Examples Of Group Dynamics In 12 Angry Men

1692 Words 7 Pages
Week 2 Application Assignment: Group Dynamics and Group Stages
In 1965, Bruce Tuckman developed one of the most influential models of “the developmental stages in a small group” (Bonebright, 2010, p. 111). It is a four stage model in which each stage needed to be completed in order to reach optimum group functioning. These stages were dubbed “forming”, “storming”, “norming”, “performing”. Later in 1977, he and Mary Ann Conover Jensen added “adjourning” as a fifth stage in his model (Bonebright, 2010). I used these five stages to break down the group dynamics of the characters in the movie Twelve Angry Men (1957).
The first stage of the model is forming. In this stage, the group is given a task, sets rules for the group, and tests
…show more content…
They are then challenged by the group leader, the architect. Another juror, who is a grumpy older man, calls architect a “bleeding heart”. He seems to have resentment against people who live in the slums. During this time, one juror asks the others to clarify their reasons for their guilty verdict to the architect, hoping the architect will change his mind. Shockingly, several of the jurors imply that the defendant being a poor, non-white, young man is reason enough for a conviction. “During the storming stage, group members are initially more anxious in their interactions with one another because they are afraid of losing control, being misunderstood, looking foolish, or being rejected” (Gladding, 2012, p. 108). There is quite a bit of anxiety among the jurors that appears as anger. Some of the jurors give the impression of being angry at the defendant, when they haven’t even reviewed all of the evidence. During their angry outbursts at the architect, they expose these true feelings. The angry man is the most defiant and resistant of the group. “Resistance is best defined as any behavior that moves the group away from areas of discomfort, conflict, or potential growth” p. 110). He constantly makes angry outburst at others and ridicules them for their …show more content…
He is a nervous, unassertive bank teller. He claims the defendant is guilty hoping to avoid conflict with other, more opinionated jurors. They begin to review the evidence and discuss eye-witness accounts. The turning point comes when the jurors discuss how rare the knife is that is used in the murder. The architect carries the same knife, which he pulls from his pocket. This spurs others to at least reconsider their verdict. Afterward, votes are changed as well as perspectives and lives. Votes are cast again and again, each time there are more not guilty verdicts. As the jurors continue to battle among themselves, minds are

Related Documents