Conflict Style Assessment

10. 3/3 I try to integrate my ideas with the other’s to come up with a decision

Initially required is an analysis to the results of the, “Conflict Style Questionnaire” (Rahim and Wagner 122-132). According to the conflict style survey, base two separate situations from past occurrences; one with someone close to me, and the second with someone who I am not so interpersonal with. Moreover, the two personal conflicts that I apply to the questionnaire, base from two diverse relationships-personal as well as an impersonal, along with various context and environment pertaining to the particular

* 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.

People's bias and predispositions can affect their opinion of different circumstances and different people. This is very evident throughout the play. After the first group vote and juror 8 votes not guilty, a discussion ensues. It is there that

With a very short temper to go along with his all-powerful attitude, juror three is not a nice person. Already he has threatened death towards one of the other jurors and would have made good the threat had it not been for the decisive actions of the other jurors who jumped up to hold him back.. An acrimonious and blind-sighted executioner, juror #3 is one of many that an innocent victim would not want to decide their fate. Unfortunately, democracy does not only apply to the fair and just, and undoubtedly innocent men and women have fallen prey to the unwavering wrath of men

Conflict is inevitable in any personal relationship or among members of any group. While we encounter many types of conflict in our lifetime, we often look for ways to avoid conflict. So, why do we run away from dealing with our conflict? It is often because many of us fear the conflict will escalate into a situation we will not be able to sustain. “As conflicts escalate, they go through certain incremental transformations. Although these transformations occur separately on each side, they affect the conflict as a whole because they are usually mirrored by the other side. As a result of these transformations, the conflict is intensified in ways that are sometimes exceedingly difficult to undo” (Pruitt, and Kim 89). We

Juror three, labeled as the sadist, was the last man to vote not guilty and held on to his guilty decision because of his ego. Juror three was involved in ego conflict with most of the other men. However, juror three was especially excitable and in defense of his ego against juror eight. It was not until the end of the film that juror three finally realized that his ego was the only reason why he was voting not guilty.

During the course of the debate within the jury room Juror #8 summarizes the evidence presented and the conclusions drawn by his fellow jurors, by asking questions. He analyzes the content, by breaking down the component parts and analyzing each

The group initially started with a process of arriving at a decision by voting and there was a groupthink causing

From there the viewers see that the 12 Jurors retire to a private room where they briefly become acquainted before the deliberation begins. It is clear to the viewers that even before deliberation begins that there are clear biases among the Jurors. The Jurors number off and give their verdicts, and almost right off the bat all the Jurors, aside from one (Juror #8), vote guilty – and they also make it clear that they plan to deliver said verdict without forethought, on Henry Fonda (Juror #8) is the opposing vote of not guilty. His vote of not guilty

Several pairs of eyes trail the prosecutor as he puts forth his reasons as to why the defendant should be guilty. Several pairs of ears listen intently in a trance like mode, also cautious of every detail. The prosecutor presents the facts with great gusto, painting a picture of the defendant in a bad light. Once he is done, the defendant’s lawyer takes the stage and he too, with great effort, puts forth reasons as to why his client is innocent. In the end, when everything is said and done and it time for the verdict, only one voice answers to the court clerk out of the 12 men and women. These 12 people are the jurymen and they play an equally important role as the lawyers and judges of a court trial. In fact, a jury is the sole decider, based

The last situation is an example of conflict as well as the approach to conflict. When the men choose to make an anonymous vote and one of them writes “not guilty” on the paper, jury member number three calls out the man who had grown up in the slums and says that he changed his vote because he fell for the preaching of the first member who felt the boy was not guilty. After yelling at the man, the old man finally admits to changing is vote. Later, jury member number three attempts to apologize for calling out the man who grew up in the slums and he just walks right past him without responding. This is an example of Ego/Identity conflict because jury member number three judged the man who grew up in the slums and expected him to change his vote because of his past. The approach to the conflict later is avoidance because the man who grew up in the slums chooses to not respond to the apology and walk right past the man without getting into any type of

Places value on individualism, self-assertion, and competition. Not common in cultures that prioritize cooperation, keep others from failing, finding areas of agreement

Not only were some stereotypical but others just wanted the meeting to be over. The cast is categorized in general groups as passives, aggressors, stubborn passives, factualists, and Juror 8 being the loner. With some not wanting to cause trouble and others only changing their vote because the majority does, Juror 8 sticks to his decision. The group is influenced by the foreman which ends in a groupthink. The groupthink is the desire for conformity and harmony of the groups results in an dysfunctional and irrational decision. The concept of groupthink drives the majority of the group besides the loner to vote for the guilty verdict. With an eleven to one vote, the jury feels their job is to convert juror 8, the nonbeliever, rather than opening their minds to the possibility that one may be correct. The 8th juror, being the only one that finds innocence in the boy, convinces the rest of the jury to look behind the possibilities using wisdom, evidence, rhetorical questions, and ethos. A thoughtful, quiet gentleman who sees many sides of every question. He behaves with professional decorum and carries on with what needs to be done. He constantly is seeking the truth with compassion and

The juror that was the Architect in the suit was probably the strongest leader in the group. (12 angry men, 1957). Before the twelve jurors started to deliberate they were all very nice to each other. Then when they started to talk about the trial they all where ready to convict the boy. From the beginning the Architect was