Social Psychological Perspective of Movie 12 Angry Men - Essay Example

A careful analysis of the film can reveal a great deal of information regarding group dynamics and processes, many of which have been verified and scientifically studied into the present day. One of the most obvious features within the film is the development and operation of the group as a whole. Because most of the jurors seem anxious to get out of the room and on with their day, there isn’t much time for the individuals to get to know each other, to form trusting relationships or to establish a sense of universality, all of which are integral to the complete effectiveness of the group (Beck & Lewis, 2000).

Despite this, the foreman in the film continues to attempt to keep the group functional by establishing the group rules and calling things to order when necessary. In doing this, he is attempting to establish the group as a unique social system brought together for a specific purpose (Cohn, 2005). As the remaining stages of the group are worked through in the film, the importance of this first step, and the foreman's knowledge of it, emerges as the group experiences numerous difficulties (12 Angry Men, 1957).

After the group has been established, Arnold and Boggs (2003) suggest the next phase of group formation is the storming phase in which “group members cope with power and control issues” (p. 319). In the film, this occurs as the various men begin raising their voices and arguing in true anger at the one man who expresses that he is not convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the boy on trial is guilty of murder. Everyone is standing, shouting and talking out of turn and the foreman, unable to regain order, attempts to give up his chair.

Recognizing that they’re all getting out of hand, several of the group members jump in to try to calm things down, reassure the foreman that he’s doing a tremendous job as leader and each member of the group seems to dedicate themselves to the issue at hand. This illustrates the concept of cohesion, in which the group begins to create emotional bonds to one another and a shared commitment to the group's primary task (Dion, 2000). This enables them to move into the ‘norming’ stage of group development as the men begin to realize that they all have the same responsibility to decide whether another man lives or dies and begin discussing the issues spontaneously rather than by a show of hands or a progression around the table.

With an attempt at respecting each others’ opinions and a dedication to sticking to the facts of the case, the group moves into the performing stage of group development, in which much of the work is done (Arnold and Boggs, 2003). As important as it is for a leader of a group to recognize and know how to deal with the various stages of group formation, it is also helpful to recognize the various ineffective roles that might be adopted by individual members of the group either temporarily or throughout the group task and can serve to either advance or disrupt group progress.

According to Benne and Sheats (1948), there are six negative self-roles that might come into play during group task work, roles that continue to be cited by modern day researchers. These include the Aggressor, the