3rd October 2023

“12 Angry Men” (Year 2)

ENGLISH FOR PSYCHOLOGY Forums Social Psychology “12 Angry Men” (Year 2)

Viewing 37 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #6870
      admin
      Keymaster

      The film “12 Angry Men” highlights a social theory in the area of conformity, in particular the power of informational social influence and normative social influence. What is your impression of the court drama?

      What would you do if you were sure you were right and the others wrong? How would you convince them? Or perhaps you would feel scared to oppose the others? Why would you feel scared?

    • #6872
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

      • #6882
        admin
        Keymaster

        Hi Joanna. Why would you feel scared? And who would you be scared of the most: total strangers or friends?

        • #7032
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          I guess the reason is that I really don’t like making others feel uncomfortable and being angry at me.
          And when it comes to the relationship status, I think that I’d be more afraid to upset my friends, fearing that my differing opinion would ruin our relationship, make them dislike me.

      • #6883
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Hi Joanna! 🙂
        I think it’s really hard to be like this man in our times. If you had an opportunity to join the jury, would you agree?

        • #7035
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          Hi!
          Oh boy, being a jury is for sure not my cup of tea (^◇^;)
          Especially if that would be a case simmilar to the one in the film.
          Making decisions that could change one’s fate or end their life? No, that would be waaaaay too stressful.

      • #6929
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Hi Joanna! I can understand you. I also feel that in many situations I would be scared to express my opinion if everyone was against me. But I hope that in such important decisions I could speak loud about my feelings.

      • #7051
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Yeah, I agree, that was really impressive that he was able to stay true to himself, especially considering the judgement of others. What was very significant in my opinion was that it wasn’t that he was sure that the accused is innocent – so it was not about “What would you do if you were sure you were right and the others wrong?”. It was just him being unsure if they are right. It is so hard not to become a victim of group thinking when it happens. I think like when there are any controversial issues there are many unsure people, but the few that have strong opinions just make it impossible to voice concerns

    • #6873
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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 3 years, 5 months ago by admin.
      • #6876
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Oh I’ve checked and still the assessors have huge impact on verdict ,as I understand the US legal system, I think it shouldn’t be like that. I think these people can’t fully cut off their own feelings and assesjudge decide the guilt or innocence in the cold light of day.

        • This reply was modified 3 years, 5 months ago by admin.
        • #6898
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          Hi Ola. I agree — it’s a bit hard to believe that only 12 men are able to decide whether someone is guilty or not. Do you think you would be able to cut off your feelings when assessing something like that? Or maybe it could be a good thing? After all, is such circumstances, you don’t know the defendant, so you shouldn’t have any feelings towards them. Yet the jury who said the boy was not guilty did in fact feel sympathetic towards him and that was the reason he started to question everything.

          • #6910
            Anonymous
            Inactive

            I think I wouldn’t be able to cut off my feelings. Also I think I wouldn’t be able to decide whether boy was guilty or not.

      • #6877
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Hi Ola!
        I agree with you that their certainty at the beggining was scary. But you could see that some of them just vote ‘guilty’ just because others did. I think thats actually sad that people are scared to express different opinions. And as you said it’s not about right or wrong, just seeing another point of view.

        • #6884
          admin
          Keymaster

          Wouldn’t you be afraid to say what you really think despite the fact that other people feel otherwise?

    • #6874
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

      • #6887
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Hi! Do you think that it’s hard to be like this man in our times? Do you know somebody who isn’t scared to tell other people what is think no matter of what?

        • #6894
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          Hi!
          wWll i think it’s really hard since if you don’t have the exact opinion as others you are “weird”. I have no idea why is that but apparently people don’t like that everyone is different. I really admire my older brother who always speaks his mind no matter how much it hurts somebody. Sometimes it’s too much but i admire that he is not scared to say he feels different about something.

      • #6888
        admin
        Keymaster

        Let’s specify, Julia, who you are talking about 🙂

        The other guy who was always screaming – are you talking about the businessman, the twelfth to vote “not guilty”?
        The man who had doubts and was afraid to share them – are you talking about the advertising executive or perhaps about the bank clerk?

        • #6899
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          Right, sorry. I was mainly talking about the buisnessman. He was very short-tempered.

          • #6906
            admin
            Keymaster

            There was a couple of jurors who were initially undecided. Look at these people. For me, the most undecided was juror 12, the adverstising executive.

            12 Angry Men

            • This reply was modified 3 years, 5 months ago by admin.
            • #6927
              Anonymous
              Inactive

              I agree. I think because he worked in advertising he just liked to think more analytically, without emotions. And till the end, he was very calm.
              But also juror 11 was interesting since he was mostly silent. I believe he worked as a watchmaker? I am not sure. He was just making notes and then spoke up to keep conversation going by sharing details that he observed.

              • #6943
                admin
                Keymaster

                Yes, he was a watchmaker, an immigrant.

      • #6889
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Yes, I totally agree with you Julia.
        Being scared? Of what? We are talking about another human being and if he deserves to die. There’s no place for mistakes in situation like this. If I had any doubts I would also try to show them to others.

        • #6902
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          Some people may try to disconnect from the “killing” part arguing “they’re just voting”, “it’s what 11 other people did”. The fact they’re not the one responsible for carrying out the execution also helps in justification of ones judgement.

        • #6912
          admin
          Keymaster

          Am I right in thinking that you’d oppose the other jurors even if they were in majority and considered you a deviant?

          • #6924
            Anonymous
            Inactive

            I’d probably try to have a talk with other jurors first but I’m fortunate enough to have never been in such a predicament so I hope your assumption is correct. At the moment I can only say that I sure hope I’d oppose other jurors before making a hasty decision.

            • #6944
              admin
              Keymaster

              Sometimes it’s difficult to stand by your opinion. Some people for the sake of peace, just let it go.

              • #6966
                Anonymous
                Inactive

                It definitely is difficult and that is why people who are strong enough to stand against such odds (pressure, being ridiculed) should be appreciated.

      • #7054
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        The main character seemed pretty unrealistic. I thought that he was being a space cadet at the beggining, only when I thought about it longer it occured to me how important it is for at least one person to play the role of the devil’s advocate.
        It was really frustrating how mean some of the haracters were to each other. Too angry

    • #6875
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

      • #6932
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Hi Michał, I agree, I too saw characters obviously just trying to blend in and be liked by others. I think it’s a really interesting topic that people can conform to others and even go along with their ideas and beliefs, but because of their need of being liked and accepted, not because they truly internalise others’ views. But it can be tricky — we can conform to the right cause, but we can as well go along with something bad, vile, simply not right, only because we want to be a part of the group. I believe that’s why it’s important to always think everything through, even if what we analyze seems like a good option at first sight.

        • #6955
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          I agree. Unfortunately group pressure is sometimes too great for some people and they just give in no matter how just they are. Having at least one person backing you definitely helps but it also puts pressure on that person. It’s a really tricky and interesting topic.

          • #7057
            Anonymous
            Inactive

            I wonder how does the system that selects jury works in the States. I need to check that, because that is not good when people like this happen to work where decision making is so important. People have different personalities and not everyone is honestly suited for a job like this. And I hope t is not really a norm that there are so many easily influenced people in such situations… But again I think it was also becuase the movie could not focus on too many strong-willed characters at once

    • #6879
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

      • #6895
        admin
        Keymaster

        How can you Camilla make sure that the jury is 100% objective? Do you think you’d be entirely objective if you were one of the jurors and watched the court proceedings for a couple of days or weeks?

        • #6913
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          Writing about non-objective/unbiased jury I was thinkinkg about those who had strong emotions about this case. Of course nobody is in 100% objective, but I think we shouldn’t have strong emotions about case that we are judging. If my dad would be killed by for example young man, I would decide that this boy is guilty and punish him because of my anger.But If I tried to be objective in hall process I would penetratingly observe anyone in the court.

          • This reply was modified 3 years, 5 months ago by admin.
          • #6934
            admin
            Keymaster

            People in general are susceptible to influence. For me, it’s hardly possible to watch a trial and not have any feelings about it at all. And at some point you realise that your mind is already made altough you try to stay open-minded.

      • #6938
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Hi Kamila! I agree that it’s important to make a rational, objective decision in this case, because we are putting someone’s life at stake. But do you think it would be easier to conform to the group if the case was putting someone into prison? Would it be justified if they rushed with their decision then?

        • #6947
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          Hi 🙂 It’s hard to say at this point. Making a decision about condemn to imprisonment it not easy as well and also we can destroy someone life if we do this. But I think for us it easier to make decision like this rather than sentence someone on penethly death, because this is not permanent and we can take this back.

    • #6881
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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”.

      • #6885
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Hi Eliza!
        I really like that you mentioned the fact, that it wasn’t about his innocence but the boy’s life. I think that people who were there kind of forgot that it’s not about what they think, it’s about if they are certain that the boy did it. Do you think you would also try to convince others? Or do you think you would just save your opinion for yourself?

        • #6892
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          I think you are right but I have a feeling that the setting of the movie isn’t what we are used to. My memory may be failing me but I’m pretty sure that it death penalty used to be more common in the past times of the USA. If we take my previous statement as truth then it would explain why people were so quick to judge the boy as guilty.

          • #6900
            admin
            Keymaster

            Why do think most of jurors wanted to get it over with?

            • #6917
              Anonymous
              Inactive

              I believe it was due to the system as most of them weren’t really connected to the law. If I recall correctly they just got invited through a letter (and they most likely were unable to turn down such an invitation) and thus they had little to no interest in the case making them want to make it end as quickly as possible.

              • #6948
                admin
                Keymaster

                What about the time pressure exerted by the judge and prosecutors implied in the drama?

                • #6961
                  Anonymous
                  Inactive

                  It may be rude of me to assume but judges most likely have to go through many of similar cases daily and in times when death penalty was much more common they most likely just wanted to get the easy solution and be done with the case. As for the time pressure imposed on jurors, having to make a difficult decision within a window of time may lead to cutting corners and picking easier options. It also makes us more susceptible to follow people who seem to be more knowledgable about the matter.

                  • #6996
                    admin
                    Keymaster

                    Yes, you’re right. The courts of law are and were overburdened and the judges, prosecutors and barristers (BrE)/defence counsels (AmE) wanted the jury to deliberate within certain time limits and reach the verdict as soon as possible. It might have been a factor in creating normative social influence for the jurors.

        • #6901
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          I think I would try to convince others if I had reasonable arguments. It would be hard for me to just stand against group like judge number 8, because at the beginning he challenged everything that was said in court and just provoked other judges to think about it again.

      • #6891
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        I agree with your opinion that we never know anything for sure.
        Do you think you could be judge in court?
        I think I couldn’t because I would always have second thoughts and I wouldn’t be sure about my decisions I think it would ‘eat me’ inside. I would rethink cases all the time and wonder if my decision was right.

        • #6905
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          I think I couldn’t be a judge too. Just as you, I feel that making decisions about somebody’s life would be to much pressure for me and I couldn’t forget it for the rest of my life.

    • #6886
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

      • #6897
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Hi Wiktoria 🙂
        This boy had a luck that in this jury was one guy who had the guts to tell his opinion. This is scary that some people can make decisions about someone’s life without any reflection – like this guy who hurried because he had tickets for a match.
        What would you do If you had a chance to join the jury?

        • #6922
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          Hi Kamila 🙂 I agree with you, it is scary when people can make such decisions right off the bat, as it’s the easiest thing. If I had a chance to join them in their decision making, I would probably do the same thing as the noncoformist jury. I think I would analyze every detail deeply and thoroughly just to be sure I’m making the right choice, because — as we stated — it’s somebody’s life we’re deciding on.

      • #6904
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Hi, Wiktoria! I also see you as a person who speaks her mind but always in a very kindly way. What do you think about losing temper, shouting, behaving in aggressive way during a conversation? What should a successful discussion look like?

        • #6970
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          Hi Weronika! Thank you for noticing that — I always try to be kind but I prefer to state my opinion and be honest with everyone. I think that aggressive behaviour during a discussion is unacceptable — we should try our best to treat our converser with respect, even when we strongly disagree with them. I know it’s hard sometimes to mute our emotions and stay rational and objective, but I don’t think we can reach any conclusion if we shout and lose temper while discussing. What do you think about that? Do you think it’s acceptable?

      • #6916
        admin
        Keymaster

        Victoria, which jurors were most susceptible to normative and informative social influence?

        • #6975
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          I think the second juror was the most susceptible to normative social influence. He couldn’t give any reasoning for his opinions, when he believed the defendant was guilty and later on when he changed his mind. I can’t think of any juror who stood out in terms of conforming to the group because he believed the group was right, they all slowly agreed with the 8th juror and I’d like to believe they all thought it through.

    • #6890
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

      • #6909
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        I’m the literally, exact opposite of you. I think there is no simpler way to get to know a person well than through discussions. I love situations when I need to convince some people to see my point of view, because these are also situations when someone presents me their point of view in all its glory. Even small quarrels are nothing wrong. They are intriguing.
        Of course, the dilemma we know from the movie is a situation that is even difficult to comment on. It is certainly difficult to find a situation that requires greater involvement. It’s about someone’s life.

        • #6921
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          Thank you for your answer. I mean that to the good discussion we need open minds and readiness to listen to other people. I like talking with people and get to know with their opinions but my goal is not convincing them to my point of view.

        • #6940
          admin
          Keymaster

          Would you try to persuade others to your point of view even in the area of politics?

          • #6964
            Anonymous
            Inactive

            Probably, I wouldn’t. I’m OK with sharing political views with people but my goal is not to persuade them. Especially, when I it comes to my grandparents, who have exact opposite opinions and avoid any attempts to convince them to another point of view.

            • #6971
              admin
              Keymaster

              I understand this. In the area of politics where people’s beliefs are so fixed, it’s a waste of time to try to persuade them to your opinion. You gain nothing except a quarell. It’s not worth it.

      • #6920
        admin
        Keymaster

        Hi, Weronika. What is normative and informative social influence? If you let other people convince you, would it be because of normative social influence or informative social influence?

        • #6930
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          A normative social influence occurs when you change your mind because you want to be accepted by the majority. The informational social influence- when we agree with the opinion of the group because we are convinced that they are right. I would rather be convinced by ISI because I like to believe that I’m right and that my way of thinking is correct. (I probably shouldn’t have written “informative” in my first statement).

          • #6945
            admin
            Keymaster

            Do you know which jurors were most susceptible to normative and informative social influence?

            • #6976
              Anonymous
              Inactive

              I think, that the most susceptible to ISI was junior number 4. He changed his mind because of logical arguments, which started to be part of his own beliefs. The junior number 12 was influenced by NSI every time when others pat him on the shoulder or even look deeply in his eyes. He wanted to be the part of the majority and he was not interested in any logical reasons.

              • #7010
                admin
                Keymaster

                I had the impression that juror 12 conformed also due to ISI because he had no opinions of his own. He wasn’t probably interested in the case and/or not intelligent enough to listen to the arguments from both sides to make up his own mind. What do you think?

      • #6954
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Hi Weronika, I totally agree with you. I also usually avoid talking about topics you mentioned. I think I get too emotional and it is very hard for me to stay cool and rational. Moreover I think that I am not good at showing my opinions – sometimes I have some vivid idea in my mind and have no clue how to choose right words to describe that so I don’t have ability influence on somebody’s opinion.

    • #6896
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

      • #6923
        admin
        Keymaster

        It’s a nice to read that most of you liked the movie. I was a bit afraid that you wouldn’t find a 1950s classic enjoyable 🙂

        • #6958
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          I heard about this movie thousands of times but have never enought motivation to watch it. Finally I did and I am very glad that it was our class task 🙂
          I think it is this kind of movie which everybody should watch.

          • #6974
            admin
            Keymaster

            It’s considered one of the most important movies in the American canon. Sometimes young adults don’t appreciate it because of the old-school way of acting, lack of action or a single set with one table and chairs 🙂

          • #7020
            Anonymous
            Inactive

            Exactly, i alwyas wanted to watch it, but I never did. I’m really glad that this task forced me to do so, because this is a movie that makes you think and stays with you for a long time. I think the acting was phenomenal, and the fact that it takes place in one room helps with focusing on the plot and the moral dillema.

        • #7019
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          I was charmed by the esthetics of this 1950s classic “old classic movie”.

          • This reply was modified 3 years, 5 months ago by admin.
      • #6935
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Yes, I agree. I think the fact that it was black and white film made the atmosphere of it even better. At first, I thought that it could be a bit boring that the plot is in one place only but it definitelly wasn’t.

      • #7033
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        I agree! Creation of such a gripping picture with very simple conception is very difficult. Not only does it involve great acting but outstanding directing and photography are also crucial.

    • #6903
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

      • #6915
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        It sounded like Gombrowicz quote. “Słowacki wielkim poetą był”. Equally grotesque.

      • #6919
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Hi Monika, I think you made an important point here – that the doubts were enough to start a discussion that in the end saved the boy’s life.
        And how about you? Has your opinion on whether the boy was guilty changed throughout the movie? Or was your mind set on a particular verdict from the beginning?

        • #7026
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          I wasn’t sure for the whole time and I’m not sure right now. But it is obvious for me that investigation wasn’t good enough to solve this particular crime.
          I was touched by scene when they showed the boy and his big, doggy eyes. To be honest, when I first realized how certain these people were that he was guilty, I was angry and I was waiting for someone to show them other aspects of this case. Nothing can be so simple.

      • #6925
        admin
        Keymaster

        Monika, do you remember types of conformity? And what conformity is in the first place?

        • #7028
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          Yes, conformity is a change in someone’s opinion or behaviour as a result of pressure. Types: internalisation, identification and compliance.

    • #6908
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

      • #6928
        admin
        Keymaster

        Some of the jurors weren’t upper-middle class men. Let’s take juror 6 – the house painter, judge 10 – the garage owner, jury 2 – the bank clerk or jury 7 – the salesman and fan of “Yankees game”.

        • #6998
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          Yes, I know that, that’s why I said “most” not “all”. And actually thanks to the little diversity among their upbringings, somebody disagreed with the generalization made by one of the juror that all of the kids from the slums are bound to become criminals. One juror said that he lived there his entire life and that the statement wasn’t true. That for me shows the importance of diversity. Because if a fairly homogeneous group is making a judgement, they’re bound to see others in a stereotypical way.

    • #6911
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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. 🙂

      • #6926
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Hi Martyna, and what do you think you would do in such situation? Does opposing others usually come easy to you when you feel like they’re wrong?

        • #6939
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          Hi Kinga! 🙂 Yes, I don’t have problems with sharing my point of view. But actually, I have never had an intense discussion with an “aggressive” person, who will ignore my opinions and try to, at all costs, convince me to sth and, honestly, I don’t know how I’ll behave in such a situation. How about you?

          • #6993
            Anonymous
            Inactive

            Personally, I have this kind of discussions quite often, because I have many opinions that my family (among other people) sees as controversial. I try to explain my point of view the best I can, while respecting other people’s right to have their own point of view. That can be hard, when I’m convinced that I’m right and that’s why I absolutely hate confrontation, because it usually ends in someone being offended. I don’t really know what I would do in a situation like the one shown in the movie, but I’d like to think that I would at least voice my concerns.

      • #6937
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Hi Martyna! I must say that I totally agree with you. Lots of people forget that they don’t have to choose sides. Asking questions is very important because it may help us find something significant in between (you called it grey).

        • #6946
          admin
          Keymaster

          Aurelia, jury nr 9, the elderly man, was the second who voted “not guilty”. He was the first juror to break from conformity. Would you mind explaining this?

          • #6972
            Anonymous
            Inactive

            In my opinion jury nr 9 started supporting jury nr 8 because he knew that it isn’t easy to stay alone when everyone is against you and what you’re saying. He respected jury nr 8 and all the thing he said so he decided to give jury nr 8 a chance and hear more arguments even though he (jury nr 9) still thought that the boy was guilty. What’s more during the movie we can see that jury nr 9 was very good at observing people because he described the old man and a woman in the court with every detail what helped to change minds of others. So I also think that it wasn’t only respect but he started to have doubts too.

            • #6978
              admin
              Keymaster

              You’re right. I also think that older people in general are less likely to conform. It’s probably because they have nothing to lose, they have nothing to prove to anyone. Other explanations are also possible.

    • #6918
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

      • #6941
        admin
        Keymaster

        Alexandra, which jurors were most susceptible to normative and informative social influence?

        • #6956
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          I think the most susceptible to normative social influence was juror 12 because he didnt’t know what exactly his opinion was, I had this feeling that he is voting like that because of the pressure of juror 3 and to informative social influence was juror 7 because he agreed that the boy is guilty when the majority vote for that and when other jurors started voting for the opposite, he did that too.

          • #6965
            admin
            Keymaster

            But don’t you think that juror nr 12 was actually susceptible to ISI? He relied on other people’s opinion and wasn’t sure what to think himself.

            • #6973
              Anonymous
              Inactive

              Yes, maybe he belived that what other people were sayin was correct and that’s why he was changing his opinion. But I also think that he wanted to gain approval from juror nr 3, at least at the beginning.

              • #6980
                admin
                Keymaster

                Yes, you’re right. The reason he conformed was because he was susceptible to both types. Or, we may say, in his case ISI and NSI were both at work.

    • #6933
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

      • #6950
        admin
        Keymaster

        Agatha, you said “some characters”, “peple” and “others”. Have a look at the picture of the jurors and tell me who you are talking about.

        12 angry men

        • This reply was modified 3 years, 5 months ago by admin.
        • #6962
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          I think that juror 12 was the one being compliant, juror 7 didn’t seem to have his own opinion either, he just wanted to have a decision. The rest I think changed their minds mostly due to the ISI. Juror 3 and 10 were the ones I doubted would ever change their opinions.

          • #6969
            admin
            Keymaster

            Juror 10 was a big bigot. I also think that his conformity was induced by his stereotypical thinking about African-Americans. And you, what do you think?

            • #6983
              Anonymous
              Inactive

              I agree and that’s exactly why I doubted he would change his mind. He wasn’t listening to the information being presented, he only thought the boy was guilty because of where he comes from. I really loved that scene where he’s just screaming about “these people” and everyone silently starts to move away from the table. It was nice to see a movie from 1957 tackling bigotry.

              • #6999
                admin
                Keymaster

                The film highlights negative sentiment regarding black people in the 1950s.

    • #6936
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

      • #6942
        admin
        Keymaster

        Renata, please refer to a picture in reply #6906. Which juror are you talking about?

        • This reply was modified 3 years, 5 months ago by admin.
        • #6968
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          Mainly I am talking about 8 Juror, I mentioned also Juror 5

          • #6982
            admin
            Keymaster

            According to my notes, jury nr 5 was the third to vote “not guilty”.

            • #7007
              Anonymous
              Inactive

              Yes, but at first he said ‘guilty’ and didn’t want to explain why he thinks that way. I am writing about him in first sentence. Later I am writing about jury nr 8 – the one who first said unguilty.

      • #7030
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Hi Renata. You say you admire the way the eighth juror handled the situation and expressed his doubts. Are you able to discuss things, especially of a serious matter, in a calm manner?

        • #7047
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          Hi Wiktoria! Well, I try to discuss in calm manner, I think it is very important. But to be honest I have to say, it is sometimes difficult for me because I am very emotional.

      • #7039
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Hi Renata! I agree with you. The first thing that came to my mind while watching this film was that it’s frightening how some people wanted that boy to die without any arguments actually, they didn’t even try to verify their vote.

        • #7048
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          Hi Ania! Yes, the movie showed how ignorant people can be.

        • #7052
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          Hi, I subscribe to it! I was also shocked. They were acting like the whole case wasn’t about someones life. They believed that they came to the court just to “do their job”, apparently as fast as they could without any moral rules.

    • #6949
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

      • #6960
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Hi Weronika! I agree that especially when it comes to such serious sentences the jury should be diversified. And to continue this topic about responsibility – would you like to be a jury? Would it matter if the case was about murder or something less “deadly” like a hussle or theft?

        • #6977
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          I think I would rather not be in jury (no matter if the case was about murder or theft). „With great power comes great responsibility” – and I believe that there is no greater power than deciding about someone’s life. And even though I am huge fan of mystery cases, analyzing different situations, speculating about possible suspects and I enjoy watching tv series „How to get away with a murder”, I would not like to have that huge responsibility on my shoulders.

      • #6985
        admin
        Keymaster

        They didn’t have similar backgrounds. One was an immigrant (11), other an architect (8). Juror nr 7, a salesman, spoke English poorely, juror nr 3 was a businessman.

      • #7031
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Hi Weronika! What side were you on in the beginning of the movie? Did you believe the eighth juror right from the start or did your opinion change?

    • #6952
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

      • #6963
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Hi Kamila! I agree with you – I also liked the movie since the first minute, maybe because I had very positive attitude about it.
        I am curious what you think about last scene when the last “guilt” man started to cry and tore up the pohotgrath of his son? How do you understand that? Because I was a little confused in this moment.

        • #6981
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          Hi Olga! That’s an interesting question! I was a bit confused too, but now I think that this last jury felt like a failed father. I think he had some communication problems with his son. And because of some similarity he started perceiving his own son in that accused man. That’s why he become emotionally involved in that cause. Maybe because of this parental debacle he hated his son a little bit. And being the last “guilt” man he felt surrounded so he expressed his frustration by tearing up photograph of his son. I still don’t understand it completly, because I think I would never tear up a photo of a person I love. But still – maybe this was his way to relieve tension. I also think that when he said “innocent” he thought of his son – that despite anything he would always protect his son from anything unfortunate.

      • #6967
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Hi Kamila! I have similar observations about the movie. I wonder – do you think that Jury 8 believed that the young man is innocent from the start? Or did he only have doubts? Maybe he just wanted to discuss the case to not decide hastily and quickly about someone’s life?

        • #6987
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          Hi Weronika! I think that Jury 8 wasn’t so sure from the beginning but he definitely was against making a decision in a rush and without all the information. I liked how calm he was when he was trying to convince other jury to dedicade an hour for a discussion about this accused man’s fate. But I also admired how he became a bit flustered when he spotted other men playing some game during the meeting. I think that only Jury 8 from the beginning was fully aware that there’s human life at stake. That they were deciding life or death! To quote a superhero movie: “With great power comes great responsibility”.

    • #6957
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

    • #6959
      admin
      Keymaster

      Would you say that informational social influence was exacerbated by time constraints imposed by the court trial

      • #7029
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Yes, they had to stay in that room untill they all come agree and some of the men wanted to just finish this case and go back to living their live so they trusted that what othres agreed on is right. If they all agree that the boy was guilty then they all must be right and then there is no point in thinking about it any longer.

    • #6979
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

      • #6986
        admin
        Keymaster

        Olga, according to informational social influence (ISI) people conform because they believe that others are right. It’s particularly true in situations where you don’t know the answer, so you rely on what others (the group) say.

        According to normative social influence (NSI) peple conform because they want to be accepted and liked. They don’t want to appear deviant.

        After the first vote, only jury nr 8 said “not guilty”, which made the juror nr 3 (as far as I remember) exclaim
        “there always has to be one”. What do you think, was the juror trying to exert pressure on juror 8 through ISI or NSI?

        • #6989
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          I think that through NSI, because he was trying to show him that changing his mind put him in the minority and against the majority, appeared deviant.

          • #6991
            admin
            Keymaster

            Yes, of course. And what do you think about time constraints? What pressure did they exert on the jury members?

            • #7006
              Anonymous
              Inactive

              I think that time pressure made jury members care more about having the same opinion than about being right, so it also triggers normative social influence and exacerabate informational social influence

    • #6984
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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 3 years, 5 months ago by admin.
      • #6988
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Hi Zuzia! Was it different watching the movie now, knowing the subject for our discussion will be conformity? Did you notice anything new about the movie?

        • #6997
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          Yes, I caught the interest of the scene when these 11 jurors tried to give legitimacy to their opinions – why they found the accused guilty. The fifth juror, as you remember, didn’t want to explain why he voted “Guilty”. This was a pure conformity. I was outraged.

          • This reply was modified 3 years, 5 months ago by admin.
          • #7002
            admin
            Keymaster

            Was it juror nr 5? Are you certain? I can’t remember this. I remember that he was the third to vote “not guilty” so he was not really susceptible to conformity.

    • #6992
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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?

      • #7001
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Hi Sylwia! I definitely agree with your opinion. It was heartbreaking and straight up annoying how insensitive and egoistic were the other men, at least in the beginning. I can’t imagine making such a huge decision without even talking about it first, it’s like they weren’t aware of the consequences.

    • #6994
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

      • #7004
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        Hi Ewa, I agree that being put in such a situation would be difficult and I feel like most people would like to think that they wouldn’t give in to social influence. But have you ever been in a situation where you had to defend your point of view regarding an important issue?

      • #7013
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        I agree with you, Eve! To be honest I think that every person who needs to be in the jury should act just like man number 8. I believe this American system – which makes being a jury a civic duty, where people have to participate in voting even against their will – is not a good idea. What do you think?

    • #7003
      admin
      Keymaster

      Tell me, everyone, what are the types of conformity?

      • #7008
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        There are internalisation, identification and compliance.

      • #7009
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        There are three types as far as I understand: internalisation (when we truly believe in the group’s opinions), identification (when we go along with the decisions made by the group because we feel like we’re a part of it) and compliance (a result of the group’s pressure on an individual).

        • #7012
          admin
          Keymaster

          Which jurors conformed due to internalisation, identification and compliance?

          • #7014
            Anonymous
            Inactive

            I think jurors nr 1,2,5,6, 9 and 11 conformed due to internalisation and jurors 3,4,7,10 and 12 due to identification.

            • #7018
              admin
              Keymaster

              And what do others think about it?

              • #7027
                Anonymous
                Inactive

                I’d say number 3 was closer to compliance than identification. He was very obviously biased against the supposed murdered and only changed his mind after every single possible argument for his opinion was debunked and even then it took him a while to fully break

                • #7055
                  Anonymous
                  Inactive

                  Daniel I think you are right. As the discussion was going on Juror 3 seem like he wanted to be the one “who didn’t break down”. I guess he wanted to appear the strongest even if he was broken inside.

      • #7011
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        There are 3 types of conformity: internalisation, identification and compliance.

    • #7005
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

      • #7050
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        I totally agree with you Klaudia! I can’t even calmly think about how fast and without any effort they could made death sentencing conviction. As you noticed they didn’t even give reasonable explanation to their statements. It is obvious that they were driven by conformity (either it was ISI or NSI)

    • #7017
      admin
      Keymaster

      Dear All,

      thank you for the discussion. As always I’ll come back later to catch up with your posts.
      I’d like you to sum up the discussion. Please include in your summary the types of conformity and explanations of conformity (ISI, NSI) as well as the other factors which influenced the jury members’s opinions (e.g. age, time constraints, prejudice and stereotyping).

      Talk to you later

      • #7024
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        One of the characters was cleearly affected by the limited time he had to see the game.
        The other one was affected by his own experiences and conviction, all he was saying was stereotypical elements of the region that the boy lived in.

        We could see at the start of the jury that some of the people were resistant to the statement that the boy was guilty, but the more people raised their hands they seem that they didnt want to be the one against the majority

      • #7036
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        To sum up, the movie was a touching, thought-provoking story about how you shouldn’t judge things hastily, but also how you shouldn’t conform to other people if you don’t think their ideas through for yourself.
        Conformity is a change in one’s opinion or behaviour provoked by peer pressure. There are three types of conformity: internalisation, identification and compliance. Internalisation is the deepest type when you go along with the group’s ideas because you honestly believe in them. Identification is when you value the group, therefore you act like them, but you don’t necessarily believe in everything they do. The most shallow type of conformity is compliance – when you agree with the group while being monitored and observed, but disagree when the group is not around and you are in private.
        You can conform to others because of two types of influence: informational social influence and normative one. Informational social influence means conforming to others because you believe they are right. The size of the group tells you that they probably aren’t wrong and you are motivated to be right as well. Normative social influence is when you conform to the group because you want to be liked and accepted.
        The jury’s decision in the film was definitely influenced by informational social influence because the bigger the group of “not guilty” was getting, the more jurors started questioning the evidence and testimonies and the faster it happened. There wasn’t a lot of normative social influence and it’s really important in a situation like this because you can’t make a decision regarding someone’s life based on your need to be liked.
        Other factors that could influence jury’s opinions were their own backgrounds. Freud would probably say that the third juror strongly projected his own emotions from the relationship with his son onto the situation and how the defendant should be perceived – as an ungrateful young boy. The ninth juror on the contrary tried to keep an open mind about everything – he was clearly the oldest out of all of them, so he probably knew that there is always more to what the eye sees and he accepted there should be space for doubts. Furthermore, the way they were raised, their history and current situation was a factor there – the fifth juror grew up in a slum and it was easier for him to believe the boy was not guilty, it was easier to predict how the defendant would have behaved. On the other hand, the tenth juror was so biased against boys growing up in slums and threw a tantrum so big that the others refused to speak with him for some time.
        The film had a lot going on. It showed that such important decisions can’t be made in such a short time because there’s bound to be errors.

        • #7056
          admin
          Keymaster

          That’s an excellent summary!
          Victoria, you wrote: “There wasn’t a lot of normative social influence”. I will you three examples:
          1) In the first vote in which all jurors except juror 8 voted “not guilty”, juror nr 3 (I think) appealed to NSI, by saying “there always has to be one” – one black sheep, one deviant who goes against expectations.
          2) Pressure exerted by the judge and lawyers to reach the verdict as soon as possible, which was considered a norm in the overburdened US justice system. I think that all the jurors were aware of the pressure, which was an important factor in creating NSI.
          3) Juror 12 was, in my opinion, susceptible to both types of social influence. He had no opinions of his own so he relied on what others told him (ISI) and wanted to be approved by the group (NSI).

          • This reply was modified 3 years, 5 months ago by admin.
    • #7021
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

    • #7023
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

    • #7025
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

    • #7034
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

    • #7037
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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 3 years, 5 months ago by admin.
      • #7042
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        I think jury 4 is worth mentioning. He gave the impression of a person basing his opinion on facts. He did not show conformism towards the group. We meet him as a juror who is interested in evidence and testimonies of witnesses. When the testimony of a woman who allegedly saw the murder was logically and sensibly undermined, he changed his mind because he believed that the accused was not guilty.

    • #7038
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

      • #7040
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        I think it was even pointed out somewhere in the movie that some of them didn’t care about the arguments and just wanted him to be guilty because they thought so

        • #7063
          Anonymous
          Inactive

          Yeah, like that one with prejudices, who only sought a way to confirm his way of thinking.

    • #7041
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

    • #7043
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

    • #7049
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

      • #7062
        Anonymous
        Inactive

        I can relate to that a lot! I too initially thought the movie would be pretty boring. And i was totally unmotivated, after having a hard day. But it all changed after 10 minutes or so into the movie. It got so intresting for me, it kept me on the edge untill the end. All the characters were so detailed and reallistic. And the architect was pretty much like superman for me!

    • #7060
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

      • #7064
        admin
        Keymaster

        You wrote: “The type of conformity that was surely most prevalent was compliance because the men knew each other for too short to develop any other, at least in my opinion.” You may have a point here, but on the other hand they were serving on the jury for some time – I don’t remember how long the proceedings lasted (maybe it wasn’t mentioned in the film), so they knew one another quite well. Besides, sometimes you want to be part of a group because you’re impressed by the strenght of the leader (even if you don’t know him/her very well) so you act in the same way the group does depite perhaps some doubts (identification) or because you believe the group’s norms and take them as your own (internalisation). I believe that these three types of conformity may be at work here.

    • #7061
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      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.

Viewing 37 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.