The Ability to Influence People - Assignment Example

The ability to influence people is crucial especially when a group of individuals is tasked to make a unanimous decision on a critical HenryFonda’s Twelve Angry Men was able to illustrate how one among the twelve juries was able to influence the others who have voted guilty on one of the court’s most serious case yet. Juror 8, which was played by Fonda, was able to influence the eleven other jurors by using the peer influence tactic. Regardless of the differences that each individual possesses inside the room, Fonda’s character was able to affect each of their decisions.

Initially, when one is trying to influence others, resistance occurs. This was obviously demonstrated in the film when Juror number 8 stated the reasons why he voted for the “not guilty” verdict against the boy who was accused of killing his father. Given the responsibility to weigh the facts presented during the trial, Fonda’s character in the movie questioned these facts that were presented during the trial. He tried to make sense of the various situations that were probably not given as much argument in the courtroom by demonstration.

There was also the pressure tactic that Fonda’s character used in the film when he made the other men realize the weight of the “not guilty” verdict to the boy. Should the law execute the boy for a crime he did not commit since the jury decided to deliver a guilty verdict, his precious life would be wasted. Although some of the jurors remain oblivious of this horrible fate that the boy would end up with when they give a guilty verdict, there were still a few who could not afford to have a young man be put on an electric chair especially when during the trial, there exists reasonable doubt about the testimonies and evidence that were presented.

On the basis of the rational persuasion tactic that was evidently used by Fonda’s character to influence the other members of the jury, his subtle way of disagreeing with the rest of the jury’s decision of the verdict has greatly affected their opinion of him in the application of reason in decision-making. His character did not show any aggressive behavior in making the others understand his judgment on the case, particularly with the accused. Only when there were several members of the jury who believed in his reasons did he start to become aggressive in influencing the rest of the jury who thought the boy was guilty of killing his father.

Unlike other members of the jury who were influenced by their own personal judgments and prejudices, Fonda’s character was more effective in affecting the entire jury for he showed them how each of their personalities affects their ability to come up with a fair judgment. Fonda’s character was able to draw out every member of the jury’s biases on the accused, as well as their own personal experiences that led them to such a way of thinking. To some who could only care about the boy who may be given the death penalty when a guilty verdict is laid, he made them understand that their responsibility is but one that should not be neglected for a young man’s life is at stake.

His desire to justify and resolve the case in a logical manner led the group into resolving their own personal and interpersonal conflicts, which made Fonda’s character become an effective influencer as compared to the other members of the jury.