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.
After the first vote, the rest of the group sort of stood against the architect and he told them to take a secret ballot vote. He said that if no one had a reasonable doubt, meaning everyone had a statement that convinced themselves the boy was guilty, then he would also vote guilty. This was significant because it made the old man speak up. The old man began to see the architect's need to talk it through more thoroughly and decided to invest more into the case. Then the old man's latitude shifted more to rejection because he began to reject more of the surface facts and dig deeper. His in-depth thought began to change his low ego-involvement to high ego-involvement.
Two characters in particular made judgments with a strong latitude of non commitment at different angles. The loudest character, in this latitude, was the salesman. This man was a big baseball fan and consistently wanted to leave because of a baseball game he was missing. The game made him biased because he just wanted to agree with everyone else so that he could leave. He had low ego-involvement and no interest in being on the jury at all. Thus, the salesman changed his vote when the others were changing theirs to not guilty. The European watchmaker even asked the salesman if he changed his vote because he had reasonable doubt or because of the ball game he was missing. The salesman had no response to his question ultimately. This showed the salesman lack of interest and illustrated his high level of non commitment.
