In the movie, 12 Angry Men, the concepts we learned throughout the duration of this course were apparent. Group dynamics is portrayed through jury deliberation in this film where twelve men are brought together to decide whether a boy is guilty of killing his father. From the personality conflicts to the decision making process, this film is filled with characteristics of group dynamics. Each juror brought something to the room, affecting the group’s decision. Right from the beginning of the movie, eleven jurors voted in favor of convicting the accused boy before even discussing the evidence presented at the trail. This is where the concept of groupthink comes into play. We have learned that when working in groups, members are more likely to make riskier decisions than they would on their own. This results from the fact that when working in groups, no one individual is completely accountable for the decision, making it easier for members to accept more extreme solutions than they normally would. Juror #8 was the one and only man in the room who refused to vote guilty. This juror refused to fall victim to groupthink and in the end, saved an innocent man’s life. He admits up front, that he was not certain whether the accused was innocent or guilty, but that he thought it important for the group to have a discussion and explore each possible decision. This not only lead to a discussion about the facts of the case, but also gives us an in-depth look at each juror, their role in the group, and what each of them brings to the group. Juror #1 played the role of the “appointed leader”, otherwise known as the individual who is assigned the role of the leader right from the start. This role was given to him when he had the misfortune to be selected Foreman of the jury, which, based on the fact that he only seemed at ease when he was talking about football, was not a role he was enjoying. Though he clearly does not understand how involved their task, he does everything he can to keep the other jurors from noticing this and tries to impose order in the room. Juror #2, an accountant, played the role of the “avoider,” based on the fact that he was very quiet and almost shy throughout the film. This is a man who does not seem very comfortable giving his opinions to the group and certainly dos not expect any of the other jurors to find his views to be of any importance to their decision. Juror #3, a self-made successful businessman, was the character I found to be most interesting. This man started off as a pleasant group member who did his part analyzing the case without bias and explaining his arguments to the group, seeming pretty self-assured. As time goes on, a change occurred in juror number three, causing him to become more and more passionate about his opinions. It wasn’t until he revealed the fact that he is not on good terms with his own son whom he had not seen in over a decade; that his outbursts of disbelieving anger started to make sense. We start to see that he has bitterness towards youth when he makes the statement to the group about the fact that, “kids today have no respect”. I would have to say that Juror #3 played the roles of both the “aggressor” and the “blocker”. He let his personal baggage come into play, which caused him to attack the group and interfere with group progress by rejecting ideas and arguing excessively. Juror #4, a self-assured stockbroker, seems to hold himself at a higher level than the other men in the room. He is arrogant and goes at the case with a cold logic, not taking into account the more personal elements of the case. He also gives a pretty intimidating glare to anyone that does not share his opinions. I would label Juror #4 as the “information giver” in this group because that is all he was interested in the entire time. He read off the facts of the case like he were reading off closing stock prices and remained cold and analytical throughout. Juror #5 seems like a man who is under an immense amount of emotional stress. I found it very strange that he seemed so unwilling to identify with the accused boy in the case when the two come from very similar social backgrounds. It seems as though he is trying to keep his compassion from influencing his decision, and uses this as motivation to vote guilty, when ironically, this is letting his compassion influence his decision. Based on the fact that Juror #5 was very defensive and seemed to use the group as an audience for expressions of his emotional needs, I would say his role was the “self-confessor”. Juror #6 seemed to be a fairly simple man, willingly admitting that everyone in the room seemed to be better qualified to make decisions than he. He does not seem very confident in himself because he wants justice to be done, but it is made clear that he is very worried he may make a mistake. He seemed to play the role of the “conformist” based on the fact that he seldom spoke and just agreed with the majority. Juror #7 played the role of the “fun expert” due to the fact that he is not really involved in the group and does not seem to be. He talks about baseball, the heat, fixing the fan -- everything but the case itself. He seems to be the only juror who does not have an opinion and it becomes pretty clear that the only reason he has for voting one way or the other, is so that he can get out of the jury room and back to his life as soon as possible. As mentioned above, juror #8 was the only man in the room to refuse to vote guilty without further examining the facts and evidence of the case. He seems to be a very caring man and he certainly put more thought into the case than any of the other men in the room. Juror #8 played the “initiator-contributor” because he does not agree with the rest of the group, instead he looks for new possibilities and does his best to do right despite the seemingly impossible odds against him and his vote. Juror #9 was my favorite character in the film because of his very unique way of looking at things. He was a wise old man, full of life experience and he was the first of the men to stand up and support juror #8 when he suggests the compromise that if they all vote guilty, so will he, but if he gathers any support for the defendant, everyone must stay and discuss the case. I would give #8 the role of the “initiator-contributor” as well because not only does he too goes against the norm, but he also offers original ideas and unique views throughout the film. I found Juror #10 to be repulsive and horrifying. He would most definitely be labeled as the “aggressor,” “dominator,” and “blocker” of the group. He lets it be known that the only reason he has for voting guilty is because of the boy’s poor social background when in reality, he has no reason for his bigotry because his own social position is only slightly above the boys -- a difference he eagerly stresses. Juror #11 was a careful, logical man. He was an immigrant watchmaker who is very soft spoken and polite. I think for the most part he played the role of the “harmonizer” because he was so willing to look at both sides of the case and he respected the right of the men to have their own opinions. The only time he lost his temper was when he was upset by the complete lack of interest in the case displayed by juror #7. Juror #12, a young man working in advertising, seems to have his own opinions, but does a very good job in hiding those opinions from the rest of the group. It seemed as though he thought that intelligence is not as important as agreeing with the majority. Like juror #7, he seems to be uninterested in the case, but does not display this quite as boldly. I would say he played the role of the “avoider” as well because he seemed to completely conform and not offer his opinions to the rest of the group along with being bored throughout the process. After the first secret ballot, the other jurors begin to support juror #8 and the boy is unanimously voted not guilty. By the end of deliberations, we come to know each of the jurors and it is made clear that groupthink is a major problem that is very easy for groups to fall into and that sometimes all it takes is one person to pull a group out of a negative groupthink reaction. We also see the way roles of the group members, both functional and non-functional, directly affect the way decisions are made and what decisions are made. Although each group member subconsciously brought personal baggage into the group, shifting into positive group dynamics allowed for the jury members to overcome interpersonal conflicts and prejudices to reach a consensus.