More handpicked essays just for you.
The importance of group cohesion
Group vs individual decision making
Advantages and disadvantages of groupthink
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The importance of group cohesion
In the case of “The Verdict of Groupthink” (Griffin, 2014, p. 116-117), group think is being compared to decision- making. Decision- making is a part of planning that involves selected actions from a set of alternatives. From the text a movie named Twelve Angry Men is mention. Twelve Angry Men is a movie about “a diverse group of twelve jurors (all male, mostly middle-aged, white, and generally of middle-class status) who are uncomfortably brought together to deliberate after hearing the 'facts' in a seemingly open-and-shut murder trial case” (Driks, p,1). The jury are the people who are in a group that is thinking about the situation in court. All together they must decide together. Groupthink isn’t a good way because trying to decide as a group can be difficult. One or two might think one way and others may think totally different. …show more content…
Mitchell and Daniel Eckstein describes a jury as a group who are chosen to perform a duty without training. Juries are not qualified for decision making because they don’t know the efficient way. Just because one person think one way everyone isn’t going to agree with that person. Mitchell and Eckstein focus on Janis’s seven antecedent conditions for groupthink. A significant risk of jury decisions being tainted by groupthink are cohesiveness, insulation, lack of a tradition of impartial leadership, lack of norms requiring methodical producers, homogeneity of social background, and temporarily low-self-induced by situational factors (Griffin, 2014, p. 117). As being in a group the outcome can cause problems because of groupthink. Groupthink will and can make the wrong decisions from deciding as a group. With decision-making, you will know the consequences behind your decisions. Groupthink will be completely different because juries make takes certain situations in consideration but, the judge have the last
This report is on a movie called, “12 Angry Men.” The movie is about 12 men that are the jury for a case where a young man is being accused of killing his father. A major conflict that is very obvious is the disagreement on whether the young boy was guilty or innocent. After court when all of the men sat down to begin their discussion Courtney B. Vance (#1) Took charge and respectfully was now the leader. He asked what everyone’s votes were and all of the men except for Jack Lemmon (#8) voted the young man was guilty. Because Jack was the odd one that chose differently than the rest of the men, all of the other Jures, were defensive about the evidence just because they were all so confused. Courtney B. Vance took charge once again and calmly stated that everyone has their rights and lets have everyone explain the reasons why they thing the child is guilty or not guilty. Ossie Davis (#2) explained why he voted guilty. While explaining this he was very calm and wise. HE handled conflicts in the same way. Next was George C. Schott (#3) He also voted guilty. George was very st...
There are quite a few specific factors that affect whether the minority can influence the majority’s opinion. For example, when Juror #9 becomes an ally of support for Juror #8 in his defection from the majority consensus. Although Juror #8 may have started with only one ally, gradually he gained support from other jury members. Another important factor in the power of minority influence (Myers, 298) is the consistency of the viewpoint. Juror #8 never ‘flip-flops’, proponents of the minority position must stand firm against the pressure to conform. Even when Juror #8 is taunted by his fellow jurors after voting not-guilty in the initial vote he stands firm on his position and resists the pressure to conform. Furthermore, high self-confidence and self-assurance improves the position of the minority. Juror #8 presented firm and forceful arguments without being overbearing. He justifies his not-guilty vote by saying, “I just think we owe him a few words, that's all.” In the film, there is also a point in the discussion where Juror #6 defends those who voted not-guilty from the bullying, shouting, and name-calling from the other jurors. Throughout the film, Juror #3 is a bully, a specific example of insulting nature it seen in the film when another not-guilty ballot is received and he attacks Juror #5. He shouts, “Brother, you really are somethin'. You sit here vote guilty like the rest of us, then some golden-voiced preacher starts tearing your poor heart out about some underprivileged kid, just couldn't help becoming a murderer, and you change your vote. Well, if that isn't the most sickening - *why don't you drop a quarter in his collection box?” his criticisms of the other jurors does not sway people to his side. In reality, when a minority gathers strength people feel freer to think outside the box without the fear
... of the juror’s and their sentencing or decision making in our study but further research could be carried out solely into how political attitude could also influence the jury-decision making.
The topic of this paper is Irving Janis’s concept of groupthink. There has been an increase in the utilization of groups or teams of people who come together in the decision-making process. There are many benefits to group decision-making with each member brings their own perspectives, beliefs, and ideas to the table. However, there are also negative dynamics such as groupthink that can hinder this process. Groupthink can lead to members believing that their opinions don’t hold as much weight as their peers, a group becoming overconfident in their knowledge of what is right, and the minimization of threats. Lack of thorough analysis of all available options or opportunities can have costly and long reaching negative consequences. Proactive
They are the impartial third-party whose responsibility is to deliver a verdict for the accused based on the evidence presented during trial. They balance the rights of society to a great extent as members of the community are involved. This links the legal system with the community and ensures that the system is operating fairly and reflecting the standards and values of society. A trial by jury also ensures the victim’s rights to a fair trial. However, they do not balance the rights of the offender as they can be biased or not under. In the News.com.au article ‘Judge or jury? Your life depends on this decision’ (14 November 2013), Ian Lloyd, QC, revealed that “juries are swayed by many different factors.” These factors include race, ethnicity, physical appearance and religious beliefs. A recent study also found that juries are influenced by where the accused sits in the courtroom. They found that a jury is most likely to give a “guilty” verdict if the accused sits behind a glass dock (ABC News, 5 November 2014). Juries also tend to be influenced by their emotions; hence preventing them from having an objective view. According to the Sydney Morning Herald article ‘Court verdicts: More found innocent if no jury involved’ (23 November 2013), 55.4 per cent of defendants in judge-alone trials were acquitted of all charges compared with 29 per cent in jury trials between 1993 and 2011. Professor Mark Findlay from the University of Sydney said that this is because “judges were less likely to be guided by their emotions.” Juries balance the rights of victims and society to a great extent. However, they are ineffective in balancing the rights of the offender as juries can be biased which violate the offender’s rights to have a fair
...a unanimous vote of not guilty. The final scene takes place signifying the "adjourning stage". Two of the jurors, eight and three exchange the only character names mentioned during the film. The entire process of groupthink occurs in multiple ways that display its symptoms on individual behavior, emotions, and personal filters. These symptoms adversity affected the productivity throughout the juror's debate. In all, all twelve men came to an agreement but displayed group social psychological aspects.
A jury is a panel of citizens, selected randomly from the electoral role, whose job it is to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. The Jury Act 1977 (NSW) stipulates the purpose of juries and some of the legal aspects, such as verdicts and the right of the defence and prosecution to challenge jurors. The jury system is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society as members of the community ultimately decide whether the person is guilty or innocent. The creation of the Jury Amendment Act 2006 (NSW) enabled the criminal trial process to better represent the standards of society as it allowed majority verdicts of 11-1 or 10-2, which also allowed the courts to be more resource efficient. Majority verdicts still ensure that a just outcome is reached as they are only used if there is a hung jury and there has been considerable deliberation. However, the role of the media is often criticized in relation to ensuring that the jurors remain unbiased as highlighted in the media article “Independent Juries” (SMH, 2001), and the wide reporting of R v Gittany 2013 supports the arguments raised in the media article. Hence, the jury system is moderately effective in reflecting the moral and ethical standards of society, as it resource efficient and achieves just outcomes, but the influence of the media reduces the effectiveness.
The book Acquittal by Richard Gabriel states, “juries are the best judges in the system. They are not elected, they don't have the high-powered microscope of appellate review or the stern, disapproving-schoolmarm precedent looking over their shoulder, and they have no interest in the outcome of the case.” For this reason, we can come to the conclusion that the use of juries in a trial is the best for all involved in the legal system. While juries, “are the best judges in the system”, lawyers, jury consultants, and jury scientists are the reasons they are viewed this way. It is their job to make sure that not only their client, but everyone has a fair and unbiased trial.Making sure that “the best judges in the system” are fair and unbiased takes a lot of planning, research, and effort. You must research the jurors, understand how they think, what their morals are, and how they would view this case. “It is a constructed reality, cobbled together by shifting memories of witnesses, attorney arguments, legal instructions, personal experiences, and beliefs of jurors.”(Gabriel
So the first reading that convinced me having a jury system was a bad idea was document F. This was a passage from a book called Roughing It by Mark Twain. He talks about a murder that happened in Virginia and how a prominent banker and valued citizen was denied to be on the case because he knew about the case beforehand. This circulated in my head and did not make sense to me, the jury would rather be full of unvalued citizens who have no
a) Juror Three argued that the switchblade knife was swung down and in, which was ideal for the defendant considering he was shorter than his father. Juror Three stated, “‘Down and in. That’s how I’d stab a taller man in the chest and that’s how it was done.’” (Rose 61). This quote basically accounts for Juror Three’s beliefs with handling the knife.
Mention the pros and cons of our jury system and possible alternatives of it. Also, identify the group dynamics of the jury members
From the very beginning of 12 Angry Men, we are shown a jury unevenly divided, eleven of the men voting for guilty, and one voting for not guilty. This
Groups however, do not always make good decisions. Juries sometimes render verdicts that run against the evidence presented. Groups tend to: fail to adequately determine their objectives and alternatives, fail to assess the risks associated with the group’s decision, fail to cycle through discarded alternatives and to reexamine their worth after a majority of the group discards the alternative, fail to seek expert advice, select and use only information that supports their position and conclusions, and does not make contingency plans in case their decision and resulting actions fail. Many times people’s lives are affected and little thought or care is put into it.
...irrespective of what majority says. Your participation has the ability to change what others think completely. Due to Jury number 8's participation, the ratio of 1:11 votes(not guilty:guilty) changed to an over all vote of not guilty. Communication doesn't happen non-verbally right at the beginning stages of the group development. If the movie was “11 Angry Men” with Jury number 8 excluded, the other jurors would've done just given vote once, and decided the fate of the boy. Why did the group make its decision not guilty? The answer is plain and simple: “Due to group participation and interaction.” If you were in the place of juror number 8 or any other juror, would you've spoken for the boy or not?
In viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. It is safe to say that our actions, beliefs, and choices separate us from animals and non-livings. The 20th century English philosopher, Martin Hollis, once said, “Free will – the ability to make decisions about how to act – is what distinguishes people from non-human animals and machines 1”. He went to describe human beings as “self conscious, rational, creative. We can fall in love, write sonnets or plan for tomorrow. We are capable of faith, hope and charity, and for that matter, of envy, hated and malice. We know truth from error, right from wrong 2.” Human nature by definition is “Characteristics or qualities that make human beings different from anything else”. With this said, the topic of human nature has been around for a very long time, it is a complex subject with no right or wrong answer. An American rabbi, Samuel Umen, gave examples of contradictions of human nature in his book, Images of Man. “He is compassionate, generous, loving and forgiving, but also cruel, vengeful, selfish and vindictive 3”. Existentialism by definition is, “The belief that existence comes before essence, that is, that who you are is only determined by you yourself, and not merely an accident of birth”. A French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, is the most famous and influential 20th - century existentialist. He summed up human nature as “existence precedes essence”. In his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, he explained what he meant by this. “It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will be something, and he himself will have made what he will be 4”. After watching 12 Angry Men, the prominent view on human nature that is best portrayed in the movie is that people are free to be whatever they want because as Sartre said, “people create themselves every moment of everyday according to the choices they make 5”.