Twelve Angry Men Debrief Questions

Twelve Angry Men Debrief Questions 1. What type of decision was the group instructed to reach (e. g. majority, consensus, authoritarian, etc. ) * When the 12 person jury meets in the room to vote on a guilty or non-guilty verdict, the method used to vote was 1st based on a majority decision-making process where those would raise their hands for guilty and a non-guilty verdict. Once the results were in and 11 voted guilty and 1 voting not guilty. Based on the movie, 11 members of the jury voted guilty while 1 juror voted non-guilty. The 1 non-guilty, disrupted the dynamics of everyone else’s vote; which leads to a major conflict.

They now needed to illustrate the pros and cons of both guilty and non-guilty parties. 2. How did personality and interaction styles influence the group’s dynamics, conflict management and decision-making process? * With one voting not guilty, the group wanted to discuss why he voted “not guilty”. The dynamics in a few members in the group became irritable due to his vote; which prolonged the voting process. With the rise of conflict, the jury needed to come up with a decision. In order to come up with their decision, they were to influence and cross referenced their facts.

They discussed why they thought the man was guilty and not guilty. Based on the conflict cycle, the jury has reached the first stage of conflict, escalation. 3. How did bias/prejudices influence the group’s dynamics, conflict management and decision-making process? * Under a majority influence, the decision making process demonstrated group thinking. Bias and prejudice opinions influenced the group’s dynamics through stereotyping the opponent based upon their prejudice references. Another tactic of influence was isolating the voter to think that his decision was wrong, making him believe that he was disloyal to the jury.

Despite the pressure of being ridiculed from the majority, Fonda (non-guilty voter) illustrated a different kind of presentation with his interpretation of the facts; which diverted the majorities’ way of thinking. 4. What, if anything, did the foremen do well that helped the group’s conflict management and decision-making process? * The foreman in order to diffuse conflict from escalating is the mediator. His job is to mediate conflict by calming everyone down through their presentations. The foreman suggests that the group should, one by one, explain why they think the boy is guilty. 5.

What, if anything, could the foremen have done differently to help the group’s conflict management and decision-making process? * The foreman should’ve been more involved when conflict rose between all the men. Thirty minutes into the movie, an insensitive comment was made by one of the jurors. Another juror found his comment unnecessary and believed that it shouldn’t be joked about. As he looked at the foreman and told him this, the foreman simply said with an (I don’t care attitude), “now what do you want me to do about that? ” It seems to me that while arguments got out of hand, the foreman didn’t care to mediate the situation.

I believe he needed to be a little more proactive. 6. Who was most influential on the group’s decision-making process? What did he do that was so influential on the group? And what interaction style did he appear to be using? * The most influential individuals in the group were the juror who was very biased against the 18 year old boy, who’s trailed for murder. That juror discussed his thoughts in regards to a situation where his boy struck him in the jaw. He stated that he pushed his boy over the edge; which caused him to strike. With his experience, his beliefs influenced the jury to believe that: 1.

The kid was from the slums and that all people from the slums are bad. 2. His situation with his son punching him in the jaw due to the rage of his father. Another influence was the juror who owned a garage. He segregated and divided the world by stereotyping “them” and “us”. “Us”, being the people who were rich and/or middle-class, and “them” being poor people who lived in slums. He believed that the young man was guilty due to the fact the he was born and raised in the slums; which influenced the other members of the jury to think the same way too.

Lastly, is the juror who was a refugee from Europe who was faced with many hardships and the reality of injustice. Because of his background, he wanted to see that there is justice for the boy during his trial, hence he voted not guilty. Based on his beliefs, on the facts of this boys pass, the juror is unbiased and wants to do the right thing; which is not sending the boy to the electric chair. This juror’s reflection and his willingness to strive for justice is what influence members of the juror. 7. What constructive responses to conflict (refer to class handout on constructive and destructive responses to conflict) were displayed?

Explain. * Some constructive responses to conflict were of passive-constructive responses and active-destructive responses to conflict. In certain situations, the juror who voted not guilty wanted to deescalate the issue by discussing all of the facts. Although, all 11 jurors wanted to vote guilty for the boy, this juror wasn’t too at ease with sending a boy to the electric chair without everyone discussing why. During everyone’s evaluation, they illustrative reflective thinking during discussion. 8. What destructive responses to conflict (refer to class handout on constructive and destructive responses to conflict) were displayed?

Explain. * Majority of the juries responded with active-destructive responses. They wanted the boy dead. With that, the issue escalated every time the juror who found the boy not guilty pleaded his reasoning. Majority of the jury displayed tension, anger, irritability, and hostility. They retaliated by influencing the decision to send the boy to the electric chair. 9. What behaviors seemed to most escalate conflict among the group? * I’ve noticed several behaviors that escalated conflict within the group, the first behavior was that of people getting upset and walking away while the speaker was talking.

The second behavior were of those who would rudely interrupt the speaker, the third behavior are from those who were playing tic-tac-toe during the speakers presentation, and lastly those who made unnecessary discriminating comments. One behavior that extremely escalated the issue was one of the jurors charged another juror for calling him a sadist. 10. What behaviors seemed to most de-escalate conflict among the group? * Some behaviors that deescalated conflict were when one of the jurors stood up for the old man during his presentation on why one of the witnesses “wanted attention. Another behavior in deescalating conflict was when the European juror discussed the meaning of democracy. For that reason, he seeks justice in the boy’s trial. He is also very impressed with the idea of democracy: “This is a remarkable thing…that we are notified by mail to come down to this place and decide on the guilt or innocence of…a man we have not known before (back). ” Because of these beliefs that this foreign-born juror has, he is actually unbiased and will try hard to do the right thing. This is also reflected in his interaction with other jurors and his willingness to strive for justice for the accused. 1. What did the group do to transition forward each time it appeared headed for a stalemate? * For each time the group wanted to move forward, they all re-voted. Re-voting on the verdict increase the non-guilty vote. It was the final moment the last juror who believe the boy was guilty came to the conclusion that the boy was not guilty after seeing his son’s photo. The last juror, at that point had no reason to justify his belief with all the facts evaluated. This ended the case with a non-guilty verdict, the boy was set free.