12 Angry Men Analysis

OHM 401 Group Dynamics in Teams February 1, 2017

ASSIGNMENT

Analysis of nature of influence amongst the jurors from the movie “12 Angry Men”

Submitted by: Ragbeer Batra 16110110495 Pranjal Gupta 1610110492 Pragati Mishra 1410110288

Prasanna Natarajan 1410110298 Prerna 1410110306 Radhika Raghu 1410110317

Juror 1

A high school assistant football coach who wanted to keep the proceedings in decorum and maintain authority. He got easily frustrated if someone objected to his control, thus did not depict a natural leader.

Type of Influence: Informational Influence At first, he votes that the defendant is guilty of killing his father. The key piece of information that changed this juror's mind is the fact that the switchblade could not have been used from an upward angle. This was demonstrated by Juror number 5 on Juror number 8. Since Juror number 5 had a slum background and he claimed that this kind of blade is used underhanded. He was the ninth one to change his vote.

Juror 2

A submissive, timid bank clerk who could be persuaded with ease. He could be easily pressurized by the majority to go along with it.

Type of Influence: Informational Influence At first, he is indecisive and he is a rather passive participant in the discussion. He did not have any arguments of his own. His initial vote (as the defendant is guilty) was entirely based on what he heard without giving second thoughts about it. He changes his vote when he takes part in the experiment where they check the time taken for the old man to open the main door. He agrees that it is impossible for the old man to have seen the boy running and with this information he changes his vote. He was the fifth one to change his vote.

OHM 401 Group Dynamics in Teams February 1, 2017

Juror 3

A businessman who is very rude and completely biased, loud-mouthed and the antagonist in the play. His hatred and distress for his own son influenced his decision very strongly.

Type of Influence: Interpersonal and Informational Influence At first, he votes guilty possibly for two reasons: What he heard in the courtroom and estrangement from his own son, which caused him to be hateful towards all young people including the defendant. He was adamant till the end and was the last person to change vote. The reason he changed his vote was because he could finally make sense of all the contradictions to his arguments that arose during the discussion and also, he could finally let go of his bias towards young people, therefore being able to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. He was the last person to change his vote.

Juror 4

A self-assured, well educated, rational, analytical, sophisticated stockbroker with a sharp grasp on facts of the case.

Type of Influence: Informational Influence At first, he voted the defendant to be guilty. This juror was all about facts. He was an impartial listener. He changed his vote, when he was given relatable information, which he was made to realise. Juror number 9 brings to light the fact that the woman (who is a witness of the case) wore prescription glasses (not in court). Juror number 9 noticed this fact because juror number 4 had a similar habit of rubbing his nose just like the woman witness. He was the 10th one to change his vote.