preview

Group Communication In 12 Angry Men

Better Essays

12 Angry Men: Group Analysis Paper In 1957, the producers H. Fonda, G. Justin and R. Rose collaborated with the director S. Lumet to create the film, 12 Angry Men. In this paper, I will provide an analysis of the small group communication displayed by the main characters in the motion picture. I will discuss group communications, group development, group membership, group diversity, and group leadership. These topics will be dissected in order to properly examine the characters’ behavior. The members in the film were all caucasian males who resided in New York. They were of different ages and came from different socio-economic backgrounds. The messages used were the individual opinions and ideas regarding the case, facts and …show more content…

The storming stage began with conflicting opinions being stated. Tense conversation ensued regarding Juror No. 8’s “Not Guilty” vote and Juror No. 10’s discriminatory remarks. The norming stage showed Juror No. 1, the jury foreman, keeping Jurors No, 11 and 12 on topic to create a productive discussion. In addition, Juror No. 12 suggests discussing views one person at a time. Personally, I do not believe there was a true performing stage in the film. Although they achieved some cohesion during the norming stage, they were still confrontational and were not unified. The adjourning stage showed the characters finally coming to an agreement on a “Not Guilty” verdict, giving that verdict to the bailiff, and all leaving separately. The group membership roles (Engleberg & Wynn, 2017) depicted were task, maintenance, and self-centered roles. Juror No. 1 was a coordinator and gatekeeper, Juror No. 2 was a harmonizer, Juror No. 3 was a dominator and attacker, Juror No. 4 was an analyzer, Juror No. 5 was a questioner, Juror No. 6 was an analyzer, Juror No. 7 was an obstructionist, Juror No. 8 was an opinion provider, information provider, and motivator, Juror No. 9 was a clarifier supporter, Juror No. 10 was an obstructionist, Juror No. 11 was a questioner, and Juror No. 12 was an analyzer. Participation problems were faced such as initial communication apprehension by Juror No. 5, passiveness by Juror No. 2, and aggressiveness and

Get Access