Introduction:
This assignment is on artifact analysis for my COMM 333 persuasion class. I have chosen to analyze the classic 1957 film, ‘12 Angry Men’. This film contains many of the persuasion topics we discussed in our class and is a perfect example of how persuasion can impact our lives. ‘12 Angry Men’ is about 12 jurors who are all discussing what their verdict on a trial will be. One of the jurors disagrees with the group’s initial opinion and goes on to try to persuade the group using various persuasion techniques.
Analysis:
Credibility: The two dimensions of credibility are expertise and trustworthiness. Expertise refers to the extent to which the audience perceives the speaker to be skilled, intelligent, and knowledgeable. Trustworthiness is about the extent to which the audience perceives the speaker to be honest, just, fair, and open-minded (Lambert, 2021). The main juror in ‘12 Angry Men’ who is trying to persuade the others to consider an alternative viewpoint is juror number 8, played by Henry Fonda. He gains credibility throughout the film by ensuring that all the other jurors treat this trial seriously and critically consider all of the elements. He reminds them that there only needs to be a reasonable doubt to vote not guilty, as the implications of a guilty verdict mean a death sentence. Juror number 6 gains credibility by citing his work experience and using his knowledge of the environment around the crime scene to help validate witness testimonies. Another credible member is the mediator, as he is there to ensure that all of the jurors can contribute equally to the conversation. However, he does not influence the jurors’ decisions and remains a neutral party. Some of the other jurors, such as juror number 3 and juror number 10 lack credibility as they are very stubborn in their viewpoints and express bias towards the accused by citing that economic status and race played a part in the murder.
Traits & Characteristics: The demographics of the 12 jurors are all white men of varying socioeconomic classes. Some of them are middle-aged, while others are older. In the film, they reference age and class as factors that contribute to coming to a verdict. The accused grew up in a poor area, surrounded by crime. Many of the jurors assumed that due to these factors, it was highly likely that he was the one who committed the crime. However, one of the jurors grew up in a poor area and had experience handling a knife and used his knowledge to dispel the incorrect assumptions about how the murder was committed. One of the witnesses who claimed they saw the murder was described as an old man. The older jurors used their insight to determine that the old man was most likely only claiming he saw the murder due to his desire for attention and fame. The jurors were also able to act out the approximate movement speed of the older witness and determine that he could not have possibly made it to the scene of the crime as he claimed he did. These statements made by the jurors had a significant impact on the group’s overall view of the case and persuaded many of them to change their votes.
ELM/TRA: The Elaboration Likelihood Model is a general theory of persuasion that attempts to explain how people process stimuli differently and how these processes change attitudes and behaviors (Nickerson, 2023). The Elaboration Likelihood Model can be related to '12 Angry Men' when juror number 8 asks the group to think critically about many of the witnesses' testimonies. Central route processing is used when they discuss the claims made by the witness and determine that their statements couldn’t be accurate enough to convict the accused. Peripheral route processing is used when some of the less credible jurors made claims that the accused likely committed the murder based on circumstantial evidence and coincidences. They also use aggression and non-verbal communication to attempt to influence some of the more susceptible jurors. These claims were not able to convince the other jurors to change their minds as they were easily disproven with critical thinking.
The Theory of Reasoned Action can also be related to the film due to the interpersonal dynamics of the jurors. They all experience significant social pressure on each other to come to a unified conclusion. Many of the jurors only voted guilty due to the majority of the group initially voting that way. The Theory of Reasoned Action claims that the intention to engage in a certain behavior is considered the best predictor of whether or not a person actually engages in that behavior (LaCaille, 1970). Each juror has their own set of attitudes and beliefs, and they use those beliefs towards the accused to come to a verdict. Juror number 8 is able to change their attitudes by presenting alternative perspectives and evidence.
Reflection: This assignment has opened my eyes as to how important persuasive communication is to our daily lives. A jury is the perfect example of when persuasive techniques can be the most impactful. The Elaboration Likelihood Model and the Theory of Reasoned Action are extremely relevant in these situations as societal norms and social pressures can influence our decision-making process. It reminds me how important it is to think critically about each situation I come across and to not give in to social pressures. I am now more aware of the people around me and am able to judge their credibility with better accuracy due to the concepts we learned in this course.
References
Lambert, B. (2021, May 9). Credibility: How to be Seen as a Trustworthy Expert — How
Communication Works. How Communication Works.
seen-as-a-trustworthy-expert
Nickerson, C. (2023, September 26). Elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Simply
LaCaille, L. (1970, January 1). Theory of reasoned action. SpringerLink.
Comments