Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Copy of Group Dynamics: 12 Angry Men
Transcript of Copy of Group Dynamics: 12 Angry Men
Task and Social Dimension
speaking up acting in your own best interests without denying the rights and interests of others
12 ANGRY MEN
Symptoms of a Cohesive Group
High Interaction Levels
~Friendly, Supportive Communication Climate
~Desire to Conform to Group Expectations
~Use of creative, Productive Approaches to Achieve the Goal
acting in your own self-interest at the expensive of others
Often insensitive and combative
reluctant to express their opinions
may do what they're told, but probably disagrees and dislikes the order
Davis vs. Angry man
He clearly states his opinion
acknowledges and respects other opinions
Opinions are often insensitive and negative
confrontational and combative
refuses to acknowledge other opinions
How to Enhance Group Cohesion
~Establish a Group Identity and Traditions
~Recognize and Reward Contributions
~Respect Group Members
Substantive Conflict- occurs when members disagree about issues, or goals.
Roles that focus on completing the task
Juror 8: Davis
Asses ideas, arguments, and suggestions
serves as the critical thinker
Roles that affect how the group gets along
Procedural Conflict- is disagreement among group members about the method or process the group uses to complete a goal.
Affective Conflict- is the result of interpersonal disagreements, beliefs.
Juror 9: McCardle
praises and agrees with members
provides recognition and listens emphatically
Juror 3: Angry man
disagreeable and uncompromising
prevents others from participating
asserts opinions upon others
Juror 6: Baseball guy
inappropriate humor or commentary
goofs off and distracts the group
planned in advance
"Murder in the first degree - premeditated homicide - is the most serious charge in our criminal courts." (JUDGE, pg 5)
the act or process of holding a trial against a person accused of a crime to see if that person is guilty
"The burden of proof is on the prosecution." (8th JUROR, pg 14)
causing mild anger
"I can't see two slaps in the face provoking him into committing murder." (8th JUROR, pg 17)
not usual or normal
"Everyone sounds so positive that I started to get a peculiar feeling about this trial." (8th JUROR, pg 19)
based on information which suggests something is true but does not prove that it is true
"There was a lot of circumstantial evidence, but actually the two witnesses were the entire case for the prosecution." (8th JUROR, pg 20)
a situation in which events happen at the same time in a what that is not planned or expected
"Aren't you asking us to accept a pretty incredible coincidence?" (4th JUROR, pg 23)
move around in a confused mass
"There's no point in milling around here." (FOREMAN, pg24)
helping to develop or improve something
"Who's got something constructive to say?" (FOREMAN, pg. 27)
to choose not to do or have something.
"I'll abstain." (8th JUROR, pg. 26)
to do or say something before something
And it kills me, I mean it's the weirdest thing sometimes the way they precede the idea with some kind of phrase. (12th JUROR, pg.29)
pretending to be morally better than other people
"You come with your sanctimonious talk about slum kids and injustice, and you make up some wild stories, and all of a sudden you start getting through to some of these old ladies in here." (3rd JUROR pg. 47)
of or relating to the ability to think in a logical way
"You're just letting yourself get bulldozed by a bunch'a what d'ya call 'em - intellecuals." (10th JUROR pg. 52)
a branch or medicine that deals with mental or emotional disorders
"Listen I've got three psychiatrists keeping their cars in one of my garages." (10th JUROR pg.58)
likely to kill someone
"What I was gonna say was, the psychiatrist definitely stated the boy had strong homicidal tendencies." (FOREMAN pg. 58)
bitterness of spirit
"Where the hell do you get the gall...?" (10th JUROR, pg. 65)
a feeling of like or dislike for someone or something especially when it is not reasonable or loyal
"It's very hard to try to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this." (8th JUROR pg. 66)
difficult or possible to know completely or with certainty
"And no matter where you run into it prejudice obscures the truth." (8th JUROR pg. 66)
to reach no verdict
"I think that's a point in which we might want to discuss whether we might be a hung jury or not." (4th JUROR (pg. 68)
the decision made by a jury
"We have a verdict."
(FOREMAN, pg. 73)
a story or statement that is not true
"This is the charming and imaginative little fable they invented." (4th JUROR, pg. 22)
organized, likes to keep things in order, high school coach
"Well, I was thinking we ought to sit in order, by jury numbers." (FOREMAN,pg. 9)
calm, quiet, works as a banker, seems open to hearing others opinions
FOREMAN:"Well, who's got something to say?" 2nd JUROR: "Not me." (pg. 12)
the author deliberately does not give personalized details, including names, of each juror - all characterization is indirect
The play is set in a jury room in New York City. The year is 1957. Twelve men from diverse backgrounds have been sequestered as a jury formed in order to determine the guilt or innocence of a 16-year old boy who is charged with the murder of his father.
CHRONOLOGY OF IMPORTANT EVENTS
The first vote to determine guilt or innocence is taken. There are eleven votes for guilty and one for innocent.
This event is critical to the rest of the story because it shows that the overwhelming majority of the jurors have already decided the teenager on trial is guilty of patricide. It reminds the audience that if the jury finds this young man guilty of first-degree murder, he will be sent to the electric chair. The discussion leading up to the vote gives insight into the mindsets of several of the jurors.
by Reginald Rose
During the second vote taken, the 9th juror votes not guilty in order to hear more from the 8th juror as to why he continues to vote not guilty.
8th juror pulls out a knife and stuns the other jurors because it is identical to the murder weapon. This is important because a key piece of evidence against the boy was the "uniqueness" of the knife used to commit the crime.
The 5th and 11th jurors change their vote to not guilty.
The 8th juror proves the old man, who was one of the key witnesses against the boy, may not have actually seen the killing taking away one of the reasons the other jurors think the boy is guilty.
The 3rd juror lunges at the 8th juror almost resulting in a fight, ending Act 1.
The third vote comes in at an even 6-6.
The 8th juror demonstrates the knife wound could not have been inflicted by the boy because the way he would have used the knife did not match the angle of the wound.
The fourth vote comes in at 9-3 with the last jurors being the 3rd, 7th, and 10th.
The 7th and 10th jurors change their vote to not guilty, leaving the 3rd juror as the sole guilty vote.
The 3rd juror concedes and changes his vote to not guilty, thereby allowing the boy to live.
The near fight between the 8th and 3rd juror is a very important part in the story because it adds even more tension to the two. They quickly become the protaganist and antaganist, As well as, they force the other jurors to choose sides.
When the 7th and 10th jurors change their vote to not guilty, this leaves the 3rd juror all alone in his guilty vote and pins the inabilility to reach a verdict on him. The 3rd juror feels even more bullied by the other jury members.
angry, runs a messenger service, has a terrible relationship with his own son which influences his thinking of the defendant
"Let go of me, I'll kill him!" (3rd JUROR, pg.48)
impatient, organized, straight-forward
"If we're going to discuss this case, let's stick to the facts." (4th JUROR, pg.13)
grew up in a background similar to the young man who is on trial, nervous
"I've lived in a slum all my life." (5th JUROR, pg.18)
funny, southern accent, looks at the facts carefully, examines evidence for a motive
"You sound like you've met my brother in law." (6th JUROR, pg.20)
friendly, impatient, is eager for a verdict so he can get to a baseball game he has tickets for
"Hey, how about getting started here?" (7th JUROR, pg.7)
optimistic, logical, persuasive, is determined to give the defendant a fair trial by examining the evidence against him closely
"Is it possible?" (8th JUROR, pg.71)
old in age, defends others, has insights which are very persuasive
"But I want to hear more."(9th JUROR, pg.28)
funny, impatient, likes sports, does not care much abouat the verdict
"Yes, I think he's guilty but I couldn't care less." (10th JUROR, pg.71)
foreign-born, handles insults from the others with grace, never loses his temper
"I have always though that in this country a man was entitled to have unpopular opinions." (11th JUROR, pg.27)
quiet, logical, calm, works at an advertising agency, doesn't take the proceedings seriously in the beginning
"Take it easy." (12th JUROR, pg.19)
The 8th juror votes not guilty because he is very optimistic. So now he is in the position in which he must explain why he chose not guilty. He becomes the antaganist with this decision and must try and persuade the others now.
The 3rd juror votes for guilty because he has set his mind that the boy is a ruthless killer. Although, he is one of the jurors to vote guilty, he is not truly defined as the antagonist yet. However, we know that he is very firm is his conviction that the boy is guilty
The 8th juror has gained a little support from the 5th, 9th, and 11th jurors. He has even questioned some of the parts of the case that others did not even think about such as showing a knife identical to the murder weapon.
The 3rd juror nearly started a fight with the 8th juror. However, the other jurors caught him and he is now clearly labeled as the anataganist. Their is now a clear conflict between the 3rd and 8th juror.
The 8th juror now has created a huge momentum swing and is now winning the decision of the case. The 3rd juror is still holding out but has no help now because the 7th and 10th jurors have just changed their votes.
The 3rd juror is still holding out and seems determined to vote despite the evidence being shown to be questionable. With the 7th and 10th jurors no longer defending him he now is all by himself. After a final confrontation with the 8th juror, he finally realized he is letting his relationship with his own son prejudice his vote. He changes his vote to not guilty, allowing the boy to live.
THE ANTAGONIST - he is determined to find the boy guilty.
THE PROTAGONIST - he is determined the boy will have a fair trial and forces the other jurors to rethink the evidence
Lexile Level 1200
Brought to you by Tiernan Johnson