A Case Study on

12 ANGRY MEN

Submitted To: Submitted By: Dr. Swarup Kumar Mohanty Chauhan Mr. Ajeet Singh

INTRODUCTION
Twelve Angry Men is set in New York in 1957, directed by Sydney Lumet, and starring Henry Fonda and other stars: Martin Balsam, Ed Begley, Lee J. Cobb, Jack Klugman, E.G. Marshall etc. and the entire action of the play takes place on one hot afternoon and evening in the jury room of a court of law. There are 12 main characters in the movie who as juries are gathered to take a decision collectively. The issue that they need to discuss and come onto agreement was The boy, who is accused of murdering his father is guilty or not. All the 12 members were common men and they have their own likes, dislikes, perceptions, emotions. All of them except one were in favor of the boy as guilty of murder. One strong and logical opposition based on proofs, logics, sequence of events, and patience converts all of them in favor of the boy. In the end all of them agreed on boy as Not Guilty The victim: The defendants (deceased) father. He had a history of gambling, violence, unstable employment and had been in prison. He is described as not exactly a model citizen The defendant: A sixteen-year-old boy accused of fatally stabbing his father. He comes from an underprivileged socioeconomic background and has a history of abuse by his father. He has a prior criminal record, including theft and violence, and has

appeared in a Childrens Court and served time in a Reform School.

OB CONCEPTS INTEGRATION
The jury situation portrayed in 12 angry men had a lot of symptoms that would normally lead to a groupthink phenomenon. For example, the majority of the group had a belief in the moral correctness of their decisionthey were punishing a bad person, they had a stereotyped view of the people who opposed them. There was extreme pressure to conform, an illusion of unanimity; many of the jurors didnt initially voice their opinions and strong personalities tried to push the group in a certain direction. Despite these symptoms, the minority was able to override the majority and vote to NOT GUILTY. Many of the jurors had stereotypes about kids who grow up in slums and who belong to certain minority groups. This tendency led them to make internal attribution for the boys behavior and also led to the biased interpretation of the evidence. While voting and expressing themselves juries were facing strong pressure to conform to the majority. This was a rare case of minority influence in which a minority of individuals were able influence the grouprather than the reverse. The main reason behind this result was the Leadership of Jury 8th (Henry Fonda). One main quality which he exhibited was Persuasion. Persuasion convincing strangers to consider new perspectives, new insights, and new goalsis a fundamental, challenging task of leadership because it requires a deep investment of personal character, mental stamina, and a capacity for emotional insight perfectly balanced with the ability to reason. Group Effectiveness Model was proposed by Schwarz in 2002. It can be used to identify where group thinking has gone wrong. Schwarz describes three stages of group success. Performance Personal Process

When expectations meet or exceeds; if group members develop and grow through the group experience and if the group learns to work together, then the group has experienced some success. Some of the elements that are essential to the group work itself are group context, structure and process. It was a group trying to come at a conclusion within a locked room, operating in a high stress situation, getting affected by heat and having some time concerns, and biggest pressure to come to a unanimous decision. Conformity was also apparent upon the initial vote; we can also say that informational and normative influences played a role. According to the theory of informational influence, those who were not too sure of the not-guilty position would have seen the other people raise their hands and they must have believed that truth lies in numbers.