First, it will look at roof thinking and how this is approached. Second, there will be displays of the majority persuasion and the minority persuasion and how these alter to critical thinking within the film.
Third, Ramie’s conflict style model will be presented in relationship to the critical group thinking. Terms include group thinking, which is based on a specific stance or consensus outside of practical evidence. The second term is majority and minority influences, based on the number of votes from 12 Jurors, swaying at 7 – 5.The third terminology is Ramie’s conflict style model, displaying internal and external conflicts within the group. Defining Group Thinking The beginning of “1 2 Angry Men” shows that there is an association with group thinking that takes place.
- Thesis Statement
- Structure and Outline
- Voice and Grammar
The jury of 12 men begins by going into a private room to determine if an 18 year old is guilty of killing his father. At first, all of the men agree that he is guilty. This group thinking is one which shows, without even thinking or discussing the issue, everyone decides to take the same stance.While there is one man that has determined the guilt first, the rest easily fall into not wanting to spend their time on the boy or the case.
In this particular instance, there is no discussion over the boy’s guilt ND there is not a review over the logic. The group thinking does not change into problem solving and critical thinking until Juror 8 begins to question the jury. Juror 8 presents two pieces of evidence that he believes are critical, then asks for another vote in which he will not participate. This point, Juror 9 votes not guilty.
It is at this point that the jurors are forced to change their group thinking and to look at the issues at hand while considering the problem solving that takes place. While Juror 8 begins to set this in motion with his initial reaction, his basic approach is that there is the deed to look at the circumstances and facts. It is not until Juror 9 agrees with this by voting not guilty that the jury is forced to move into critical thinking and problem solving. How the Majority Persuading the Minority The tactic that is used with the majority persuading the minority to go their way is based on the social relationships that are held among the men.The first example of this is at the beginning.
When Juror 8 is the only one which believes that there needs to be an examination of the evidence, he is ridiculed as they all believe it is not important. This remains the consensus except for Juror 9 changing his vote, leading the majority to continue to set the pace of the movie. The majority and the opening dialogue with the jury persuade the majority because Of the emotions, feel inns and the group thought that is taking place. The second example that shows the majority persuading the minority is when the vote shifts from 9 – 3, altering the majority to believing that the boy is not guilty.There is evidence that the boy is not guilty, such as a train breaking the witnesses perception and the weapon of choice not being possible.
The practical evidence and the examining of details causes the sorority to continue to persuade the minority with practical evidence. By using critical thinking and problem solving, the jurors cannot say that the boy is guilty. Instead, it shows the opposite and leaves more questions about what really happened. The last tactic which is used with the majority changing for the minority to go their way is when Juror 3 decides to change his vote.At this point, it is anonymous by the others that the boy is not guilty through the evidence presented and it is only thesaurus that is required to change his vote. The rest of the jury does not say anything, but waits for him to present why e believes the boy is guilty. Instead of providing evidence and practical ideals, Juror 3 breaks down with the anger between himself and his son, showing that he is pleading guilty because of various reasons.
The effect of this particular tactic is based on the emotional pressure that is placed on the Juror, as well as the expectation that he has alternative evidence.This brings out the truth in Juror 3 and allows his vote to sway. How the Minority Persuaded the Majority The circumstances with the jury also had specific associations with the minority persuading the majority. The first example which worked well is tit Juror 8. His persuasion was based on the need to look at evidence, as opposed to thinking it was an easy conclusion.
He used emotional approaches to convince everyone that there needed to be a sense of justice in looking at the evidence for the boy, as opposed to overlooking it.At this point, there was a switch of focus from emotions and personal agendas to focusing on the evidence and problem solving that was expected among the group. A second example of when the minority was able to persuade the majority was after Juror 11 changed their votes.
This is a tipping point in the argument because of the quick decision in which is made. The jury looks at the evidence, showing that the boy would not have returned to the crime scene three hours later to retrieve a knife. They also question the voice of “I’m going to kill you” as a lack of evidence.
It is factual evidence and the impracticality that is associated with the facts that causes Juror 11 to quickly change his mind. When this happens, it persuades others to look at the evidence and how it is not practical. His swift decision to change his vote pressures the other Jurors to examine critical evidence. While the minority is able to shift the majority decision with changing votes and looking at practical evidence, there are also associations that do not work. The first is with Juror 10 towards the end.
He is in the minority vote and does not believe he wants to change his position.He moves into a series of statements, such as blacks being emotional animals that kill each other for fun. His voice and his beliefs build into a rage, causing the other jurors to stop listening to him and to tell him to calm down by going into a corner. This particular tactic of persuasion does not work because others recognize it as a bias. There is no substantial evidence and it is an emotional ploy as well as one which is based on definitions and values of the individual. Another example which does not work with the minority trying to persuade the majority is with Juror 3 at the end of the movie.
The minority is now one individual who has decided to not change his vote. This does not work, first, because there is evidence that the only witness who could have seen the boy kill his father could not have seen it. She wore glasses, which were off, and was in front of a train, which would have blurred the vision even more.
Three of the jurors change their vote with his evidence, leaving Juror 3 by himself. The majority pressures him into giving an explanation. His only tactic is with his personal relationship to his son and how it has not worked.The trial with the boy caused a trigger and reaction with the emotional and psychological implications relating to this.
He becomes at fault for not looking at the true evidence. Ramie’s Conflict Style Model The first conflict style that is noted in the film is through integrating. Juror 8 is the character which approaches with this, specifically because he has a concern for himself in making the right decision. He also has high concern for he boy that is involved in the central conflict. His motivation comes from his need to see justice through his personal beliefs while giving the boy a fair trial.The second conflict style seen with the characters is through dominating, seen through Juror 3. Juror 3 shows this as he has not changed his vote because of the reflection he sees with his son.
Instead of looking at the evidence, he has little concern of the boy, believing he should work his life out. At the same time, he has high concern for himself, wishing that he had the option to work out his personal relationship with his son. His internal inflict is displayed with his external actions. The third conflict style that is at play is with avoiding. Juror 12 shows this display by not becoming involved with either side.Juror 12 is first persuaded to believe that the boy is guilty, because everyone else does.
He is then persuaded to change his vote because of evidence. He has low concern for his own conscious and what he believes is the truth. At the same time, there is little concern for the boy and his outcome, specifically because Juror 12 is avoiding all sides and facts taking place. The fourth conflict style displayed is compromising.
An example of his is with Juror 7, specifically because he is interested in outside affairs, such as the ball game and is the initial spokesperson for the group thought.Juror 7 compromises his internal beliefs about the trial, not because of evidence or care, but because he is interested in the jury ending as he has missed his ball game. He remains neutral and aloof during the movie, only to speak up to create a sense of distraction and more conflict that is not related to evidence.
Conclusion Interpersonal communication influences the individual by the group persuading others through emotions, thoughts, practical evidence and critical hinging.The influences on interpersonal communication come from what each juror decides to do, how they vote, what their reasoning is and what emotional and psychological reactions are linked to creating the responses. The conflict is based on how the jurors effect and influence each other, as opposed to the boy at trial. The strength of this film was with the persuasion that is offered, as well as how this changes with perspectives of individuals. This is constantly seen In society with behaviors and interactions. However, this film had some weaknesses because of the lack of movement and change, tot showing the relationships outside of the jury.Not seeing the internal conflicts outside of the jury room created some lack of perspective. The first key finding that was interesting within this paper was looking at the group thought.
Without the jury speaking to each other in the beginning, all held the same agenda and beliefs. This created a specific slant to the movie and developed conflict. This was a key to the pace of the movie and the outcome which occurred. A second key finding was in relation to the responses from individuals such as Juror 10 and 3.
It can be seen that the communication is en which is not based on evidence at all times.