12 Angry Men Essay
The movie “12 Angry Men” covers different negotiation and conflict resolutions. The communication is set in a jury room where people with different worldview are bargaining over the judgment of a murder case. Juror 8 is willing to stand alone with his vote “not guilty”. Trying to avoid the winner’s course, he demanded a conversation about the case despite the clear 11-1 vote on the guilt of the defendant. Juror 8 discredits his opponents’ arguments and uncovers their constraint thinking, he uncovering doubtful evidence, alienating hardliners and engaging in conversations. In the conversation it becomes obvious that not every juror bases his decision on the same facts, and …show more content…
The foreman tries to coordinate the dialog between the jurors. He tries to be fair to all the jurors and tries to keep a neutral position at all costs. Due to his clinging to his position, he suffers from anchoring. He treats the guilty verdict as the reference points and adjusts the conversation in the room according to that. Only after the initial evidence of the blade is challenge, he changes his opinion.
Juror 11 is a strong believes in the principles of democracy and defends Henry even when he believes that the boy is guilty. Encouraged by the questions raised in the beginning, he wants to debate about unresolved matters. He raises concerns that there is no possibility to prove the innocence of the defendant, and there is the change to free guilty men. Due to limited resources, he decides that it would be a greater loss to sentence an innocent to death than releasing a murderer. His decision process is based on the prospect theory.
Juror 5 sympathizes with the defendant from the beginning. He suffers from a cognitive bias, the halo effect. His