The study of self and society and in particular social influence is made complex by the fact that the tenets of this area and the relationships are complex. This paper presents a review of the classical movie Twelve Angry Men by Director Sidney Lumet (1957) in the context of the theory above. A succinct overview of the film is presented, followed by an evaluation of some of the concepts in the title above that feature in the film and finally a conclusion.
Brief description of the film
The film, Lumet (1957), tells a story of a jury consisting of 12 white men who deliberate the guilt or acquittal of the defendant, a teenage boy charged with the murder of his father. Before the commencement of deliberations, the jury is given strict instructions that in case of a reasonable doubt, the jury must bring a verdict of “not guilty” while in case of the contrary, the jurors must bring a verdict of guilty which translates into mandatory death of the defendant. As the deliberations begin, it is clear that all the members of the jury but Henry Fonda believe that the guilt is very open and the case is shut. In his sole position against eleven men, Henry Fonda is faced by two challenges: first, to persuade the jury to give a second thought into the details and hence the verdict of not guilty; two, to convince them that there is reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Following discussions on various elements of the case including the witnesses’ evidence, the minority influence that began with Fonder turns to be the majority. Eventually, the jury decides that there is reasonable doubt as to whether the boy is guilty and therefore gives a verdict of not guilty.
Concepts
Minority influence
Minority influence refers to a situation where a small number of people in a group lead to overall change in the group’s attitude or beliefs (Bernstein, 2012). Minority influence is an overarching theme in the movie. This observation can be made from the beginning of the film. As the film begins (Lumet, 1957), Henry Fonda takes a differing view on the case from what the other eleven members of the jury believe. Unlike the others who have a strong belief that the defendant is guilty, Henry Fonda takes a “not-guilty” steadfast minority stance. However, his influence on the rest appears to draw all the others to support his opinion. Eventually, everyone else supports his opinion that there is reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime and is hence not guilty.
Conformity
Conformity is a change in behavior in response to real or imagined pressure from others where there is no direct request to comply (Sanderson, 2010). Towards the end of the film, Lee Cobb feels that he is under pressure from the group to comply with their stance regarding the case (Lumet, 1957). He declares that he has a right to his opinion but gives in. nobody asked him directly to change his stance, but the atmosphere seemed to be against him and therefore he submitted.
Persuasive arguments
Persuasive arguments are messages or statements that are intended to shape, reinforce or change the responses of another or others (Sanderson, 2010). This concept can illustrate throughout the movie. Henry Fonda sets out to persuade his counterparts to consider the other side of the argument which seems to not have been well catered for even in prior court proceedings. From the outlook, it may seem that the case is closed. Fonda does not uphold this view but rather opts to explore the details where he finds reasonable doubt. He succeeds in both of his attempts namely: to convince his counterparts to review the details and to pass a verdict of “not guilty”. Similarly, the other members are determined to convince Fonda to agree with their view that the defendant is guilty, though unsuccessfully.
Informational influence
Informational influence occurs when people are influenced by others because of a desire to be correct and to obtain valid information (Bernstein, 2012). People therefore would tend to trust the judgment of others or view them as a source of information in a particular context. The judgment of Marshall regarding the use of spectacles as far as the case is concerned appears handy to the jury (Lumet). When asked whether anyone with spectacles goes to bed with them, his response is taken as a fact and nobody questions him about it. His judgment is taken to be a valuable and definite source of information by all the members of the jury.
Social comparison
In social comparison, people evaluate themselves in part by contrasting their own attributes and abilities with those of others. This is also a prominent concept in the film. Fiedler compares himself or at least a part of a group in the jury to Ed Begley. He termed him as loud mouthed. In another instance, Robert Webber also tries to differentiate himself from the group by loudly discussing his profession and achievements with another member of the jury. In yet another illustration, one juror compares his personality to another, viewing his up-bringing as decent and different from the other’s upbringing, which he offers as an explanation for the disparity between their behaviors.
Group polarization
Group polarization is a group’s tendency to incline the average post-discussion views towards a more extreme degree than initially (Bernstein, 2012). This may be due to a number of factors such as increased confidence and reduced individual responsibility. In the film, this concept is observable at the beginning. Most of the members of the jury hold an even stronger stance of “not guilty” following a vote count that identified eleven out of twelve holding a common opinion as opposed to one. Consequently, some of characters demand that the verdict be made in five minutes. They base their demands on the fact that almost the entire jury shares the view that the defendant is guilty of the charge.
Cognitive dissonance
Cognitive dissonance involves the discomfort or feeling associated with having two cognitions that constitute two opposing views (Sanderson, 2010). This concept is an important feature of the film. Lee Cobb is seen to be completely humbled by the idea that he also supports the verdict of “not guilty”. Though he removes evidence to back his former opinion that the defendant is certainly guilty, he hardly controls his emotions as he declares that the defendant is not guilty. There are other similar instances in the movie that illustrate this concept. In an earlier incidence, it can be observed from the movie that Robert Webber was also split between two choices. After joining a section of the jury that is in support of the “not guilty” verdict, he reverts back for some time when he finds himself uncomfortable with the decision.
Framing
Framing in social psychology refers to a phenomenon where people will react differently as a result of how information is presented to them. Fonda constantly uses framing in his attempts to draw the attention and gain support of the entire jury. In a particular argument with Lee Cobb, the latter uttered that “ I’ll kill him”. Fonda repeated the words in a different way, emphasizing that Cobb did not really mean he would kill him in the real sense.
Stereotype
A stereotype is a false or misleading generalization about a social group and contains the perceiver’s knowledge, beliefs and expectancies about the group. Ed Begley stereotype regarding slum children is misinformed and harsh. He insensitively argues that children brought up in such slums are usually perpetrators of crime. This categorization of the group significantly influences his decision as to whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. He claims that the defendant, like any other young man brought up in the slums, is dangerous and certainly guilty of the charge. Despite disapproval of his stereotype about the group from Ed Begley, he does not change his prejudice towards the group.
Conclusion
The film serves as tool for the study of self and society particularly the study of social influence. Multiple concepts of social psychology, including those discussed above, are featured in the movie. The characters exhibit diverse behavior and are from diverse backgrounds, which bring an important aspect of group dynamics into the film. This enhances the functionality of the movie as an instructional tool because in practice, the society is characterized by various tenets of diversity. Although social influence as a study is broad in scope, the film Twelve Angry Men offers a profound insight into the field. The chain of events that sees eleven jurors against one cross over to support the opposing view is wide and complex. This complexity is employed well enough to provide the insight into social influence. Although the film can serve as a good instructional tool, its confinement to an environment in the courtrooms limits the ability to incorporate other concepts of social psychology. This limitation implies that the movie may have some drawbacks in explaining social influence with reference to a modern society. Even so, the movie still holds today to a substantial degree.
Works Cited
Bernstein, Douglas. Essentials of Psychology. New York, Sage. 2012. Print.
Lumet, Sidney. “12 Angry Men”. 1957. [Film]
Sanderson A. Catherine. Social Psychology New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2010. Print
