that they are wrong too, or just make them think about it. I don’t know if i would try if the situation wasn’t that serious though.

I enjoyed watching the movie as it was well written. From the very beggining there were two obvious characters who were obviously trying to either be accepted by the group or depend on the judgement of “the wiser people”. The movie also fantastically illustrates how hard it is to disagree with a group just because of the sheer pressure that the group has on an individual.
When it comes to me and how I would react in such a situation I’m not entirely sure. If I lacked information I would likely seek opinion of others and ask for their reasoning. Then I’d probably try to reason for why I think in a certain way and if I noticed that I’m getting nowhere I’d probably just agree to be done with the situation (if the situation didn’t result in a group responsibility or if it wasn’t a group response but an individual one I would probably stick to what I’m thinking and not to what the group is saying). Alas I’m not certain of how I would behave in reality as I never paid much attention to how I reacted in similar cases before.

The jury should include people who have an objective point of view on the situation. In this film we can see that this is not the case. This concern especially one man whose son hasn’t spoken to him for two years. This gnaws at him, we see this when he is talking about punishment and young adults. His anger gains control of him and he can’t think rational and objective. This man should be expel.
What would I do if I were sure that i’m a right? I would probably do the same thing like the man at the beginning. I wouldn’t be scared to tell eleven guys that I have other opinion, because we are talking about sentence to death not about throwing someone into prison. I would like to see what other think and why they think that this young man is guilty in their eyes. After this I would try to present my opinion. I would look for any possibilities that he is not guilty. That would be a key moment for me. If I hadn’t no any doubts after I would agree with them. But If I still had I would try to convince others that maybe this boy is not guilty.

I admire the man who had the courage to stand against all the others. In my opinion, he didn’t do it just because he thought the boy was really innocent. He just thought that after all years of suffering he didn’t deserve to die on chair, even if he really killed his father.
The variety of human nature was visible in this movie. I think many things have influence on how people are making their decisions. But some of their attitude was unclear to me. I don’t understand how the tickets to the game can be more important than making a decision about human life.
I think the most important thing to remember from this movie is that we never know anything for sure, there always is “reasonable doubt”.

The 1957 film “12 Angry Men” is a brilliant movie. I like old black and white movies so it was a pleasure for me to watch it. Furthermore, there isn’t a lot of action – I’m not the biggest fan of action films.
I really loved how it showed that not everything is how it seems. That one jury who, against peer pressure, did everything to prove the boy was not guilty was inspiring and brave. He didn’t conform to the group and instead, he sticked to the facts. He didn’t jump to conclusions without analyzing every detail which was admirable. I also can’t stress enough how good of a job the actors did at expressing different emotions, they played their roles very well and all were very believable. The actor playing the role of the 3rd jury, the one hesitating to admit the defendant was not guilty, Lee J. Cobb, was particularly amazing to me.
If I were to convince other people, I would probably go for both informational and normative arguments, but I would focus more on the kind of arguments that the other person’s attitude was based on. Social psychology says we should opt for emotional, normative arguments when we try to influence attitude based on emotions and for informational arguments against attitude based on information and facts. I’d have to know the other people’s point of view to adjust though. I think I would feel a bit scared to try to impact others, but I view myself as a person always ready to speak up my mind, even if it may cost me something or generate negative emotions for me and for other people.

I don’t like situations when I need to convince some people to see my point of view because it is usually connected with strong emotions from both sides. So, I usually try to avoid conversations about politics or lifestyle (like diets, ways of raising a child). But, when I had to decide about somebody’s life I would definitely try to disscuss the problem, share arguments and maybe finally change my mind. And I hope that my decision wouldn’t be influenced only by normative or informational social influence.

I adore this movie. The whole performance is based on dialogue. Conversation of twelve men in a small, hot room, closed with their deductions, prejudices and emotions. I think it is unbelievable, how absorbing the performance was, despite such a simple construction.

What was really important in this movie was the fact that the main character wasn’t saying ,,I’m right and you’re wrong, you should listen to me”. He only had DOUBTS. And that’s enough to make a discussion about boy’s life.
If I was in situation like this I would definitely try to show to others my point of view, especially in situation when they were 100% sure that he did it.
And as I mentioned earlier, I wouldn’t be scared. I would be scared if I wouldn’t speak loud about my doubts and that would lead to someone’s death.

To be honest, I didn’t enjoy the movie at all. I can appreciate the clear message it had, but I hated most of the characters, because they seemed so arrogant and sure of themselves, like they believed they never made a mistake in their life. I can only wonder how many people they sent to electric chair because of their self-righteousness! I know that the movie is quite old and back then most of the higher positions were occupied by white, middle-aged, upper middle class men, but that’s the reason why I’m a firm believer that we should be striving for more diversity. I feel like had the jury been more diverse, they wouldn’t have been so quick to agree with each other without discusion.

Wow, wow, wow!
That was the first time I have watched this movie, but I’m certain that I’ll come back to this story.
„I don’t have to choose sides, I’m just asking questions.” – that is, in my opinion, one of the most vital sentences in the whole movie. It reminded me that sometimes it is really not important to choose what’s black or white, even when others try to convince you that it is. What really counts is the will to find the truth, which may be grey. Just as in the case presented in „12 Angry Men”. They finally made the decision that the boy is not guilty, but it doesn’t mean that they were sure about it. I assume that they still had doubts, even when they left the court. But at the end, every man admitted (easily or not) that he is not certain and he can’t take the boy’s life.
So this movie is, to my mind, a lesson that it is totally okay to doubt and that it is better to be false negative than false positive. 🙂

The film “12 Angry Men” was really interesting. I think the main character shows us how important it is to defend our opinion. In this film people had to decide about a teenager’s live. I was shocked and a bit sad that at the beggining it was so easy for most of them to say that he is guilty. One man said that only because he was in a hurry to a baseball match. He actually didn’t care that he was going to send an innocent child to death. I admire the man who convinced everyone about his rights.
To be honest, it must be hard to express your opinion about something when everyone is against you. I hope, if I was in a situation like that, I would be brave enough to stay by my side and do everything to prove I am right.

In the movie, we could see examples of both informational social influence and normative social influence. Some characters would change their decision only when the group was directly addressing them asking for a decision, going with what was expected, no matter what they were thinking (NSI). Others would change it after presented with new evidence or after realizing that people on the ‘guilty’ side of the argument were only holding on to their opinion coz of their own prejudice or personal issues, not facts, therefore making the ‘not guilty’ side seem like the rational one (ISI). I really enjoyed watching the drama unfold and I wasn’t sure till the end if everyone would get convinced, as some of the men seemed so set on sentencing the boy to death.

As to what I would do I think it depends on the situation. If like in the movie, there was a human life at stake I’d try my best to try and convince others, although it would definitely be a hard task.

For me one of the most important and touching moments was when one of the men couldn’t explain why he said that the boy is guilty, he just decided to agree with majority. That shows how important it is to discuse and really think about our choises. It is unbelievable that young man could die because someone didn’t want to think about his case.
It is really hard queustion, how I would behave if I would think that I am right while other people are wrong.If it would be really important sitaution – like in the movie when it is about someone’s life I would try to oppose the others. Man who first said ‘unguilty’ for sure is good example of how to discuss, he was calm and polite. Situation in the movie was really special, the man I mentioned in last sentence wasn’t actually sure if he was right but his point of viev didn’t determinate anything. It wasn’t like executing the boy or letting him go, if they would decided that he was unguilty it was only about second trial. So, in situations like that we should discuss a lot. Also I have to mention that I would be scared for sure, situations where I am the only one who think different are hard for me, but I believe that sometimes there are more important things than our temporal emotions.

I had my doubts when I started watching „12 angry men” as I am really skeptical of death penalty. I also don’t believe that group of men, who probably have similar opinions, background and views, should be allowed to decide whether a young man should die or not in a matter of seconds. But maybe it is easier to not be fully responsible, but share the responsibility with others. And maybe it is easier to go along with the majority view.
I am glad that Juror 8 decided to give this young man a benefit of the doubt. Most members of the jury believed (or wanted to believe) that the case of the murder is easy and clear. I am aware that probably after the hearing, with these kind of testimonies, evidence and because of the lack of other possible suspects, the decision to find him guilty was more or less understandable. But I believe in good old fashion doubts. When they started questioning every evidence and testimonies, it appeared that judgment should not be so obvious. Especially when one’s life depends on our decision.

I really liked the atmosphere of the movie. Almost from the first minute it was immersive and interesting, even though the action had place in only one room.
That’s of course thanks to cameraman’s craftsmenship and the acting style but also thanks to the story itselft.

I admired the bravery of this one juryman that had the courage not only to stand up but also to say “let’s wait, discuss”. I imagine that if I had to take part in deciding the fate of other human being I would like to collect as many details and traces are possible.

I liked that throughout this discussion the jury began to more and more see this accused young man as a human being, as a child.

Hello! I found this movie really fascinating and moving. This one man who (number 8) who wanted to talk about his doubts even though others were sure the boy was guilty must have had a lot of courage. It is very hard to stay by your statement when everyone thinks otherwise. It was amazing that he (a man number 8) didn’t lose his temper even once when others without listening to him were trying to convince him that he was wrong. To be honest I was shocked when a man number 3 attacked a man number 8 and shouted “I will kill you!” just because they had different points of view. I must say that it’s incredible that doubts of one man saved this boy’s life.
I am similar to the man number 8 even though I can’t be so calm and patient. I’m not afraid to share my opinion even when my friends or just other people think otherwise. If I have doubts I ask because I want to understand why they think so. In the past I was pretending that I agree with beliefs of majority but I changed my mind and now I prefer to share my real opinion with others.

I am still not sure if I understand the difference about ISI and NSI right, but I think that ISI worked well in the court trial, because people thought that witnesses had better information so people who didn’t have any personal opinion, believed they are likely to be right.

It wasn’t the first time I watched “12 Angry Men”, but still I was impressed by it. Once again I felt as though I was there – in this sweaty room with these lay judges jury members. I experienced this atmosphere – it’s trickiness and hotness. And once again it wasn’t an easy exprience. Especially this scene when this man who only cared about the upcoming match changed his mind. It shook me up! How indifferent he was! How could he be like that? Maybe I’m very altruistic but still it was shameful.

Situations like that when I’m certain of something and other people don’t agree with me often happen to me. I’m always scared to oppose. Other people’s mind opinions about me matters to me. I don’t want to struggle about with unessential things. But what is essential and what is not we decide on our own. So sometimes despite my fear I feel I just have to make known my pleasure??. Of course, I try my best to understand others mind other people’s opinion/points of view and not to intrude impose my opinions on them. But if I don’t stand by my mind opinion who will? Like in this movie. If this brave architect hadn’t stood by his mind opinion, nobody would have supported him.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by admin.

While watching this movie I was astounded that the jury so easily blamed that young boy. Of course, there was evidence, witnesses but (as jury number 8 noticed) it raised so many doubts. Despite one of them, every man in this room was ready to send the accused on death, because the weather was hot and the game was started. Even man, who was born in slums!
To be clear, I couldn’t be right. If I didn’t see what happened I wouldn’t say that I am right. However, if I had doubts I would try to do the same what that man did. I think he did a great job because he was trying to say what he thinks with calm and patience. He never told that he knows, only that he has doubts. I think I would like to act like him, but who knows, maybe I would feel the power of social influence on my own?

I truly admire people like the eighth juryman. Giving one’s opinion when it’s so different from others is extremely hard. Especially when the crowd we’re in can be this disrespectful and aggresive. The juryman did not let it stop him from having a serious discussion and he was very sensible and collected the whole time, that’s impressive.

Had it been me, I think I woudn’t be afraid to speak my mind (the situation was way too serious to just follow the others), but I’m not sure if I wouldn’t have cracked under pressure. I’d definitely try to be like the eighth juryman, calm and cool-headed, but it’s not always that easy.

My impression of the court drama varied throughout the film. At first I was dissapointed and mad, that 11 men of the jury found the boy guilty without giving it more thought. As the man who voted the suspect not guilty started to show that the evidence could be undermined, and the men slowly realised that too I was fairly content. As the last man admitted that the boy is not guilty I was filled with hope that people would be judged based on facts and evidence, not through the prism of their nationality or social status.
If I were sure that I am right and others wrong, I think I would at least try to explain my point of view to them and hope that it would make them reflect on the case more thorougly. I am sure that I would not be as persistent as the character played by Henry Fonda, because I usually am not that confident among strangers.

First, a few words about the movie. I really enjoyed it, it was very different from most of the movies out there. The whole scenery was a single room, which if unusual. The characters had so different characteristics and temperament, my favourite character was Davis of course, he doubted the guiltiness of the “murderer” alone at first. I thing it’s very important to have at least one person like him in the group. He never said he was sure, but he had Reasonable doubt which turned out to be the most important element of the movie.

Moving onto the social influence. He convinced all of the others through his reasonable doubt, story goeas and more doubts appears which ahppened to be tha case to voting the boy not guilty. I myself have strong will, but i think that not as strong as the main character in the movie. It is very easy to be convinced to something by a large number of people.

I’ve got to say watching this movie was a pretty good way to spend 1,5h of my life. I liked that even though it was a black and white movie all 12 characters came out somewhat colorful. Everybody had their little thing that may or may not have affected their biases and way of interacting with other jurors as well as the case itself. On the other hand way of pushing the story forward by characters suddenly renembering another detail got pretty old by the end of it and it also made the ending quite predictable.

Still I’m a dog for power moves and giving people nicknames so this movie really hit my soft spot.

Honestly, for the first half of the movie I was just annoyed with most of the characters. They way they all just agreed the boy is guilty without thinking much was dissapointing but it didn’t surprise me. Of course the way this one man was able to speak up when he didn’t think that the boy was guilty is admirable but all in all it’s just such a simple and predictable movie that I wouldn’t watch it if I didn’t have to.
I would like to think that I would tell others that they’re wrong. I usually do this even if it’s makes me feel nervous. Of course speaking up when there are so many people against you is scary but in the end it’s worth it. I would probably try to do it similarly to the man in the movie and point out the holes in their way of thinking or show them my arguments.

Even though the movie „12 angry men” is set in a single room, the project amazes with tense action. Hot densed weather seems to intensify the tension. The brilliancy of the film is led thanks to great acting and absorbing plot. „12 angry men” shows how hard it is to disagree with w group and illustrates the power of persuasion. In my opinion it pictures shortcomings in the US legal system.

When it comes to me and what I would do in such a situation I am sure that if I had any doubts I would try to convince others. In this particular case i would do the same things as judge nr 8. I think he wasn’t sure about the innocence of the boy but he thought that the suspect certainly did not deserve the death penalty. As a strong opponent of a capital punishment I would do everything and anything to reject the sentence. I wouldn’t have any problem in opposing others as I take part in many discussions about politics and social matters on a daily basis, I’m used to it and i’m not scared to hold my own.

To sum up, there are 3 types of conformity: internalisation (when you genuinely accept the group norms and it results with in public and private change of behaviour), identification (when you identify with the group because you want to be a part of it and it results with in the public change of behaviour, and compliance (when you agree with the group without changing your personal opinions). There are 2 explanations of conformity: ISI (when you agree with the group because they have the information that you don’t) and NSI (social aspect- when you don’t want to appear foolish among the group members). These factors influenced jurors‘s judgements. Their opinion could also be affected by their past, which in my opinion can be seen in 3rd juror’s behaviour. He blames himself for ruining the relationship with his son and he channels/projects his anger into/onto the suspect.
I think it’s really hard to decide whether a person should live or die. The 8th jury/ Jury nr 8 is a role model for all judges, lawyers and others bringing criminals to justice.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by admin.

Honestly, I was nervous most of the time while watching this film, because it was so close to sentence that boy to death without any deeper consideration. Some of the jury didn’t even have other arguments than “he’s guilty because I think he is”. It bothers me that probably many people have lost their lives because no one made any effort to try to show that they might be innocent. What we can learn from that movie is that shouldn’t assume things without analysing other perspectives of an issue and we should speak up cause we never know how powerful our words may turn out to be.

To sum up, there are three types of conformity (internalisation, identification and compliance) and 2 explanations for conformity (Informational social influence – ISI and Normative social influence – NSI). In the film “12 Angry Men” we can see the use of all of them. Some of the juror’s judgements are influenced by their personal experiences. One of the jurors was strongly influenced by the stereothype of a boy from “bad crowd” and he belived that every person from that environment is the same.

I was frightened about this situation. I hope I will never be in such drama, when human life and death are at stake. If i knew I was right and others wrong, I would do everything to convence them on my side. I would call every possible option into question and find a logical solution.

Hello! I find movie “12 angry Men” surprisingly consuming. I say surprisingly because I’m usually not into old movies, especially these in B&W. Although I must admit I turned in the plot very vividly, it was interesting to follow the mental process of every juror. Some of them had even driven me crazy in emotional way.
It is easy to notice that some of the characters was motivated by NSI – Juror 2, and some of them like for example Juror 1 voted as guilty (at the beginning) on basics of ISI.
I’m sure if I were Juror 8 I would not believe in myself so much to convince eleven other people that there were wrong. So Juror 8 seems to be kind of role model to me. He didn’t give in to any of conformity. As I’m reading all that you had written above, I’m certain that everyone respect that men.

This movie really suprised me, because I was not expecting it to be so interesting. Also when I got invested so quickly I thought that maybe some crazy incident will happen (moybe more killing instead of screaming at each other). But movie deviated from my expectations once again with staying very realistic till the end.
The way that the evidence was slowly denied their definiteness was so clever. I loved the way a lot of it was personal – the old man wanting to be quoted was identified by another elderly man. The glasses were the thing that convinced the person who was wearing glasses.
The type of conformity that was surely most prevalent was compliance, becuase men knew each other for too short to develop any other, at least in my opinion.
I liked that they adressed streteotypes. The scene in which the men were leaving the table, when one started to talk about the stereotypes only and that they alone could be enough to decide on the guilt was in my opinion the best part of the movie. I also value that one character was raised in slums – it was not very subtle move to adress the underpriviledge but they made it mean much more by that character having valuable knowledge about how the knives are used in street fights.
This shows that personal background may be both an issue and a strenght.

I think it’s a great topic we’re discussing today, and I regret to make my appereance this late in the day. Because I think that topic is a mainstream problem in what’s probably most important in our job as students of psychology. Searching for the truth. That movie got me really intrested. I empathized Davis very much, but also admired him for being so relentless in his search for the truth. I find myself in lack of words very often as I try my best to argue with someone. Especially anyone not close to me. Even more especially with a group that I don’t agree with. In these situations I often cannot just find the right words to describe what I think. And that almost always leads to me mistaking something, or discrediting myself. I must admit that when I was younger i tried and stand up for my opinions, have arguments and voice out my thoughts. Nowaday I often prefer to stay quiet. Because I rarely think that my argumentation can have such a big impact on somebody to change his or hers way of thinking. Even if I’m convinced I’m right.
If i would be in a similar situation as Davis, I’d probably try my best to voice my doubt out loud. I would try to calmly say what I have in mind. And if my listeners would be impatient, I’d try to make sure we all have the same purpose. Getting to the truth, not to a baseball match in a few hours. Deciding wether someone’s guilty or not when having doubt about it would be too much for me. I’d care about that more than about the pressure of being a problem for everyone. With that said I must say it would be scarry for me. I’d probably feel pressurised to make it as quick as possible, because everyone else want to. But I’d do simple math to motivate myself through the pressure. For me someones life is far more important than 2 hours of 12 people talking.
I hope that one day I can be as brave, wise and intelligent as Davis. And I hope that I never forget, and be always reminded of my purpose at any place I may find myself working/being.