The movie, 12 angry men, occurs in a jury deliberation room whereby a murder trial is taking place. In the room there are 12 men who are the judges of the trial. The jurors’ duty is to determine whether the 18year old boy who happens to be the defendant is innocent or guilty of his father’s death. A voting process takes place among the jurors since they consider it a fair way of proving the defendant trial .One of the jurors by the name Fonda votes not guilty as the rest of his colleagues votes the opposite that is the defendant is guilty. This creates a basement of argument as result of the differences in the viewpoint of the trial (Karen, 2007).
Despite of the fact that Fonda was all alone he does not give in to the others jurors argument but instead he tries to justify his point of view. Fonda mostly uses the reward and punish concept that involved the attention aspect hence he is able to listen to his fellow jurors and respond effectively to their argument and tend to ignore the issues that seem to contradict his point of view. The gesture that Fonda uses, though they seem tiny the help him to gather information from the other jurors and also makes him to think ahead others. Fonda makes use of creativity and critical thinking to discover new strategy of interpreting concepts (Jeff, 2006).
Buy Groupthink and 12 Angry Men essay paper online
All along from the beginning of the trial there was concept of conformity however, Fonda opts for nonconformity .In the movie we see that Fonda is able to conceive all the jurors to the extent of them changing their votes to not guilty. The defendant is released despite of him being guilty as a result of Fonda’s formidable persuasive powers where he is viewed as hero (Karen, 2007). This shows Fonda uses questions tactics to achieve his objectives in the trial.
The movie prove the evidence of group polarization since the jurors believes in conformity .The conformity happens at the onset of the voting process and as well at the end whereby after being conceived by Fonda to change their argument they want it to be among all the jurors. The aspect of thinking as group is of high risk since it tends not to stand by the evidence at hand like the issue in the movie.