Interpersonal Communication In 12 Angry Men

In the movie 12 Angry Men, interpersonal communications is shown through a jury discussion. Interpersonal communication is an exchange of information between two or more people. During interpersonal communication, there is message sending and message receiving. In the film, twelve men are brought together in a room to decide whether a boy is guilty of killing his father. The personality conflicts, the listening skills and the attitudes and perceptions of several people working together trying to search for the truth is just a few characteristics of interpersonal communications in play. The whole variety of communication is represented in this movie, from the lack of listening skills displayed of Juror No.10 to the absence of empathy in Juror …show more content…
He was the appointed leader who was assigned the position from the start. No. 1 is a very simple minded man who does not have a great perception of what the job entails or what he is expected to do. Yet he still tries to do everything within his power to not let anyone else find out this, since he been honored the misfortune of being selected as the Foreman of the jury – a job he clearly did not want. Juror #2 is a small, quiet man who is not use to giving his opinion and actually having someone take it into consideration. In his overly meek attitude he does not appear to question what is being said, nor does he give very affective feedback, but rather gives information that appears to be non-defensive and non-blaming. No. 2 apparently finds comfort in his job as an accountant. Juror # 3 perhaps has the utmost complex personality in the movie. He starts off relatively normal just like any other successful businessman with a great perception of the case, encoding the arguments so that they are easily decoded and has a self-assured attitude. Although as the movie progresses his attitude becomes less understanding and impartial and more explosive in his personal bias in the case that he seems to be personally involved in. His reason for his unruly behavior is revealed when it’s come to know that he is in conflict with his own son. His hostility towards the youth was made clear when he says, “kids today have no respect,” and that he, “has not seen his son in over a decade.” His personal baggage with his own son put up a barrier around his listening and conflict resolution skills, as well as blurring his perception. Juror #4 is a confident, somewhat conceited