• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10

Group Dynamics Paper.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Justin Smith Group Dynamics Paper 2/18/03 Group Definition A group is the interaction of two or more independent people, usually working together to achieve a goal. This group consists of "12 angry men," put together as a jury. Their goal to decide if the defendant is guilty or not guilty. Since these men did not choose to be put together, and had no prior association with one another before placement into this selected group, various contrasting personalities that both support and clash are working toward this goal of finding the defendant unanimously guilty or not guilty as a final verdict for the court. Such contrasts of personality creates a conflicting atmosphere in the courtroom. Such dynamic interactions are what makes the group development interesting. Group Development & Problems Throughout the movie a group development occurs where jurors question their vote due to the persuasion of other group members as new ways of looking at the facts or emotions of the case are analyzed amongst the group or by inner, silent thinking of the individual jurors. Group development is the changes that occur in the group from first meeting to coming up with an unanimous verdict (the conclusion). Much emotion and development of thinking occurs as time proceeds and the juror's individual thinking is challenged. This is the development of what will create a final, more thought out decision of the group. Character & Roles Roles are the titles that distinguish members of a group from one another. All members of this group are jury members. Although each jury member has an equal role not all jury members are created equal. ...read more.

Middle

Most Respected...(so maybe most liked)....the old man....(some blue and some white collars like him) Social Influence: conformity Social influence is interpersonal processes that change the thoughts, feelings, or behaviors of another person. In the movie, 12 Angry Men, the jurors who think the defendant is guilty are trying to persuade or change the feelings of the jurors who think he is not guilty. They are using social influence to try and change their minds. To be more specific, we consider different types of social influence. These types include concepts about conformity, majority influence, and minority influence. Conformity is a change in behavior or belief as a result of real or imagined group pressure. The first preliminary vote by the jury yields an 11 to 1 vote in favor of guilty. Why was this? Was this because most of the jury members thought he was guilty from the beginning, and people who were undecided felt they should vote guilty because of imagined group pressure? Most of the jurors when asked why they voted the way they did said; they were just "sure he was guilty", or because "the evidence points right to him." This may be true for some of the jurors, but most, perhaps unconsciously, felt pressure to conform to what others were saying. Juror number 8 is the one and only juror that voted not guilty. Henry Fonda plays juror number 8 in the movie. He is in his middle 30's, average size, short dark hair, and is an architect. Juror number 8 felt all the other jurors voted guilty without even thinking about their decisions, juror #8 suggested that they talk about it before jumping to conclusions. ...read more.

Conclusion

Majorities seem to possess this kind of thinking, as is the case with 12 Angry Men. The majority members in the jury focused only on the testimony given by the witnesses. They did not consider any possible other alternatives. When it came to the witnesses, their testimonies were undoubtedly right and there was no reason to consider anything else about it. Divergent thinking occurs when we start with a problem and rather than look for one answer, we instead generate many ideas or possible solutions. The minority influence grew in support as the movie went on because members of the jury started to use divergent thinking when considering the trial. Instead of being focused on only one solution, they were considering other possibilities that could have explained what happened the night of the murder. When the jury considers the woman across the street that says she saw the boy kill his father, convergent thinkers assume everything is accurate in her testimony, because there is no other solution in their minds. What juror number 8 does is help the jury see another side to the story. Could the woman see the murder through a moving train at night when she was in bed? Convergent thinkers would say absolutely, while divergent thinkers would consider other possible scenarios. Juror #8 just wanted everyone to think about any other possibilities. In this case, the divergent thinkers noticed that she wore eyeglasses by the indentations on the sides of her nose. They then think about the fact that most people don't go to sleep with their glasses on. So they wonder how the woman could have accurately seen the murder and murderer. Maybe she did see the murder perfectly, but now there is some reasonable doubt. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Machinery of Justice section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Machinery of Justice essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    ‘Trial by jury is outdated, expensive and ineffective in ensuring justice’ Analyse arguments for ...

    4 star(s)

    Auld also recommended that changes be made to permit a judge to provide 'ethnic representation' if a case has a racial issue. This was, of course, also recommended by Runciman in his 1993 Commission, but has again been rejected (Sanders & Young, 200:565).

  2. The winslow boy

    Dickie is Ronnie's older brother who likes to concentrate more on girls and music than studying for his degree, he's a very nice kind person. John Watherstone is in love with Catherine and his preparing to ask her father Arthur for her hand in marriage.

  1. What changes have been made to the novel Harry Potter to make the film ...

    is used as part of the speech to convey to the audience that Dobby understands but has something else to add which would make the audience want to know what Dobby means and pay careful attention to hear his next utterance.

  2. 'Juries are anti-democratic, irrational and haphazard.' To what extent do you think that this ...

    A jury is used very rarely in civil cases and hears cases involving fraud, defamation of character or malicious prosecution. When a case is heard in the High Court requires twelve as discussed earlier.

  1. Microsoft Antitrust Case Microsoft is a large diversified computer software manufacturer. Microsoft produces ...

    The breakup reduces the applications barrier to entry since now the applications company might writ popular Microsoft applications for other platforms. In my opinion the government failed to so that the proposed breakup was the appropriate remedy. The Department of Justice needed to show that conduct remedies would not work and it failed to do so.

  2. Let Him Have It " This film (let him have it) is directed by ...

    Craig decided to shot his way out and fired at Pc Fairfax wounding him in the shoulder. At some time during the shooting Bentley is alleged to have said the now famous word, which could have meant anything, "Let Him Have It, Chris".

  1. Describe trial by jury within the English legal system. How effective is trial by ...

    The judge will sum up and direct the jury upon the relevant law. The judge decides questions of law, and the jury decides issues of fact, and the judge must tell the jury what facts are necessary to a particular conviction and must take the jury through the evidence, pointing

  2. Expert Testimony and Its Value In the Justice System

    The reform suggested by the Law Commission would help to prevent the prosecutor?s fallacy as it would ensure that the Judge scrutinises the way that the data is applied to the actual case. If the evidence given in the Sally Clark case was given under the new rules then in

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work