Twelve Angry Men was produced in 1957 by Orion Nova Productions and displays various main topics that are prevalent to social psychology. Throughout the diverse conversations and the strong emotions displayed, it was clear to see social psychological theories at play. This movie provided examples of persuasion, conformity, minority influence, prejudice, cognitive heuristics, a catalyst of change, group polarization and groupthink.
Persuasion, Conformity, and Minority Influence
Persuasion throughout the film was obvious as the jurors were trying to convince others to see what they saw and believe what they believed to be true. Some of the jurors gave precise points of evidence and built a strong argument to persuade the others to believe the same as them, however, another juror used prejudicial and racial stereotypes to persuade the jurors in another fashion. Out of the three models of persuasion, logos and pathos were used to appeal to the other jurors’ sense of emotion and reasoning (Persuasion, 2018). Logos was used to appeal to the other jurors’ sense of logic and reasoning and can be seen when jurors used factual evidence and constructed a clear and concise argument. Pathos can be seen when the prejudicial statements were made to evoke emotion out of the group and persuade them to believe the same as they do. Conformity was used in the film when the first vote was casted amongst the jurors, as it related to the Groupthink study that was performed. It was clear to see that some of the jurors felt guilty for choosing to convict the individual, however, most of them went along with what the majority of the group was saying so they would not be outcasted. Contrary to most beliefs, minority influence can override the majority’s opinion, which was displayed in the film. The minority of the jurors believed that the individual was not guilty, and later persuaded the rest of the jurors to believe the same. They did this by remaining consistent in their views, and holding their ground by rebutting all arguments against them while remaining confident that their decision was the best one.
Prejudice
Prejudice can form against groups of individuals, and throughout this movie it was against the race of the individual who was on trial as he differed from the men on the jury. The patterns of prejudice that were seen when the jurors were discussing the individual and making slight comments to insinuate that the individual looks like a killer and comes from an environment that produces criminals. Juror number 4 states that children that come from lower socioeconomic areas are potential menaces to society which is a clear indication of prejudice as he is referring to a group of people being more likely to be something, rather than referring to an individual or their own characteristics. Another juror stated that while sitting in the court room, he had never seen someone who looked more guilty and that he was a dangerous killer as one person could see it, referring that dangerous killers are supposed to look a certain way, which is prejudicial and stereotypical. It was also mentioned that the defendant had a prior history of violence to suggest that he committed this crime as well, which is prejudice as the group of people who have committed crimes are automatically assumed to be more at fault for other crimes.
Cognitive Heuristics
Heuristics are defined as shortcuts to solve decisions by minimizing the effort used, but can often ignore parts of the information and often creates greater errors than using logic and other decision making processes (Gaissmaier & Gigerenzer, 2011). There was evidence of this being used when the original vote was casted amongst the jurors, when majority of them opted to convict the defendant based solely off what they heard, without thinking into their decision. The decision was made very quickly by using cognitive heuristics which ignored certain parts of the information that was provided, to make a quick decision. This was reversed, when the one member of the jury helped the others think through their decision and eventually changed the verdict that was given by the rest of the members.
Catalyst of Change
The catalyst of change in this film is the juror that persuaded the rest to interpret the information in a more meaningful and deeper manner, rather than just agreeing with the majority of the group. Because of this, the opinion eventually changed of all of the jurors as the one juror ensured the rest were positive they were sure the defendant had committed the murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The juror consistently held his opinion and stance on the trial throughout the film, which further allowed the others to see another viewpoint which eventually resulted in the outcome of the film.
Group Polarization and Groupthink
The group in the film demonstrated group polarization and groupthink when elaborating on their views of the case as well as when the votes were casted. Group polarization was shown when the jurors with racist or classist views described why they believed the defendant to be guilty, and their confidence after the conversation. The jurors believed that the defendant was more guilty after this conversation and believed that he should be convicted of this crime. Groupthink was displayed when the original vote was casted amongst the jurors and eleven of them agreed that the defendant was guilty, but later on some showed they were unsure. After this, it was clear to see that some of those in the jury agreed with the majority opinion, primarily because more people believed in this view. The responses after the votes when asked why they think the defendant is guilty were vague, prejudicial, or contained statements such as “Because he is!”.
In conclusion, the film 12 Angry Men displayed various theories that are related to social psychology when monitoring groups of people together discuss and work together, as well as monitoring for prejudicial views. This film displayed patterns of persuasion, conformity, minority influence, prejudice, cognitive heuristics, a catalyst of change, group polarization and groupthink.