Cultural Relativism in the Movie

12 Angry Men
The film, 12 Angry Men shows many social psychological events. The film
depicts a jury attempting to render a unanimous verdict in the murder trial of
a teenage boy. The process whereby the decision is reached illustrates a
situation where a minority transforms the opinion of a majority by exerting
persuasive tactics and demonstrating effective leadership. The movie
displays how prejudice, stereotyping, racism and other behaviors that hinder
communication could lead to catastrophic results.
The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government
opens the movie, entitled 12 Angry Men; it is one of George Washingtons
famous quotes which is engraved into the foundation of the justice system of
the United States of America both literally and figuratively (Lumet &Rose,
1957). The case of this movie is a murder; an 18 year old boy is alleged to
have killed his father. The facts of the case provide two eye witnesses
testimony which places the young boy in the vicinity of when the act was in
fact committed. The father sustained a stab wound to the chest, which was
four (4) inches deep by a switchblade pocket knife.
After the alternate jurors were dismissed the deliberation of a guilty or
not guilty verdict began in the jury room. The twelve (12) jurors were men of
various ages and occupations. The preliminary vote ruled 11 to 1 in favor of
the guilty verdict. With one man to convince the jury set out to return a
verdict as quickly possible to the judge. After several heated exchanges, and
approximately six (6) to eight (8) voting sessions, the jury produced the
verdict of not guilty.
Breckler, Olson & Wiggins (2006) defines group polarization as the
tendency for group discussions to strengthen the initial leanings of the
members in a group (p.409). Simply, group polarization suggests the same
concept as a magnet, where the iron fillings would be attracted to the side
which most attracts them. Also, in relation to the movie, 12 Angry Men, group
polarization is expected to be present in a jury room. This indicates that the
jury would lean predominantly toward either verdict (guilty or not guilty)
before actual discussions seek to highlight otherwise, in the case of Juror no.
8 in the movie; whom honestly did not know whether or not the boy was
guilty.
In Lumet & Rose (1957) the jurors preliminary verdict voting displayed a total
of eleven (11) to one (1), where the guilty verdict paved the way for the
discussions to begin. After a series of loud and angry outbursts and very
powerful manipulation of the evidence, one man is able to eventually make

the other eleven (11) jurors see the non-guilty verdict as possible enough
cause for the 18 year old boy to be sentenced to death.
The preliminary choice of the jurors for the guilty verdict may have
been as a result of group think as well as it may not have any part to do with
group think. According to Breckler, Olson & Wiggins (2006), group think is a
way of thinking within a decision making group when pressure to agree leads
to an inadequate appraisal of options and poor decisions (p. 404). To further
understand group think, it may be generally classified as a situation in a
group which results in bad decisions because of pressure to agree. In the
movie according to Lumet & Rose (1957) the preliminary vote was taken
directly after the jurors came in from the court room.
However, they first had the opportunity to converse with each other and get
acquainted. The case was loosely spoken off amongst themselves, suggesting
that the boy should be found guilty at once. This influence from the other
jurors provides slight pressure by believing that the boy was guilty without
assessing the situational evidence provided to their disposal. Breckler, Olson
& Wiggins (2006) also highlights that discussions prior to the final verdict
decision usually predicts the outcome because of the content of the
discussions entail (p.412).
According to Breckler, Olson & Wiggins (2006) deindividuation can be defined
as a psychological state in which people lose their sense of personal identity
and feel immersed in a group (p. 399). Another author; Silke (2003) agrees
but defines deindividuation as a psychological state in which inner restraints
are lost when individuals are not seen or paid attention to as individuals (p.
493). In the movie, the twelve men were not called by name; instead they sat
in order of juror numbers one (1) through twelve (12). This process was
conducted by the foreman, it left no room for the introduction and it kept
everything as formal as possible, no names were used also.
So it could be clearly seen that the jurors were devoid of a common form of
identification. Silke (2003) goes on to highlight that; anonymity, in
particular, has been identified as one of the key causes of deindividuation.
This statement supports the fact that by calling each juror by their number
created a sense of anonymity as suggested above. The article goes on further
to emphasize that when an individual comes to believe themselves as
anonymous or their identity unknown amongst group members, they are
more likely to behave in an aggressive and punitive manner (Silke 2003, p.
493). In relation to 12 Angry Men, the jurors did exchange heated
conversations throughout the movie while a verdict was trying to be deduced.
With the jury being a group in the minority, theorists have developed two
types of thinking in such groups; divergent thinking and convergent thinking.

As defined in Breckler, Olson & Wiggins (2006), convergent thinking is where

the individuals of a group approach problems with a standard or typical
outlook (p. 413). The jurors at the beginning had a preliminary vote, with
eleven (11) of them agreeing on the guilty. These eleven (11) men
approached the murder case with no open-mindedness, believing that the
courts evidence was sufficient and accurate enough to warrant the death by
electric chair to the 18 year old boy (Lumet & Rose, 1957).
The one (1) juror who stood alone in his not guilty ruling before the
deliberations begun expressed the other type of minority group thinking;
divergent thinking. Breckler, Olson & Wiggins (2006) defines divergent
thinking as someone possessing innovative and creative thoughts which
produce alternate approaches to problems. Juror no. 8 was the one (1) juror
that stood alone. He looked at the murder case the in a fresh light, which
created several other jurors to join him in choosing the verdict of not guilty by
manipulating the evidence over and over until what actually could of
happened did, and thus producing a not guilty verdict (Lumet & Rose, 1957).
Where leadership is concerned, the Juror who was nominated by the court
was the foreman and as such he was juror no. 1. This juror initially started out
at the formal leadership position. However, Juror no. 3, who was very loud
mouthed and quick tempered acted as though there was no formal leader,
and felt as if he should have taken over. Because of juror no. 8s persistence
he had the greatest impact upon the jurors and hence he emerged a leader
within the movie because of his influence on the deliberations (Lumet & Rose,
1957). These a fore mentioned types of leaders are highlighted in answering
the question; how is a leader identified or defined. Breckler suggested three
(3) ways; each way representing the jurors no. 1, 3 and 8 respectively
(p.415).
The functions performed by the leaders varied in the movie. According to
Breckler, Olson & Wiggins (2006), the functions of leaders are divided into
two groupings; the task achievement function and the group maintenance
function. The task achievement function was an attribute that juror no. 8
possessed. He was most effective in the productivity of jury by directing them
towards the goal of getting a suitable judgment. Juror no. 1 whom was the
foreman of the jury falls under the second grouping; group maintenance
function. He focused on keeping the order in the jury room, by scheduling
votes at the opportune time and keeping the heated discussions between
jurors under control before they turned physical (Lumet & Rose, 1957).
There are two types of leaders in relation to the groupings; the task leader
and the socioemotional leader. Juror no. 1 or the foreman falls under the
socioemotional leader more likely because he is the individual that dealt
more with the morale of the group by keeping the order and some semblance

of peace. The juror no. 8 would fall under the task leader because of his
taking charge after getting the jury to be productive in giving a verdict (p.
415).
In Breckler, Olson & Wiggins (2006) Juror no. 8 was truly an effective leader
because he was highly productive when it came to manipulating the evidence
to get the jurors to understand his viewpoint, having done such the jurors
changed their verdicts having apparently been satisfied with the explanation
of the evidence and so on. Also, juror no. 8 had the largest impact on the
jurors since the beginning when he said that he is not sure whether the boy
was guilty or not. The other jurors who joined his verdict of not guilty were
obviously pleased as to the effectiveness of how juror no. 8 made refuted the
testimonies made, which were not at all possible (p. 416-417).
Breckler, Olson & Wiggins (2006) defined social loafing as the reduction of
effort that people often exhibit when working in a group where individual
contributions are unidentifiable. The other jurors were being productive in
trying to deduce a verdict, there were two instances where members of the
jury did not show any avid interest in the case. First there was juror no. 12
who sat next to the watch maker; he works at an advertising agency. He was
working on a doodle of a cereal box rather than putting input into the
animated discussions. Another instance was when juror no. 8 began
explaining his perspective on the case and two jurors; no. 10 and no. 3 were
playing a game of tic-tac-toe to across the table (Lumet & Rose 1957).
Social facilitation according to Breckler, Olson & Wiggins (2006) is the effect
of the presence of other people on individual performance. The juror who was
affected by this would have been juror who sat next to the accountant, juror
no. 5. He appeared to be uncomfortable at first because of his place of
growing up. He did not feel inclined to speak initially, but he eventually was
able to adjust (Lumet & Rose 1957).
Basically, this movie was filled with the proof that in any situation, facts can
be manipulated to show all angles of a problematic situation and it is up to
more than one individual to make a competent decision. The altercation
between juror no. 8 and juror no. 3 involving the latter man being called a
self appointed public avenger displayed how his approach to the case had
been decided from the get go, because of his personal issues he was refusing
to assess the situation any differently than the lesson which he wanted to
teach his own 22 year old son.
The validity of eyewitness testimony was brought up several times as the jury
went through a series of prodding each and every testimony from the old
man and from the lady, both of which turned out not to match. Eyewitness
testimony should not be the basis of giving a judgment on a case because it

is not something that is not always accurate, due to the fact that human
memory is fallible (Breckler, Olson & Wiggins 2006, p. 83).
Finally, a very disturbing event in the movie involved stereotyping the area in
which the boy lives as a slum people and slums and those people are
dangerous and kill anyone for no reason at all, which lead to prejudice; where
juror no. 10 expressed his dislike for those types of people, next was
discrimination, where he wished that the jurors could select the guilty verdict
so that the boy could die, because that is what people like them should do.
Then to sum it all up juror no. 8 says only one thing; prejudice always
obscures the truth. In the end, the sensible decision was made, but it all
depends on whether or not people would stand up to the law, and look at
things with different perspectives.

References
Breckler, S.J., Olson, J.M., & Wiggins, E.C. (2006). Social psychology alive. CA,
United States:
Thomson Wadsworth.
http://www.kilibro.com/en/book/preview/2310/social-psychology-alive
http://www.studyblue.com/notes/b/social-psychology-alive/1904/0

Lumet, S. (Director). & Rose, R. (Writer). (1957). 12 Angry Men [Motion

picture]. Sweden:
Orion-Nova Productions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNuSoK6g6VQ

Silke, A. (2003). Deindividuation, anonymity, and violence: Findings from

Northern Ireland. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 143 (3), 493-499.

http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php?id=77099