Social--01.0 12angry Men No Template

8/3/2019 Social--01.0 12angry Men No Template

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-010-12angry-men-no-template 1/25

Social Psychology

Prof. Michael Milburn



Checklist for THIS Thursday

group meeting [Sept. 20]--things

you should have done already

Appoint a group leader and an observer

Group leader plans discussion/quiz

Observer duplicates PMR forms for group

to fill out at end of meeting

Group members study course readingmaterial in preparation for the group

meeting



If you have not been assigned to

a group yet--please see me after

class



A Social Psychological Analysis

of 12 Angry Men

Research on Group Process and

Decision Making--The Theory of Group Polarization



In books on jury process--12

Angry Men is treated as a joke A switch from 11-1 in one direction to 12-0

in the other is a statistical rarity

Nevertheless, 12 Angry Men is a convincing

movie. Why?

Movie conforms to known principles of

group dynamics



Steps in the decision-making

process as portrayed in 12 Angry

Men

Time 1--initial individual decisions aremade (11-1 for guilty)

Time 2--convene as a group--discuss theproblem

Time 3--a group decision is reached (0-12

for not guilty)

These steps parallel the group process of research in Group Polarization



Theory of Group Polarization

I. History of research

A. Major dimension for decisions is riskinessB. Early research (Whyte, 1956) — groups

avoid risk

C. Stoner (1961) — groups make riskier

decisions

1. Story of Mr. A

2. Choice dilemmas (“Risky Shift”)





1 in 10

2 in 10

3 in 10

8 in 10

7 in 10

6 in 10

5 in 10

4 in 10

9 in 10

10 in 10

Mean

Most risky

Most cautious

A

E,F

B,C

D

FinalInitial

Unanimousgroupdecision

Unanimous

group decision

riskier thanmean of initial

individual

decisions

Not everyonebecomes

riskier--

primarily those

near middle of

the scale (5 in

10)



II. Risky Shift research

A. However, not all items produced the

risky shift--some shifted toward

caution

1. Mr. M & Ms. T2. Henry

B. The more risky (or cautious) the

initial mean, the greater theshift in the risky (or cautious)

direction (Myers & Arenson)

C. Reformulated as Group Polarization



So, “risky shift” is a special case

of a more general phenomenon

now called “Group Polarization”



III. Explanations for the Group

Polarization phenomenon

Persuasive Arguments Social Comparison



Persuasive Arguments

Arguments favoring

RISK

Arguments

favoring

CAUTION

Bob

Sue

Jeff



Ebbeson and Bowers--Persuasive

arguments Used Stoner’s original risk dilemmas

Tape recorded scripts of discussions, varying

proportions of arguments

Subjects made initial judgment; listened to

discussion; made new judgment

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

.1 .3 .5 .7 .9

Proportion Risky Arguments

M e a n s h i f t

Risky

Conservative



Social Comparison

Any specific choice dilemma evokes either

risk or caution

Before knowing others’ decisions, peoplemake choice of what appears desirable

Following discussion, people motivated to

change position relative to other people



Jury Research--evidence for

Group Polarization effects Kalven & Zeisel (1966)--90% of unanimous

juries research verdict consistent with initial

majority vote

Myers & Kaplan (1976)--simulated juries

deliberating traffic felony cases; discussion

produces shift in initial direction





Myers and Kaplan results

FinalInitial

JUDGMENTS OF GUILT

4

6

8

10

12

14High guilt cases

Low guilt cases

Not discussed



Myers and Kaplan results

FinalInitial

JUDGMENTS OF GUILT

4

6

8

10

12

14High guilt cases

Low guilt cases

Discussed

Not discussed



So, how does this all apply to an

understanding of 12 Angry Men?



Arguments favoring guilty

heard initially in trial

Arguments favoring not guilty

heard later in jury

deliberation

Persuasive Arguments explanation in

12 Angry Men--

In the trial, there was a biased sampling of arguments heard, favoring guilt

Overall

argumentsand

evidence

favor not

guilty

verdict



Social Comparison in 12 Angry

Men After discussion, vote is 6 to 6, social

comparison likely to enter process

Self- presentation of a “conscientious juror”

Either have qualities or behave like other

people who appear to have them

Switches occur in order of social

desirability





Conclusion

12 Angry Men understandable in terms of the

causal processes that have been found to influence

group decision making: Persuasive arguments

Social comparison

Social Psychology identifies the causal processes

that influence social behavior--not just

personalities, but also characteristics of situations



If you have not been assigned to

a group yet--please see me NOW

Documents

Social--01.0 12angry Men No Template