12 angry men conflict analysis. 12 Angry Men Conflict Analysis 2022-10-17
12 angry men conflict analysis Rating:
5,7/10
1281
reviews
12 Angry Men is a classic film that follows the deliberation process of a jury as they decide the verdict of a murder case. Throughout the film, the jurors face numerous conflicts that test their ability to remain fair and impartial. In this essay, we will explore the various conflicts that arise within the group and how they ultimately impact the decision-making process.
One of the main conflicts in the film is between Juror 8 and Juror 3. Juror 3 is convinced of the defendant's guilt and becomes increasingly angry and emotional as the deliberation process goes on. He is unwilling to consider any evidence that may contradict his initial belief and often resorts to personal attacks and insults towards Juror 8 and the other jurors who disagree with him.
Juror 8, on the other hand, is more level-headed and takes a more measured approach to the deliberation process. He carefully examines all the evidence and is open to considering different perspectives. He remains calm and respectful even when confronted with Juror 3's hostility.
Another conflict in the film is the clash between the individual and the group. Some of the jurors, such as Juror 9 and Juror 12, are more inclined to follow the majority and go along with the decision of the group. They are concerned with maintaining harmony and avoiding conflict within the group.
However, Juror 8 and a few others are more concerned with reaching the truth and upholding justice. They are willing to stand up for their beliefs and challenge the group, even if it means causing tension and disagreement. This conflict between the desire for individual independence and the pressure to conform to group expectations is a common theme in the film.
Ultimately, the conflicts in 12 Angry Men serve to highlight the difficulties and complexities of the decision-making process. They demonstrate the importance of remaining open-minded, respectful, and fair in order to reach a just conclusion. The film is a powerful reminder of the responsibility that comes with serving on a jury and the need to carefully consider all sides of a case before rendering a verdict.
Conflict Styles On 12 Angry Men Essay
Prejudice is defined as premature judgment or bias. However, the conflict resolves by confuting the evidence of the case. His interpersonal style would be classified as a blabbermouth. The film is an excellent presentation of how groups work as well as how conflicts may affect a group. Out of the twelve jurors, eleven jurors voted for conviction. Foreman is a coach and jury number one. According to the United States laws, the decision can only be valid with an agreed decision of twelve jury members.
Analysis of a Small Group Communication in 12 Angry Men
Dr Hebbard, through your experience, How do we change this behavior under pressure, abnormal circumstances and maintain consistency? Because of this, he would take offense to the rude things the other jurors said about people from the slums. A jury of twelve men is locked in the deliberation room to decide the fate of the young boy. Therefore, he takes leadership responsibility to question the accuracy of the truths. Eventually, he gains support, and others understand that their first opinion might be wrong as their arguments are confuted by observations and deep analysis. The jury must deliberate until a unanimous decision is reached. Foreman lead others to make an agreed decision, and under Mr.
Negotiating success can be attributed to the negotiator understanding his or her personality while being aware of the personalities of others Budjac Corvette, 2007. If the boy is found guilty, he will be sentenced to death. He is unwilling or unable to level with others and is also unreceptive to any feedback. First, we will apply the Johari grid theory and see how it applies to their situation. Simultaneously, it delivers the powerful message that because we are human beings and not machines, it is in the nature of things that justice demands such a system.
A task of a group leader is to avoid the group from coming to a conclusion too soon, or from getting stuck in endless debate. The juror has bias towards the trial because he see his son in the young boy. Also, the angry jury member has a personal problem with his boy, and he thinks that every boy at that age can commit crimes. Both appear to be fair, thoughtful, and rational, but they come to opposite conclusions. Many arguments made to back up different positions can be shown to be wrong. Gradually they are won over by his arguments and even the most narrow-minded of his fellow jurors hesitantly agrees with him.
At the end of the movie, his persistence to stand as a minority in the group and to convince other jurors turns out to be successful; therefore, the jury can finally make a correct judgment. The public area consists solely of the shared information provided during the trial. Like Socrates, Fonda is willing to admit not knowing, willing to ask questions and search for the truth. Yet sometime between that vote and the next he led a personal fight within himself to overcome his lack of leadership skills and make a brief but powerful leadership stance. Cobb Storyline A dissenting juror in a murder trial slowly manages to convince the others that the case is not as obviously clear as it seemed in court. While these conflicts themselves might have held the jurors back, the competition approach to these sources of conflict moved the group in the right direction. Once the problem is identified, the questioning spirit can again drive a different way of thinking toward the exact problem.
In doing so, he realizes the power of his emotions which forces him to step back and take a look at what he really feels. The conflict in this movie can be taken into the analysis by the Circle of Conflict Model in the book The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict Moore, 1986. At the beginning of the movie, there is an open communication environment, and there is no conflict and argumentation in the group. She reminds those who believe black people are beyond salvation, that all people need to be "refin'd and join th'," regardless of their race. Johnson 2005 give us some suggestion to avoid this problem which are listening, engaging in dialogue, and utilizing productive conflict will increase the chances that groups will come up with a better solution because members have examined their assumptions and considered more viewpoints and possible solutions. However, Davis votes not guilty. However, Davis and others try everything in their power to question the accuracy of evidence by basing them on their observations.
Light or darkness, a fundamentally and essentially different type of light or darkness that can be understood on earth, has some real spiritual or aesthetic clarity only after the human experience has been "refined" into "the' angelic" or divine Levernier. At the beginning, nobody among the conference type group even discussed the matter, rather just went straight into a decision, but later one while arguing it can be seen various point of views when it comes to the decision. Standing up to the crowd he made an argument that theres more to this case than what they've looked at and that he wants to consider the details more. A negotiator needs to take note of the common types of behaviors that people exhibit during negotiations when determining how the negotiation will unfold. He's big, you know. In other words, he manages the group discussion, but he does not try to persuade them to vote according to his opinion. An overarching and obvious theme of communication in the movie is the impact that personality has on the way that individuals communicate with others.
This contributed a lot to him changing his vote later in the story. One juror remains who is not entirely convinced that the man is guilty of murder. Yet the boy, a product of the same community is an assumed liar. Group dynamics Premium Decision making Jury Group dynamics 12 Angry Men Introduction 12 Angry Men is the captivating story of 12 jurors trying to solve a case of murder. His leadership trait was extremely effective. He is in many ways like Fonda, who was an architect.
Communication in 12 Angry Men Character Analysis Essay Example
As the movie closes the not guilty verdict is handed down. His outburst has caused quite a disturbance in the room. This is one such movie which shows how group dynamics can actually lead to success or failures. The first was in the beginning of the movie, when the foreman gets everyone together in the room and has them sit down, assigning them each a number. Throughout the argumentation process, The architect used various methods such as common sense of life, life experience, legal common sense, scientific calculation, psychological presupposition, and a field experiment to reason, and finally achieved the purpose of persuading the group. As the film progresses, the leadership 12 Angry Men: The Importance of Personality in Negotiation Essay processes, style, and tactics during the negotiation process.
