Twelve Angry Men Debrief Questions

Twelve Angry valet de chambrepower Debrief Questions 1. What type of end was the sort out instructed to r all(prenominal) (e. g. legal age, consensus, authoritarian, etc. ) * When the 12 person control panel meets in the room to select on a blameful or non- disgraced verdict, the method used to vote was world-class ground on a majority close-making procedure where those would raise their hands for blamable and a non- nefarious verdict. Once the results were in and 11 voted guilty and 1 b all t r atomic number 18ot non guilty. Based on the movie, 11 members of the jury voted guilty while 1 juryman voted non-guilty. The 1 non-guilty, disrupted the dynamics of e realvirtuoso elses vote which leads to a major bout.They straight needed to illustrate the pros and cons of both guilty and non-guilty parties. 2. How did personality and interaction styles check the sorts dynamics, negate counselling and decision-making process? * With one voting non guilty, the assor t precious to handle why he voted non guilty. The dynamics in a hardly a(prenominal) members in the mathematical sort out became irritable ascribable to his vote which prolonged the voting process. With the hoist of contravention, the jury needed to orient up with a decision. In order to come up with their decision, they were to turn and cross referenced their particulars.They discussed why they thought the man was guilty and not guilty. Based on the fight cycle, the jury has r individuallyed the first stage of date, escalation. 3. How did diagonal/prejudices influence the groups dynamics, counterpoint management and decision-making process? * Under a majority influence, the decision making process demonstrated group idea. Bias and prejudice opinions influenced the groups dynamics through stereotyping the opponent based upon their prejudice references. some other tactic of influence was isolating the voter to think that his decision was wrong, making him look at that he was unpatriotic to the jury.Despite the pressure of being ridiculed from the majority, Fonda (non-guilty voter) illustrated a disparate kind of presentation with his interpretation of the facts which amused the majorities way of thinking. 4. What, if any thing, did the foremen do well that helped the groups conflict management and decision-making process? * The knob in order to diffuse conflict from escalating is the mediator. His ancestry is to mediate conflict by lull bothone down through their presentations. The foreman suggests that the group should, one by one, explain why they think the son is guilty. 5.What, if anything, could the foremen absorb through with(p) differently to help the groups conflict management and decision-making process? * The foreman shouldve been more regard when conflict rose between all the men. Thirty minutes into the movie, an insensitive chin-wagging was made by one of the jurymans. Another jurywoman found his comment uncalled-f or and retrieved that it shouldnt be joked about. As he looked at the foreman and told him this, the foreman only if said with an (I dont tutelage attitude), now what do you want me to do about that? It seems to me that while arguments got out of hand, the foreman didnt care to mediate the situation.I believe he needed to be a little more proactive. 6. Who was most prestigious on the groups decision-making process? What did he do that was so powerful on the group? And what interaction style did he bet to be using? * The most influential individuals in the group were the juror who was in truth biased against the 18 year old male child, whos trailed for murder. That juror discussed his thoughts in regards to a situation where his son struck him in the gibber. He stated that he pushed his son over the edge which caused him to strike. With his experience, his beliefs influenced the jury to believe that 1.The kid was from the slums and that all mess from the slums are bad. 2. H is situation with his son punching him in the jaw due to the rage of his father. Another influence was the juror who owned a garage. He segregated and divided the world by stereotyping them and us. Us, being the people who were rich and/or middle-class, and them being vile people who lived in slums. He believed that the preteen man was guilty due to the fact the he was born and raised in the slums which influenced the other members of the jury to think the equivalent way too.Lastly, is the juror who was a refugee from europium who was faced with many hardships and the reality of in arbiter. Because of his background, he wanted to see that there is justice for the boy during his trial, hence he voted not guilty. Based on his beliefs, on the facts of this boys pass, the juror is aboveboard and wants to do the right thing which is not remove the boy to the galvanizing contribute. This jurors reflection and his willingness to distort for justice is what influence members of th e juror. 7. What formative responses to conflict (refer to class vent on constructive and destructive responses to conflict) were displayed?Explain. * Some constructive responses to conflict were of passive-constructive responses and active-destructive responses to conflict. In certain situations, the juror who voted not guilty wanted to deescalate the case by discussing all of the facts. Although, all 11 jurors wanted to vote guilty for the boy, this juror wasnt too at ease with sending a boy to the electric chair without everyone discussing why. During everyones evaluation, they illustrative reflective thinking during discussion. 8. What destructive responses to conflict (refer to class handout on constructive and destructive responses to conflict) were displayed?Explain. * absolute majority of the juries responded with active-destructive responses. They wanted the boy dead. With that, the issue escalated every time the juror who found the boy not guilty pleaded his flat coat ing. Majority of the jury displayed tension, anger, irritability, and hostility. They retaliated by influencing the decision to send the boy to the electric chair. 9. What appearances seemed to most escalate conflict among the group? * Ive noticed some(prenominal) behaviors that escalated conflict within the group, the first behavior was that of people getting up suffice and travel away while the speaker was talking.The encourage behavior were of those who would rudely interrupt the speaker, the trine behavior are from those who were playing ticktacktoe during the speakers presentation, and travelly those who made unnecessary perspicacious comments. One behavior that extremely escalated the issue was one of the jurors charged another juror for calling him a sadist. 10. What behaviors seemed to most counteract conflict among the group? * Some behaviors that deescalated conflict were when one of the jurors stood up for the old man during his presentation on why one of the wit nesses wanted attention. Another behavior in deescalating conflict was when the European juror discussed the inwardness of democracy. For that reason, he seeks justice in the boys trial. He is also very impressed with the idea of democracy This is a remarkable thingthat we are notified by mail to come down to this place and decide on the guilt or innocence ofa man we have not known before (back). Because of these beliefs that this strange juror has, he is actually unbiased and will try hard to do the right thing. This is also reflected in his interaction with other jurors and his willingness to strive for justice for the accused. 1. What did the group do to transition forward each time it appeared headed for a stalemate? * For each time the group wanted to move forward, they all re-voted. Re-voting on the verdict growing the non-guilty vote. It was the final moment the last juror who believe the boy was guilty came to the coating that the boy was not guilty after seeing his son s photo. The last juror, at that point had no reason to justify his belief with all the facts evaluated. This stop the case with a non-guilty verdict, the boy was set free.