PSY362-RS-T7 PDF

Preview

Summary

12 angry men worksheet with responses...

Description

Topic 7: Groups and Aggression 12 Angry Men For this assignment, you will need to watch the film, 12 Angry Men (1957, Orion-Nova Productions). The film brings to life many of the concepts covered in class to date. Below, please provide specific examples from the film to support your ideas/claims. Integrate at least two sources: One from the book and one from the film. Be sure to include proper APA citations within your document and at the end (reference section). Note: Most of this information can be pulled from your textbook. You may type directly into this worksheet. Each answer must be substantial and include some detail if you want to earn full credit. Be sure to define the concepts. 1. Define patterns of persuasion, conformity, minority influence, and other social influences. Provide specific examples witnessed in the film. Persuasion: Persuasion is to influence people to do, say or believe something they may not have otherwise. Juror 8 uses persuasion in the movie numerous times as the jurors change their votes from guilty to not guilty throughout the movie. For example, Juror 8 buys the same switchblade from a pawn shop the night before for under 10 dollars to prove anyone could have had the same knife. Also. Conformity: Conformity is defined as “changing one’s behavior and/or beliefs about something because of pressure from an outside source” (Gilovich, Keltner, Chen & Nisbett, 2016). During the first few minutes into the movie there was an example of conformity. As the jury first entered the room a few of them immediately shared their opinion that the defendant was guilty. After an argument, a public vote showed some jury members were hesitant and voted to conform with the majority. This truly became evident after a blind vote when Juror 9 changed his vote to not guilty. The anonymity of the vote removed the pressure to conform.

Minority Influence: Minority influence is what the whole film is about. This is when the minority in a group changes the minds of the majority of the group. The initial vote was 11 guilty to 1 not guilty. Juror 8 was the only one that did not feel pressure or conform to the majority. When asked why he voted not guilty he said, “I don’t know if he is guilty or not guilty, but we need to talk about it.” Throughout the

movie he slowly persuades the other jurors to change their votes by asking questions to make them think of the facts. This is a great example of minority influence. Other social influences: Two types of other social influences are normative social influence and informational social influences Normative social influences occur “when the desire to avoid being criticized, disapproved of or outcast from the group for your thoughts and ideas” (Gilovich et al., 2016). Normative social influence seems to happen when there is conformity. In the beginning of the movie there is an example of this during the first vote when a few of the jurors looked around before they voted to see what the majority was going to vote. They wanted to avoid criticism in the group. Informational social influences occur “when an individual is reliant on other peoples comments and action to know what is right in a situation” (Gilovich et al., 2016). Informational social influences begin as the jurors start to talk about the facts of the case. One juror mentioned how if would be difficult to hear someone say “I am going to kill you” next to the train tracks due to the noise level. Another juror pointed out the fact that the witness who wears glasses could not have been wearing them as she was sleeping prior to the event. These examples of informational social influences can help change the way people may think about a situation.

2. First define the terms stereotypes and prejudice. Next, analyze issues of stereotypes and prejudice observed while watching the jurors deliberate in the film. There are many to choose from! Stereotypes: A fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. Prejudice: To prejudge a person or group based on previous experiences. Example 1: Juror 3 stereotyped people from the slums at least two times. First when he felt that since the defendant was from the slums with a prior record, he was guilty. He also assumed the actual murderer was from the slums. This is a stereotype that dangerous criminals are only from the slums. Example 2: Juror 7 has a prejudice against the defendant since he has already been in trouble with the law and has been in a knife fight. Example 3: Juror 10 shows prejudice as he refers to people from a certain socioeconomic and minority class as “those people” and makes a comment of “you know what you’re dealing with.” He implied that his background automatically made him a liar.

Example 4: When one juror who happened to be from a foreign country suggested that one of the other jurors didn’t understand the meaning of reasonable doubt, the juror got angry and yelled “how do you like this guy? He come over here running from his life, and before he can take a breath, he is telling us how to run the show. The arrogance of him” (Ellsworth, (n. d.), P. 1391). Since the foreign juror wasn’t American, he was automatically stereotyped. His status became a problem to other jurors when didn’t agree with them. Had he remained quiet the other jurors would not have shown their prejudice and stereotyping towards him.

3. In psychology, heuristics are simple, efficient rules which people often use to form judgments and make decisions. They are mental shortcuts that usually involve focusing on one aspect of a complex problem and ignoring others. Provide an example of three cognitive heuristics represented in the film and label them (e.g. availability, false consensus, social proof). Next, define the three heuristics that you selected. Explain where/how the three heuristics occurred in the film. Define the three cognitive heuristics that you selected: Example Heuristic 1: The defendant had the alibi of seeing a movie at the time his father was killed. However, he could not remember specific information about the movie. As one juror decided this proved he was lying about his alibi, another juror asked the juror about specifics of the last movie he saw. This juror could not remember specifics either. Since the juror was not under any stress like the defendant it showed that the defendant could in fact be telling the truth even though he could not recall specific information. With this alibi of being at the movies the availability to commit this crime isn’t there, also there is social proof that he was not home at the time. Example Heuristic 2: Some jurors had a false consensus that the defendant had a motive of his father hitting him while growing up. Juror 3 shared the story of his relationship with his son to prove that this does not mean the boy is a murderer. Example Heuristic 3: Jurors 3 and 10 had a false consensus of the defendant’s upbringing and criminal past and immediately thought he was guilty because of that. They put him in the same category as “others” without any social proof. 4. Define the term catalyst for change. Next, interpret the catalyst for change that resulted in the outcome of the film, based on your perceptions. How does this line up with some of the research in social psychology? The term Catalyst for change simply means the thing that sparks or makes something change. At the start of the movie each juror made up their minds to vote guilty for various reasons. Either stereotypes or

wanting to be done quickly. However, when juror 8 makes everyone look at the details and facts of the case, the jurors that conformed with the normative social influences in the beginning change their votes from guilty to not guilty. After evaluating the evidence, the jurors decide the defendant is not guilty or there is not enough evidence to prove he is guilty. The actions in this movie are common when a group of people come together, in the beginning people are more likely to conform to the majority of the group. People fear being outcast or ridiculed for their thoughts and ideas. When someone speaks up or the group is split, more and more people are more likely to no conform and be an active participant in the group. This is when group think takes place instead of conformity. In the end all the jurors were active participants in group think and came up with a not guilty verdict unanimously.

5. Define groupthink and group polarization. Next, explain how the film demonstrated groupthink and group polarization. Define Group Think: Groupthink is the “concept developed to explain the effect of the group on decision-making, with the idea that a group can make better and easier decisions” (Katopol, P. 2). Within the group, pressures on the individual and on the group, as well as personal interests, “work to reduce the hard work of thinking and considering alternatives that might result in better decisions” (Katopol, P. 2).

Define Group Polarization: Group polarization “occurs when people’s attitudes change and become more extreme following a discussion with like-minded individuals” (Keating, Van Boven & Judd, 2016, P. 52). It is common for people misjudge their own attitudes towards a situation, as they will often view their own attitudes as unbiased and stable.

Examples from the film illustrating groupthink and group polarization: At the beginning, the jury got angry when one person didn’t vote the same as the rest as this would cause them to spend more time deliberating. At different points during the deliberation the jurors got angry for different and similar reasons. The jurors realized they all had things in common and finally calmed down enough to decide on a not guilty verdict. This group of very different individuals had to come together and decide on whether or not a person is guilty or innocent of killing his father. The needed to make a unanimous decision and needed to use groupthink for this decision. Each juror uses their own critical thinking processes and individual thoughts and still work together to decide on a not guilty verdict. References...