Porter 1
Lauren Porter
Communication Theory
10/29/2012
Dr. Swartz
“A Small Group of Thoughtful People Could Change the World. Indeed, it's the Only Thing That
Ever Has.” – Margaret Mead
Some researchers, such as Scott Poole, believe this influence of the small group to be so
strong, that they go so far as to contend that the small group should serve as the basic unit of
analysis in organizational research. With such stated importance, the small group without a
doubt has been researched thoroughly, with numerous theories concerning the matter being
brought to the forefront. Such a theory that has surfaced includes that of Groupthink, which
contains a series of assumptions that maintains that the desire for harmony in a decision-making
group sometimes overrides a realistic evaluation of alternate solutions (text). In this paper, we
will examine some of the theory’s antecedent conditions, symptoms, and manners of prevention
as they apply to our analysis of the famous 1957 film, “12 Angry Men”.
“12 Angry Men” is an American drama film directed by Sidney Lumet that steps into the
courtroom to observe the deliberation process of twelve men assigned to the duty of determining
acquittal or guilt of a young Spanish American man accused of murder. The nature of the movie
then lends itself very nicely to the theory of Groupthink in that the setting takes place almost
entirely in the court room, focusing solely on the interactions and the decision-making process of
the jurors. The initial vote of the jurors manifests a 11-1 vote in favor of guilt. Slowly,
Porter 2
throughout the span of the movie, the initial dissenter sways the opinion of the jurors in favor of
acquittal, so that by the end of the film, a unanimous vote in favor of guilt remains. The story of
how this transition is made serves as the catalyst for the film. As a result of such a focus on
decision-making as the driving force of the film, we can examine with ease the procedures
employed by the jurors and examine the ways in which they apply to the theory of Groupthink.
Before we begin our examination of the manner in which Groupthink may be applied to
the film, we must first examine the theory in itself. Groupthink is a theory pertaining to
organizational communication that focuses on the decision-making procedures employed by a
small group (text). The theory operates on 3 primary assumptions, including the following:
conditions in groups promote high cohesiveness, group problem solving is primarily a unified
process, and groups and group decision making are frequently complex (text). The theory also
identifies several antecedent conditions, as well as a list of symptoms that lead to the
phenomenon of groupthink, which we will examine and apply to our analysis of the film.
To start, Irving Janis, founder of the theory, asserts that three major antecedent conditions
provoke the establishment of groupthink (text). One antecedent condition that we found most
displayed in the film included that of the structural characteristics of the environment
surrounding the decision-making process of the jury. We discovered the presence of this
antecedent condition in a couple different capacities. First off, we noted the high group
insulation that the jury possessed. The group, by the very nature of the jury decision-making
process, is kept completely immune from external influences outside of the group. The setting of
the movie residing entirely in the courtroom further solidifies the severity of this condition, as
the juror members are purposely kept insulated from family or friends, media, or other external
influences that may provoke further thought concerning the decision made. Ironically, these
Porter 3
very conditions actually serve to hinder the decision-making process, as they lead the group
down the slippery slope into groupthink. Additionally, we see an abundance of a lack of
impartial leadership during the film as well. The major proponent asserting guilt, played by
George C. Scott, comes from a background of white supremacy and bigotry. As a result, he does
not hold truth and justice in mind during his speeches in front of the jury; instead, his prejudices
dominate his discourse to his fellow decision-making members.
As an addition to this antecedent condition of structural characteristics, internal and
external stress, also can be found throughout the film. The external stress is the pressure placed
upon the jurors to reach a unanimous decision and to decide the fate of the person accused of
committing this crime. As a result of this stress, the jurors proceed with the decision-making
process with the knowledge that they must reach a unanimous decision within a reasonable
amount of time. Such pressure begins to sway decisions. One particular spot in the film in
which this stress is clearly evident occurs when one of the jurors in favor of guilt switches his
decision to acquittal as he looks at his watch anxiously and states his intent on getting out and
continuing on with his day. In this case, external stress overrides his true feelings pertaining to
the boy’s guilt or innocence in the decision-making process. As demonstrated here, the external
conditions that lead to high cohesiveness of decision making in the group lead to pressure to
conform.
Next in our analysis, we examined the symptoms of groupthink as they were displayed
throughout the film. We discovered evidence to support all three of the categories of symptoms
that pertain to groupthink. First off, we examined the prevalence of the overestimation of the
group in the film. We discovered both subsets of this symptom, illusion of invulnerability and
belief in the inherent morality of the group, in one particular interaction. In the midst of the trial,
Porter 4
when votes in favor of guilt or innocence are practically even, one of the members speaks up and
reinstates the strength of the members of this group. He points out that they were brought to the
trial with the knowledge that they must decide this man’s fate, and that they are representing
American democracy and justice by their actions. While this may at first glance appear to boost
the morale of the group, it does so in a way that promotes the possible establishment of
groupthink. This statement may lead into this condition simply because the group is now high
on their perceived importance of their role in the determining of fate pertaining to this crime. At
this point, appeals to logos and ethos, as discussed in Aristotle’s theory of Rhetoric are also
found, as much of the communication centers on an effort to establish feelings of justice and
patriotism. As a result of these effective appeals of logic and goodwill, jury members perceive
their personal character, as well as their corresponding decisions, as strong. As a result, the
group members believe that they can do no wrong, and as a result, believe that the decisions that
they make can do no wrong. Such a condition is a clear symptom of groupthink.
Additionally, we discovered a great deal of closed-mindedness of the group displayed
throughout the film. First off, we noted that many out-group stereotypes pervade the analysis of
the crime. To examine these stereotypes further, we examined Burke’s pentad method for
applying Dramatism. For the act, we see that the speeches of the 12 jury members compose this
part of the pentad, as appeals are made to sway members one way or the other. In regards to
scene, the deliberation setting is hot, confined, and uncomfortable. The agent involves the 12
jurors involved in the deliberation and the appeal process. The purpose of these jurors is to
persuade other members of the group towards a like-minded decision. When we conclude our
Burkean examination through the use of dramatistic ratios, then, we feel that the agent to purpose
ratio is most paramount to the film. This ratio proves important as we saw that the purpose of
Porter 5
the jurors was sometimes biased and did not represent the ideal mold of the agent as objective
juror.
Also, we are told by these characters that the crime was committed by a young SpanishAmerican man. Considering the time frame of when this crime was committed, such a man was
perceived to be a member of a minority in society. There are pre-perceived ideas of the boy
based on his house location, his age, and his inherent culture. Throughout the discussion, we see
that the proponents who deem the guilt of the boy who has supposedly committed this crime
utilize these stereotypes often in their appeals to the jury. The biggest dissenter, for example,
throughout the entirety of the discussion alludes to a generalization pertaining to the minority of
which the young boy accused of the crime belongs, that generalization being that Spanish
American men are men of crime. When this dissenter contributes to the decision-making
process, therefore, he delivers speech that does not have just intentions; his prejudices evoke a
sense of anger that removes clear and objective thought. These interactions serve as additional
evidence of the symptom of closed-mindedness as acted out in the film.
The final category of symptoms pertaining to groupthink, pressures toward uniformity,
perhaps can be found most pervasively throughout the film. We discover a great deal of selfcensorship that occurs amidst the discussion of guilt versus innocence. In particular, one of the
meeker of the jurors, the man with the thick glasses, exhibits signs of internal questioning
throughout the conversations of the film. The physical signs manifesting this internal
questioning, or skepticism of sorts, include the burrowing of his brow and his facial expressions
displaying disagreement. Particularly, these signs can be found at the beginning of the trial,
when the majority has agreed almost unanimously on the guilt of the young boy. The viewer can
tell that this man maintains an internal view that does not coincide with the majority of these
Porter 6
jurors; his perceived importance of the goodwill of the group, as well as his personal doubt
concerning his opinion, however, minimize the need to speak out. Another characteristic of this
category includes the illusion of unanimity. This phenomenon occurs numerous times
throughout the discussion in that the jurors would fall silent, yet this silence did not always equal
agreement with the speech just made. The majority of the time, silence represented either selfcensorship or a lack of a desire to speak out, due to simple frustration. Finally, we discovered
the greatest amount of evidence with the final subset of this category of symptoms, that of
pressure on dissenters. The biggest proponent preaching the boy’s guilt, identified clearly at the
start of the film, exhibits this symptom the most. Whenever the initial dissenter would speak out
and ask the jurors to question their decision, this individual would raise his voice, throw things to
the floor, or even go so far as to call the dissenter a derogatory name. Such behavior does not
encourage inquiry and careful deliberation; instead, his actions intimidate not only the dissenter,
but the other jurors as well, into submission to agree with his dominant view.
After talking about symptoms of groupthink as they appeared in the film, we now turn to
an examination of how these symptoms could have been prevented. First off, it would have been
more beneficial to allow for consistent encouragement of individual’s opinions and thoughts.
We discovered a lack of this consistent encouragement of thoughts when individual group
members were belittled and attacked. For communication that would better encourage an open
and comfortable setting, the jury members should have been able to finish their complete
thoughts before being interrupted. Additionally, the leader of the jury does not seem to be in full
control at times; this is an example of groups not properly issuing standards and oversight. To
better implement these ideas, the jury leader could have shown better leadership skills, as well as
Porter 7
removed his personal opinions from the discussion so that he could better encourage rational and
objective thought.
In conclusion, not only is “12 Angry Men” an excellent movie with twist and turns that
will keep a viewer involved and interested, it is also an excellent example of many
communication theories and processes. We were able to locate numerous examples of rhetoric,
appeals, Burkean pentad elements, as well as applications of our main theory of focus,
Groupthink, during our analysis of the film. These examples set up direct applications of the
film that were more obvious than examples given throughout our text. We feel overall that “12
Angry Men” is without a doubt a great piece for viewing for anyone that is striving to understand
the concept of groupthink and the ways in which it affects small group communication.