12 Angry men notes & discussion

1. What kinds of attributions were used by the jurors and how did these attributions affect
their initial judgment of the boy?
Henry Fonda: Made more external attributions for the boys behavior. For example, Fonda
commented on how the boy had been slapped around all his life and was treated poorly. This kind of
thinking leads to more external attributionsit was the way the boy was treated in life, not
something inherent about the boy or his character.
Ed Begley (the racist guy): Referred to the boy as a slum kid. He relayed the idea that theres
something about slum kids who belong to certain ethnic groups that makes them inherently
rotten. These are internal attributions which lead to more of a guilty verdict.
Lee J. Cobb (the angry guy): Also made more internal attributions for the boys behavior. He agreed
with the slum kid idea, but also focused on the notion that kids today dont have any respect or sense
of morality.
Another type of attributional process that could be seen in 12 angry men was Kelleys principle
of augmenting. For example one of the jurors argued that if the boy went back to get the knife, even
though he might get caught then he must have really been motivated to cover up the evidence. Thus,
the boy is really guilty.
2. How did the use of schemas & stereotypes influence the jurors thinking?
Obviously, many of the jurors had stereotypes about kids who grow up in slumsand who belong to
certain minority groups. Not only did these stereotypes influence the jurors tendency to make
internal attributions for the boys behavior, but these stereotypes also led to biased interpretations of
the evidence.
3. How was the confirmation bias used by the jurors?
Just as stereotypes lead to a biased way of interpreting the evidence, they also lead to a confirmation
bias, which is the tendency to only seek information that confirms your expectations and ignore
disconfirming information. For example, many of the jurors initially expected that the boy was
guilty (It was clear right from the start) and so they only remembered details in the case that
supported that expectation. They also seemed to disregard or ignore details in the case that would
disconfirm their expectations. For example, the jurors failed to notice the significant details such as
the way the old man walked with a limp, that the female eye witness had marks on her eyes that were
caused by prescription eye glasses, and that the knife used to kill the father was actually not all that
unusual. They also failed to see that a noisy L train would have made it impossible to hear the boy
yell, Im gonna kill ya. All of these details would have disconfirmed their expectations, but were
overlooked.

4. Was there any indication that conformity played a role in the jurys decision making
process?
The initial vote that was taken was public. As they voted by raising their hands, several of the jurors,
who later expressed that they werent sure the boy was guilty (e.g., Joseph Sweeneythe old man),
looked around to see how the other people were voting. But when the ballot was secret and
anonymous, some of them didnt comply. This strongly suggests that there was strong pressure to
conform to the majority.
Examples of those that may have initially conformed because of group pressure:
Jack Klugman (the former slum kid): He didnt say much at first, and seemed to be unsure about
whether or not the boy was guilty. He was a slum kid himself, so he probably had some doubts, but
went along with the majority initially because of pressure.
Joseph Sweeney (the old man): Initially conformed in the public vote, but switched when it was
privatesuggesting that he went along with the crowd.
Jack Warden (baseball guy): He went along with whatever was the majority opinion (partially
because he just wanted to go to a baseball game). When the majority was guilty, he voted guilty, but
when the majority switched over to not guilty (7-5) he changed his plea to not guilty, but couldnt
give any reasons why. duh, I just dont think hes guilty.
5. When some of the jurors eventually decided to vote NOT GUILTY, did they change their
vote because of normative influence or informational influence.
Jack Warden (baseball fan): as mentioned above, he changed his plea for superficial reasons, so he
conformed more because of normative influence. He obviously didnt believe the boy was NOT
GUILTY, was just going along with the crowd.
E. G. Marshall (accountant): eventually changed his vote based on informational influence. He was
convinced that the female eye witness had poor eyesight and therefore couldnt make a positive
identification. This was less of a superficial change.
6. Was there evidence of the misinformation effect (ala Elizabeth Loftus) in the eye witnesses?
The misinformation effect is the tendency for ones memory to be altered by post-event
information. Our schemas and stereotypes can also influence how we interpret ambiguous events
because they help us fill in the missing information with our expectations.
Remember that Joseph Sweeney (the old man), did not accuse either of the eye witnesses of lying.
He said that these people believed they saw the boy commit the crime. In other words, they somehow
misremembered what they saw and heard. Thus, they probably witnessed an ambiguous event and
filled in the missing information with details that were prescribed by their own stereotypes of slum
kids. In addition, the police officers and lawyers who interviewed the witnesses may have planted
false memories in them by asking leading questions. In either case, these people probably believed
that they saw the boy at the scene of the crimebut this was probably due to the misinformation
effect.

7. Were there any examples of the fundamental attribution error or the actor/observer bias in
the film?
Lee J. Cobb (angry guy): Lee Cobb said that if the boy screamed out loud, Ill kill ya he must have
really meant he was gonna kill his father, and so this was good evidence that he did it. However,
Henry Fonda later insulted Lee Cobb by calling him a sadist. Cobb got mad and said:
Im gonna kill ya. But he didnt really mean it. Thus, when Cobb said it, it was just the situation
that elicited this expression, but when the boy said it, it was an indication of his murderous rage. So
this is an example of the actor observer bias.
E.G. Marshall (the accountant): The boys alibi was that he was at the movies when the murder took
place. E.G. Marshall said that because the boy couldnt remember the names of the films and who
played in them when he was interviewed by the police (i.e., under conditions of high emotional
stress), then he obviously was lying. Thus Marshall failed to consider how the stress of the situation
could have affected the boyand just made an internal attributionhes a liar. However,
when Marshall was asked to remember the films he saw last weekend, he couldnt fully remember
themeven without emotional stress.
GROUPTHINK VS. MINORITY INFLUENCE
The jury situation portrayed in 12 Angry men had a lot of symptoms that would normally lead to a
groupthink phenomenon. For example, the majority of the group had a belief in the moral correctness
of their decisionthey were punishing a bad person, they had a stereotyped view of the people who
opposed them (bleeding heart, do-gooders). There was extreme pressure to conform, an illusion of
unanimity (at least in the beginning), many of the jurors engaged in self-censorship (they didnt
initially voice their opinions) and strong personalities that were trying to push the group in a certain
direction.
Despite these symptoms, the minority was able to override the majority and sway the vote to NOT
GUILTY. So this was a rare case of minority influence in which a minority of individuals can
influence the grouprather than the reverse.
So what were the factors that gave rise to this phenomenon?
CONSISTENCY
Hendry Fonda, the leader of the minority opinion, always remained consistent in his opposition to the
majority. In other words, he never hesitated or wavered, but always stood firm in his conviction.
This makes people think more deeply about the issue. Other people probably make the attribution
as Joseph Sweeney did (the old man) that if a person is willing to stand up against the entire group
and face ridicule, then he must have some important points to make. So this kind of consistency
against the majority can lead others to augment their faith in the minoritys beliefs.
AVOID APPEARING RIGID
Although the minority has to be consistent, at the same time, they have to avoid appearing rigid and
inflexible to the majority. In other words, if they are consistent, but still open minded, then it doesnt
put the majority on the defensive, and makes them more open to the minority. Fonda clearly did this
by saying that he didnt necessarily think that the majority was wrong, but just that he wanted to talk

more about itjust wanted to discuss some of the issues. Jack Warden even remarked that Fonda
had the soft sell.
SELF-CONFIDENCE
Fonda was clearly self-confident. He had complete conviction in what he was doing and saying
which instilled confidence in other members of the jury who were leaning in that direction.
DEFECTIONS FROM THE MAJORITY
If the minority can get a few people to defect to their side, then this will often create a snowball
effect in which more and more people will change their opinion. This helps puncture a hole in the
illusion of unanimity and loosens the pressure to conform. Its like in the Milgram studies in which
people were less likely to obey, if there were other people in the study who also disobeyed.
Defections give others the strength to go against the majority. Fonda orchestrated these defections a
little by walking up to certain people that he thought were unsure and asking them directly if they
really believed the evidence.

12 Angry &
1.
;
: . Made
, Fonda
.
- ,
.
Ed Begley ( ): .

.
.
Lee J. Cobb ( ):
. ,
.
Attributional 12
Kelley . ,
,
. ,
.
2. ;
,
.

, .
3. ;

, ,
disconfirming
. ,
(" )
. ,
disconfirm . ,
, ,

,
. ,

 L , " ya .
" , .
4.
;
. ,
,
(.., Joseph Sweeney - ),
. ,
.
.
:
Jack Klugman ( ): ,
. ,
, .
Joseph Sweeney ( ): ,
, .
Jack Warden ( ): , (
). , ,
( 7-5) ,
. " duh , . "
5. ,
.
Jack Warden ( ): ,
, .
, .
EG Marshall (): .

. .
6. (ala Elizabeth Loftus)
;

.

.
Sweeney ( ),
. .

, misremembered , . ,

. ,

, . ,
,
.
7. /
;
Lee J. Cobb ( ): Lee Cobb , "
ya " ,
. , Henry Fonda
Lee Cobb . Cobb : ya . "
., Cobb ,
, , . ,
.
EG Marshall ( ): ,
. EGMarshall
, (,
), . Marshall

Attribution- . , Marshall
, -
.
Groupthink VS.
12 Angry
Groupthink. ,
,
( , dogooders). , (
), - (
)
.
,
. ,
-
.
, ;

Hendry Fonda, ,
. , ,

 .
. Attribution- Joseph Sweeney ( ),
,
. ,

.

, ,
. , ,
, ,
. Fonda
, ',
. Jack Warden, Fonda
" ".

Fonda .

.

,
,
.
.
,
.
. Fonda
,
.