Examples Of Perseverance In 12 Angry Men

Belief Perseverance
The concept of belief perseverance (Myers, 82) can be found in the film, “12 Angry Men”. Throughout the film, the jury members discuss the verdict of a young, Mexican boy. It is essential to note that all twelve men serving on the jury are Caucasian. Somewhat because of the boy’s ethnicity, many of the jurors are initially in support of submitting a guilty verdict. This is made clear in the film when Juror #10 verbalizes what he ‘thinks’ is the opinion of the group; “Now, look - we're all grown-ups in here. We heard the facts, didn't we? You're not gonna tell me that we're supposed to believe this kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I've lived among them all my life - you can't believe a word they say, you know that. I mean

they're born liars.” There were also negative comments made in reference to the boy being from the slums, and that somehow influencing the likelihood that he murdered his father. Another juror mentions that “children from the slums were nothing but potential menaces to society”; they even brought up the boys criminal record. They are clearly attacking this man’s character and stating that the situation was not incredibly important. It is then insinuated that even if the evidence does not necessarily add up the boy is still a liar and his type does not deserve to be free. Only a few jurors fight this error of judgment and remind the others that his rough upbringing may have had something to do with his past convictions and that this situation did not necessarily warrant violence toward his father.

Informational Influence
Conformity was apparent upon the initial hand vote. The scene in the film was able to help us infer the concepts of normative and informational influences and to what extent those concepts played a role in the decision-making process. According to the theory of informational influence (Myers, 213), those who were less certain of a not-guilty verdicts would have seen the a number of other members voting and believed that they had to be right strictly because of the strength in numbers. Within the context of the jury room conformity is a dangerous device. “12 Angry Men” exemplifies the power of informational social influence and normative social influence. These theories were developed through the research of Muzafer Sherif, Solomon Asch and other researchers. According to informational social influence individuals conform because they believe that other’s interpretation of an ambiguous situation is more valid, than their own. Considering other’s interpretations and judgments of an ambiguous event, much like this one, often leads to conformity caused by informational social influence. This theory is applicable within the juror’s decision processes of the “ 12 Angry Men.” Informational social influence is aggravated by the ambiguity of the situation, importance of being correct, and the importance of a jury deliberation that results unanimous verdict. I think Juror #8 perfectly explains the ambiguous nature of the situation that they face as jurors when he states, “It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth. I don't really know what the truth is. I don't suppose anybody will ever really know. Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent, but we're just gambling on probabilities - we may be wrong. We may be trying to let a guilty man go free, I don't know. Nobody really can. But we have a reasonable doubt, and that's something that's very valuable in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it's sure.”

Normative Influence
Normative influence (Myers, 213) was also evident in this film when a few of the jurors are not sure where they stand and they may have sided with the initial majority to avoid being the “odd man out.” An example of this in the film would be Juror #9, the Old Man. When he first voted he was one of the last to raise his hand to side with the prosecution, however, he was the first juror to be persuaded. This type of conforming in order to be accepted and liked by others was famously demonstrated by Solomon Asch in 1951. In the film, only Juror #8 stood against the majority. There are several reasons why it is difficult for a person to stand out as a minority among a larger group; if the group is very close in time and space it is harder to stand alone and it is also more difficult when the group is three or more-all of these factors tied to the jury setting. One other factor that increases the effect of normative social influence is the availability of allies. When Juror #9, the Old Man, changed his guilty vote, he says “This gentleman has been standing alone against us. Now, he doesn't say that the boy is *not* guilty; he just isn't *sure*. Well, it's not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others, so he gambled for support... and I gave it to him. I respect his motives. The boy is probably guilty, but - eh, I want to hear more. Right now the vote is 10 to 2...” The Old Man acknowledges that he changed his vote to offer support to Juror #8.
Conformity due to social influence is exposed throughout the film. Within the first moments of the film in jury room, heated debate is precluded by an initial vote. This vote, taken publicly, was susceptible to normative social influence, an element of social influence, or conformity due to a fear of appearing to be a divergent. As the jurors cast their initial vote, hesitancy is obvious in many of the eleven men whom vote guilty. This timidity can be interpreted as weak belief that has been swayed by the guilty majority’s influence.
Perceived pressure, upon a jury, by judges and prosecutors, could confound the jury process and create conformity according to the theory of normative informational social influence. An example of this in the film is the Judge’s speech to the jury before they leave the courtroom to deliberate. “One man is dead, another man's life is at stake, if there's a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused, uh a reasonable doubt, then you must bring me a verdict of not-guilty. If, however, there's no reasonable doubt, then you must, in good conscience, find the accused "Guilty". However you decide, your verdict must be unanimous. In the event that you find the accused "Guilty", the bench will not entertain a recommendation for mercy. The death sentence is mandatory in this case. You're faced with a grave responsibility, thank you, gentlemen.” This speech conveys the significance and severity of the situation at hand, increasing the pressure perceived by the jurors.
Additionally, time constraints impair informational influence and it is reasonable to assume that it possibly played a role in causing some of the jurors to cast guilty, conformist votes. Many jurors made reference to having other plans for the day than just jury deliberation. As one of the jurors reminds the group, “I have tickets to tonight’s Yankees game,” putting the rest under his time constraints.

“Groupthink”
The poor decision-making, known as groupthink (Myers, 290) occurs when the desire or need to achieve consensus or maintain group harmony keep groups from thinking through a decision carefully and weighing all the evidence. The initial vote in “12 Angry Men” the social psychology concept of groupthink is illustrated. There are numerous factors that promote groupthink in “12 Angry Men”. These men share a common purpose, which influences the cohesiveness of the group. The purpose of this jury is to come to a unanimous decision. They are also isolated from others in the deliberation room, removing the chance for the jury to be swayed by an outside group. Additionally what influenced the poor decision-making that is associated with groupthink was the lack of methodical procedures. There are not many rules and guidelines in a jury deliberation room, and more often then not it is up to the Foreman of the jury to maintain some sort of order. In this film, although he had been selected as the leader of the jury, he did not identify as a leader himself. Instead, directive leaders emerged, like Juror #3. Directive leaders are the most vocal and dominant members of a group. Direct pressures on those who disagree and self-censorship are also important factors to consider when examining the power of groupthink. Failure to share unique information is also hindered when groupthink is present in a situation. This occurs when people hold back on talking about information that only they may have. This information may be very important in helping the group make the best decision. The influence of unique information can be seen in the film with Juror #5. While the jurors are discussing the murder scene, Juror #5 suddenly realizes that the position of the switchblade knife is odd. Due to his knowledge of usage of a switchblade, as a result of living in a poor, violent neighborhood, he informs the other jurors that switchblade knives are normally used underhand, unlike the overhand method presented by the prosecution of how the stabbing was done.

Minority Influence
In “12 Angry Men”, Juror #8 displayed the true power of the numerical minority to sway the view and decisions of the majority, as well as the opinion.

There are quite a few specific factors that affect whether the minority can influence the majority’s opinion. For example, when Juror #9 becomes an ally of support for Juror #8 in his defection from the majority consensus. Although Juror #8 may have started with only one ally, gradually he gained support from other jury members. Another important factor in the power of minority influence (Myers, 298) is the consistency of the viewpoint. Juror #8 never ‘flip-flops’, proponents of the minority position must stand firm against the pressure to conform. Even when Juror #8 is taunted by his fellow jurors after voting not-guilty in the initial vote he stands firm on his position and resists the pressure to conform. Furthermore, high self-confidence and self-assurance improves the position of the minority. Juror #8 presented firm and forceful arguments without being overbearing. He justifies his not-guilty vote by saying, “I just think we owe him a few words, that's all.” In the film, there is also a point in the discussion where Juror #6 defends those who voted not-guilty from the bullying, shouting, and name-calling from the other jurors. Throughout the film, Juror #3 is a bully, a specific example of insulting nature it seen in the film when another not-guilty ballot is received and he attacks Juror #5. He shouts, “Brother, you really are somethin'. You sit here vote guilty like the rest of us, then some golden-voiced preacher starts tearing your poor heart out about some underprivileged kid, just couldn't help becoming a murderer, and you change your vote. Well, if that isn't the most sickening - *why don't you drop a quarter in his collection box?” his criticisms of the other jurors does not sway people to his side. In reality, when a minority gathers strength people feel freer to think outside the box without the fear

of ridicule and rejection. When minority influence is successful in changing the opinion of the majority, it generally involves informational influence and eventually leads to private acceptance. This type of social influence helps to counteract and even potentially prevent groupthink. This further strengthens the power of the minority. Once a minority starts to gather strength, deeper processing of information occurs, leading to more creative thinking by more and more jury members.