Communication Styles in the Film 12 Angry Men

Introduction: Group Dynamics and Individual Communication

The movie 12 Angry Men is known for its portrayal of group dynamics and its demonstration of how a single dissenter has the power to change group opinion. In the film, twelve white men serving on a jury are asked to determine whether the accused — a young Hispanic male — is guilty of killing his father. While it is tempting to view the film exclusively as a group study, it is critical to consider that the jury is actually composed of several distinct individuals, each bringing their own attributes and communication styles to the group dynamic.

One juror whose communication style is particularly interesting is Juror 2, also known as "Mouse." He is characterized as a meek man with no opinions of his own, and throughout the movie one sees him vacillate in his beliefs about the defendant's guilt, seemingly swayed by the other jury members. However, a more careful inspection of Mouse's behavior reveals that he does have ideas of his own — he is simply fearful of sharing them with the rest of the jury.

Before discussing Mouse's communication style, it is important to address the apparent homogeneity of the group's composition. All of the jurors are white males, and at first glance they appear to have a great deal in common. One might think that this apparent similarity would encourage open communication among the individuals in the group. However, personal characteristics significantly influence how people communicate. Some of the more reticent jurors may be shy and reluctant to appear different from their peers. Mouse, a shy bank clerk, begins the film feeling very uncomfortable with the group process. He is hesitant to speak at all, which makes it difficult for the other jurors to know his perspective and makes it easy for them to assume he shares their views about the case, since he is not openly advocating for a different point of view.

Environmental Factors Shaping Communication

It is also critical to examine the impact of circumstances on communication styles. The jury is under time pressure to reach a verdict, and this pressure can increase the likelihood that some people will speak up — but it can also have the opposite effect on those who are naturally hesitant. Furthermore, the men are physically uncomfortable in the heat. Though not the central topic of this paper, research links heat to short tempers and even aggression. Several jury members immediately come across as angry and domineering, and one can reasonably assume that time pressure and heat would magnify their natural tendencies. It also seems fair to assume that naturally timid tendencies would be magnified under the same conditions.

Mouse begins the film as someone deeply uncomfortable with the jury process. He seems particularly uneasy with the idea that anything he says could add to the discomfort or pressure that the other members are already experiencing, and this reluctance shapes his communication behavior throughout much of the deliberation.

Mouse's Early Silence and Hidden Doubts

What is clear throughout the movie is that Mouse always harbors some concerns about the defendant's guilt. He is not among the six jurors who immediately vote guilty when the jury takes its initial vote. Instead, he votes guilty only after observing how most of the group will vote. Furthermore, he does not argue for the defendant's guilt. Rather, he appears to listen carefully to the arguments on both sides, including those of the lone dissenting juror. Even while listening to arguments in favor of a not-guilty verdict, however, Mouse sits on his concerns through much of the deliberation.

His early statement — "I just think he's guilty. I thought it was obvious from the word 'go.' I mean, no one proved otherwise" (Lumet, 1957) — is particularly revealing in light of his later admission that he had doubts about the evidence all along. Rather than relying on his own intellect and judgment, he allowed himself to be influenced by the group as a whole, suppressing reservations he had apparently held from the beginning.

Conclusion

Although shy and unlikely to engage in the meaningless communication or bluster that some of the other jurors employ, Mouse communicates when he feels his contribution has a genuine chance of being meaningful. His arc across the film illustrates that reticence is not necessarily the same as indifference or a lack of conviction. Mouse had substantive doubts about the evidence from early in the deliberation; what he lacked was the belief that voicing those doubts would make a difference. Once the dissenting juror created space for alternative viewpoints, Mouse's verbal and nonverbal communication worked together to articulate a clear, reasoned position — one that ultimately contributed to the jury's reconsideration of the defendant's guilt.

References

Lumet, S. (Director). (1957). 12 Angry Men. MGM Studios.