12 Angry Men Conformity
The behaviour of individuals in any large dynamic group naturally exhibits various signs of either conscious or subconscious conformity. The psychological principle of conformity which related to social influence basically refers to an exertion on the will of the affected individual to act in a manner that is not in accordance with one¡¦s actual beliefs. Many different studies of conformity as a result of social influence have been conducted which reveal that almost all conformist responses to social influence can be narrowed down to three distinctive types: compliance, identification and internalization. This paper will use 12 Angry Men as a case study on the dynamics of social influence, especially the influence of individual nonconformist,
…show more content…
It is obvious that the second juror to vote a not-guilty vote is not motivated either by the possibility of a reward or a punishment, nor does he appear to be conscious of being justice and rightful. He even claims that at that point he still believes in the probable guilt of the accused. He goes on explaining that the sudden change of his vote is merely based on his admiration for the lone dissenter, whom he begins to consider as a role-model, and his courage and strength to stand against conformity even in the face of ridicule. At this point of the film, it is noticeable that the second juror begins to identify with the lone dissenter. The mechanism of the identification process is at work and the charisma of the dissenter is further intensified by the rude and dismissive way in which another juror leaves the bathroom while the dissenter is speaking. Indeed, the second juror¡¦s desire to identify with the dissenting voice has been foreshadowed by several exchanges that have already set against the voice of the majority of the jurors which have been cast as either explicitly prejudiced, personally influenced, or exhibiting a near-total disinterest in the question of the accused¡¦s actual guilt or
It is obvious that the second juror to vote a not-guilty vote is not motivated either by the possibility of a reward or a punishment, nor does he appear to be conscious of being justice and rightful. He even claims that at that point he still believes in the probable guilt of the accused. He goes on explaining that the sudden change of his vote is merely based on his admiration for the lone dissenter, whom he begins to consider as a role-model, and his courage and strength to stand against conformity even in the face of ridicule. At this point of the film, it is noticeable that the second juror begins to identify with the lone dissenter. The mechanism of the identification process is at work and the charisma of the dissenter is further intensified by the rude and dismissive way in which another juror leaves the bathroom while the dissenter is speaking. Indeed, the second juror¡¦s desire to identify with the dissenting voice has been foreshadowed by several exchanges that have already set against the voice of the majority of the jurors which have been cast as either explicitly prejudiced, personally influenced, or exhibiting a near-total disinterest in the question of the accused¡¦s actual guilt or