 |
| Photo found here. |
Immediately the group jumped into false consensus assuming that everyone argued even if they didn't fully know why. This changed over the course of the film because they began to be more analytical in their discussion and in their thoughts. They slowly allowed discussion of opposing views and alternate possibilities that allowed them to more thoroughly and thoughtfully make decisions and follow a more rigid format.
2. Discuss any signs of groupthink and/or false consensus that were evident in the movie and what happened to perpetuate or counter-act those signs.
Groupthink was very evident among the majority of the jury at the beginning of the film. They seemed more concerned about having a unanimous agreement or decision to take to the judge to get them out rather quickly, than with the true decision-making process is to whether or not the defendant was actually guilty or not-guilty. Juror 8 was the only one at first to resist this decision making method. Gradually, every juror resisted group think, allowing for a more ethical and effective decision making process.
Several jurors, especially Juror Two and Three wanted to move forward with a guilty verdict because they assumed everyone agreed, proving the signs of false consensus. There were moments where some jurors were silents and the more headstrong jurors took that as agreement with a guilty verdict. Juror Eight helped to counteract all of these instances of false consensus and groupthink and others slowly joined him in a more thoughtful, analytical approach.
3. Did you see examples of comprehensive and critical listening? How were those demonstrated and what were the outcomes?
Juror Eight was a good example of comprehensive and critical listening. He was thoughtful, avoiding interruptions and pointing out areas of agreement. He was motivated by the desire to understand the case and all its facets. He was interested in understanding the true thoughtful points of view of his fellow jurors. Again, he slowly helped those who were more silent to feel comfortable speaking up and expressing their opinions which helped everyone understand each other and the case more clearly.
4. Did you see examples of dialogue? Did you see examples of monologue? Discuss how these types of communication behaviors influenced the group decision making process.
There were examples of true dialogue, but it took awhile. After the barriers of false consensus and groupthink were out of the way, there were more meaningful, collaborative interactions that point toward true authentic dialogue. Monologue occurred most often when jurors wanted to push their agenda and didn't allow for critical listening and were pushing groupthink.
5. Was conflict managed effectively? What examples from the movie show effective and ineffective conflict management strategies?
I think Juror Eight led the way in managing conflict effectively due to his nature of not standing down, but not being overly passionate about his argumentative side. He avoided personal attacks that some of the other jurors hinged their arguments on. He was reasonable and truly conveyed his desire to reach the best possible outcome.
