12 Angry Men Analysis with an Emphasis on the Social Judgmen

In this paper, each of these character's viewpoints will be examined through the levels of latitude. Three levels could be taken that would effect the position they held, which include: latitude of rejection, non commitment, and acceptance (Griffin, 180). Also, the level of ego-involvement will be examined because it describes why each character reacts a certain way to each of the findings about the case.

In the beginning, the group voted to see where everyone stands on the trial. The first vote totaled eleven guilty and one not guilty. Every one had their own reason for wanting to convict the boy but most took those reasons from the surface information they received in the courtroom. This displays a high level of acceptan

ce for most information that the jurors received in the courtroom, which means that they were all willing to accept the surface information.

Since one man voted not guilty on the first vote, the foreman went around the table to get explanations from each of the jurors as to why they voted guilty. No one really had substantial reasons, so the tables turned on the one man that voted not guilty. This man was the architect wearing the white suit. He stood alone in the vote but felt that he was justified in looking closer into the evidence. His decision to vote not guilty weighed heavily in the latitude of rejection. The architect did not agree that it was as simple as the rest of the jurors made it out to be. His outlook had a high level of rejection because he could not completely agree with the statements of the other jurors. He also could not say a statement he believed for certain, which gave him a low level of acceptance. The architect's comparison point, or anchor, focused more on the boy at trial than any other evidence (Griffin, 183). Thus, the comments of the other jurors became simplistic and he always countered their point of view.

Finally, the most difficult man in the room was the angry father. He was the last to change his vote. He had a bias against kids due to his own relationship with his son. This bias remained as his main anchor and he did not want to change it. He refused to accept or reject anything that did not serve his purpose. Several times he proved himself wrong on the very same issue he was trying to prove. He had a low level of acceptance and a high ego-involvement.

Coming from a different point of view, the stockbroker stuck with a few facts from the courtroom. He also had a bias on the neighborhood but kept his bias less obvious. He tried to be objective about the case by focusing on the f

Some topics in this essay:
Muzafer Sherif, , guilty guilty, reasonable doubt, boy trial, level commitment, level acceptance, voted guilty, changed vote, low ego-involvement, guilty guilty guilty, salesman changed vote, boy guilty, 12 angry, level commitment latitude, vote reasonable doubt, low level acceptance,