12 Angry Multiparty Negotiators:Exploring Negation Tactics used in "12 Angry Men"

MGT 6110Negotiation and Conflict Resolution

Fall 2010

Bart EdwardsStanislav Komsky

Kary Winkler

INTRODUCTION

"Of course you know we've got a first degree murder charge here, and if we vote the accused

guilty, we've got to send him to the chair" stated Juror #1, the foreman of the group before

their first vote. 12 Angry Men tells the story of a jury made up of twelve men as they discuss

the guilt or innocence of a defendant, referred to as “the boy,” on the basis of reasonable

doubt. The film explores many negotiation techniques, and the difficulties encountered in a

multi-party negotiation process where the common goal is to try to reach a unanimous

conclusion. The paper will cover the range of bargaining and negotiation styles used among the

group of men whose personalities add to the intensity of the conflict. This paper will skillfully

follow the influence weapons and negotiation fouls of each Juror one by one as the negotiation

flows from nearly a unanimous guilty verdict to an absolutely unanimous non-guilty verdict.

Juror #1

Either through volunteering or chronological delegation, juror #1 was the foreman of the group

and tasked with leading the discussion, which quickly turns into a quite interesting negotiation.

He was not very assertive, especially when it came to his role of authority, offering to give it up

to anyone that would want it. He was however, highly cooperative, making sure the trial was

fair and all the other jurors were heard. Overall he was non-resistant and had an

accommodating negotiation style. His target point was running the trial based on how everyone

else wanted to run it, which included an initial vote of guilty, and his reservation point was

reaching a verdict through a fair negotiation.

When he firsts begins the negotiation he recommends voting through secret ballot, which

would have been an excellent idea because public display of opinions results in someone

becoming even more committed to their position. Once the Jurors make a choice and take a

stand, they will ultimately encounter personal and interpersonal pressures to behave

consistently with that commitment. After the first vote, he attempts to encourage the other

Jurors to pay attention to the problem at hand. Seemingly separating the people from the

problem; however, that is in fact not the case because he agrees with the idea of having

everyone who voting guilty explaining their reasoning to Juror #8 in order to show him where

he is wrong. As the leader he quickly turns the negotiation into a discussion about right and

wrong positions instead of underlying interests and principals.

After the second vote he begins to get quite defensive when Juror #10 does not show respect

for his role of leader. In a wave of frustration he offers to give up his leadership position. He

should have recast the attack on him as a somewhat poor leader onto the problem at hand. He

took the frustrations that Juror #10 had on the situation personally and proceeding to defend

himself, which caused him to lose any bit of leader status that the other Jurors may have

awarded him. He retreats from the negotiation and by the third vote he seems almost

detached. His lack of interest and impartial attitude makes him highly susceptible to social

proof. As long as the majority of Jurors are voting guilty, he himself is voting guilty because he

views their behavior as correct. Throughout the movie he never provides reasons for his vote.

Even at the very beginning of the movie where he decided to have everyone speak in turn he

skips himself. By the fifth vote it is evident that he is a victim of social proof because he changes

his vote to not guilty once the majority of the other Jurors do so. Social proof says that we view

a behavior as correct in a given situation to the degree that we see others performing it. He

relied on the other Jurors to tell him how he should act throughout the entire negotiation.

Juror #2

Juror #1 seems to be a very timid man who was not very assertive in his points. He was

however, highly cooperative, even timing juror #8 walk around the room to prove a point.

Overall he had a accommodating negotiation style. His target point was voting guilty as he said

he thought it was "obvious from the word 'go'" and his reservation point was a non-time

dependent fair verdict. After the first vote he is the first Juror to express his reasoning for

voting guilty. He is reacting according to his click, whirr. Click, whirr is the tendency to respond

mechanically to one piece of information in a situation. He says that he holds all of the evidence

that was presented to him in court as fact because the defense did not prove otherwise;

basically he believes what he is told. A simple argument or declaration of fact is the trigger for

his click, whirr. However, he is also responding under the influence of authority. He does not

question the arguments of the prosecutor because he does not have a vested interest in the

outcome which is an example that we will think more about something if it will affect us

directly. On the other hand, seems to be very open to reason when the discussion turns to the

knife. Being open to reason is very important in negotiating because it allows him to remain

open to change and not tied down by his early commitment and the urge to remain consistent.

After the second vote, he begins to understand that just because the prosecutor

presented evidence does not make them facts. When the Jurors are discussing the old man

witness hearing the young boy shout “I am going to kill you,” he provides a personal example of

perception mixed with emotion. He shows that just because someone says something does not

make it true and sense they are only perceiving what the old man said he heard the boy yell

does not make it reality. Once he begins to open up and talk a bit more he appears that he

might be going for liking. He offers a cough drop to the group and when only Juror #8 decides to

receive one he seems happy in a way. He wants people to like him so that they will listen to him

more. After the fourth vote, he changes his vote to not guilty and then could have a lot to do

with the reciprocity rule as well as liking. He does not seem to like when the other guilty voters

talk to him rudely so he changes his vote to band with the nicer Jurors almost as a thank you.

Juror #3

Juror #3 was very assertive, and at time hostile. He was also not very cooperative as he

had personal prejudice in the case based on his relationship to his own child. Overall he had a

competing negotiation style and a target point of a guilty verdict. From the very beginning it is

evident that he is not separating the people from the problem. He also does not seem to be

very open to reason by calling the trial an “open and shut case.” When he explains his reasons

for voting guilty his main argument is drawn from unfounded inferences about the

neighborhood where the young boy is from. He appears to have allowed is own relationship

with his son become entangled with the problem. His anger over his personal situation leads

him to express anger toward the young boy. But it does not stop there because after the

second ballot, which was secret, he becomes unfounded angry with Juror #5 who also serves as

a representative of the young boys neighborhood in his head. An innocent association with

either bad things or good things will influence how people feel about another person. Liking

negatively influenced him as he judged Juror #5 based on his background.

Throughout the negotiation he does not take others problems into consideration and he

continues to attempt to use pressure to get others to agree with him. He is focused on riding

the streets of such a “dangerous killer”, which is the conclusion if he is found guilty, instead of

the reasons for why he getting to that conclusion. However, he does think that he is negotiating

on the facts where he is actually negotiating on his positions and not attempting to understand

the interests behind the positions he has decided to take. This behavior does not change. After

the third vote, he verbally attacks Juror #11 just as he has attacked the other Jurors that

attempt to provide a voice of reason. However, the more he attempts to discredit others

arguments he begins to discredit his own because he is not negotiating on interests but on

positions. For example, when he says that the young boy absolutely meant that he was going to

kill his father when he said “I am going to kill you,” Juror #8 skillfully allowed him to discredit

himself. Juror #8 pointed out his lack of separating the people from the problem when Juror #8

brought light to his comment “we are letting him slip through our fingers” as if Juror #3 was the

prosecutor himself.

Interesting enough after the whole debacle, he tries to go for liking from Juror #4. He tries to

commonly explain himself and see if he can gain support and understanding; however, it back

fires because he as been too angry for too long. If he wanted someone to listen and understand

his reasoning, he should have given his interests and reasoning first and then his conclusions

and/or proposals later. As a result, of his actions in the end no one supported him. After the

sixth vote he wants to announce a hung jury just so he does not have to lose. He was still not

open to reason when they discussed the woman witness’s glasses. Every time a Juror attempts

to set objective criteria for discussing the evidence of the case he does not consider any of

them important because of his perception and underlying interest. Eventually, his interest get

the best of the him and when he is the only one left standing with a guilty vote he crumbles

under his own internal interests. He was a hostage of the commitment and consistency

principles, which caused him to have fearful avoidance to the reasoning presented to him. He

did not want to let the boy go free because in a way he thought he would be justifying what his

own son did to him.

Juror #4

Juror #4 was the 3rd to last juror to switch over to a guilty plea but he was very

cooperative when it came to discussing the evidence. He was also highly assertive when giving

very logical arguments for all of the evidence. Overall he had a collaborating negotiation style.

His target point was a guilty vote which he was pretty certain of, and his reservation point was a

fair trial and collaborative and logical discussion of the evidence. Throughout the negotiation

he remains very attached to the evidence presented in the trial. He tends to remember very

small details about the evidence presented by the prosecution. However, even he is not

immune to drawing opinions from substance unfounded inferences. He categorizes the young

boy by saying “its no secret the children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to

society.” Although, he is not separating the people from the problem he does not seem to be

immune to the other Jurors reasoning. However, his perceptions of the young boy cause him to

look at the witnesses’ words as “facts” and the boy’s words as “claims.” He like many of the

other Jurors was under the influence of scarcity when it came to the knife. When things are less

available we see them as more valuable. Since the knife was described in court as one of its

kind, he believed that it was not probable for someone else to have the same knife. In fact, the

scarcity of that kind of knife made him believe the prosecution that much more. However, once

Juror #8 proved to him how available that type of knife actually was he backed down from the

argument, which shows that he is able to accept reasoning.

After the second vote, he is still holding strongly to his vote of guilty. He does not seem

to show blind commitment to his vote but he is remaining consistent with anchoring his vote on

evidence presented in court. Even though he seems to be basing his arguments on “facts” he

speaks in very general terms for someone who wants to appear to be exact. He initially does

not find it important how he defines “panic”, when discussing the boy’s state or “went”, when

discussing the old man’s walk to the door or “hit”, when discussing the father hitting his young

boy. However, after the third vote Juror #8 asks him put himself in the boy’s shoes regarding

the movie and he to see that is arguments may have been based on positions and perceptions

instead of facts.

We have a way of only seeing what fits into our accepted way of thinking, which creates

fixed-action patterns. He did not find any other outside clues important because he already

decided that what was presented was fact. Therefore, once Juror #9 reminded him that the

woman were glasses he was forced to take into account all of the things that he either did not

notice or deemed to be unimportant. He ultimately changed his vote to not guilty once a

reasonable doubt was revealed in all of his arguments.

Juror #5

Jury #5 was not at all assertive and very quiet, even asking to be skipped when it was his

turn to explain why he voted guilty. He was also not very cooperative, taking offense from Juror

#3 talking about his slum background, and seemingly basing his vote on that. Overall he had a

very avoiding negotiation style, made evident by him avoiding to comment on his guilty vote.

His target point was a guilty vote based on the initial evidence and his reservation point was

getting a verdict without much contribution. He listened actively to what the other Jurors were

saying about young boys from his neighborhood. Although, he attempted to defend himself he

still seemed a bit ashamed which could have lead to his voting guilty in the first place. We have

a tendency to want to fit in. He seemed to be battling internally with staying true to himself but

also not wanted to be associated with the bad aspects of the young boy’s background.

Therefore, he voted guilty in order to induce liking because at no time did he actually give a

reason for why he voted guilty.

After the second vote, he seemed to be open to reason when he agreed that the old

man could not have possibly heard the yells through the floor of the apartment and over the

passing train outside the window. He changes his vote to not guilty before the official third

vote. This public announcement showed the other Jurors that he was in fact not ashamed of his

background but in some way proud of it. He became even more open to reason in order to

support this inner change. Inner change is a commitment that produces a change in how the

people view themselves. He began to bring in personal experiences from his background to

disprove some of the “facts” presented such as how the knife was actually used to stab the

young boy’s father. Since he began to see his background as a positive instead of a negative his

actions within the negotiations changes drastically.

Juror #6

Juror number six’s role in the movie is primarily one of an enforcer. He was very assertive,

especially when it came to letting juror members speak without being interrupted, but not very

collaborative. He did not participate much in the discussion of the evidence, and though not as

passionate about his positions as other jurors, uses a strongly competitive negotiating style. His

target point was his original guilty vote based on the evidence, and his reservation point was a

fair trial where everyone's opinion was heard. Often, he uses threats of violence, which work to

varying degrees. We submit that he was always hesitant to vote guilty, but that social proof

made him vote guilty in the beginning, and his desire to remain consistent allowed the guilty

vote to persevere over his doubts.

His doubts were obvious in the beginning. In the preliminary vote, he is among the last to raise

his hand, only doing so after he looked around the room and saw everyone else vote guilty,

which is evidence that he did not vote so because of his own beliefs, but rather because of his

desire to go along. Additionally, his tone when he was stating his case was sheepish. It was

almost as if he was asking the rest of the room what they thought.

What is interesting about juror #6 is that his role in the room contrasted starkly to the manner

in which he stated his positions. In the room, he was very much an enforcer. His hallmark

moment came in defense of the “old man” (juror #9): “What are you talking to him like that

for? Guy talks like that to an old man really outta get stepped on. You outta have more respect

mister. You say stuff like that to him again, I'm gonna lay you out.” What is surprising about

this threat is how well it worked in silencing juror #10. We submit that juror #10 felt

legitimately threatened, and that his cold made him feel even more vulnerable. The theme of

violence continued throughout the movie. He continuously would make remarks regarding

violence, for example “we’re all punchy,” and “what a murderous day.” He even validates his

expertise in fighting by remarking that there is a difference between a slap and a punch. Near

the middle of the film, he again attempts to maintain control through violence by threatening

juror #7. He says, “Hey my friend, why don’t you stop making smart remarks” in a very

threatening voice. This time, however, it does not work as juror number seven stands up for

himself verbally and does not relent in making wise-cracks.

A final interesting note regarding juror number six is that he is the only juror to noticeably make

juror #8 doubt his position and his actions when he says “supposing you talk us out of this and

the kid really did knife his father.” While he does this, he gives juror number eight a slight tap

on the chest, but this time in a very friendly way. The effect of such a tap is that it creates a

connection with the tapee. Additionally, juror #8 clearly illustrates that he is interested in

being fair and compassionate. By connecting with him on his own level, juror number six is able

to speak to his sense of compassion not for the boy, but for the boy’s father, who may have

been killed in cold blood. The implication is then, that the boy’s father would not be treated

with fairness and compassion.

Juror #7

Juror #7 is a boisterous competing negotiator who eventually moves to an accommodator. His

primary influence tactic is through social proof. He seems more concerned with outside factors

than with the matters at hand in the case. Chief among these factors is his time constraint—the

baseball game. His target point is a guilty vote and reservation point is any vote that happens

as soon as possible. He continuously makes remarks throughout the film referring to the time.

He comes into the room and remarks “maybe we can all get out of here, huh?” as the

preliminary vote begins. He also refers to time while attempting to establish precedent in his

own head when he remarks “I honestly think the guy’s guilty, you couldn’t change my mind in

10,000 years.” This is similar to Cialdini’s discussion of how positions will grow legs; in many

ways, people will try to build these legs themselves because they are unsure of the original

position’s validity, but have an instinctual need to remain consistent. His time-based position

eventually encourages him to change his vote from guilty to not guilty when he begins to feel

that he needs to swing the tide in the other direction when the vote is at six-to-six.

He plainly declares his negotiating style in the bathroom when he says he hits them where

home is. He likes to laugh, buy drinks, tell jokes, and use tricks. In his normal life, he uses these

influence factors to sell marmalade; however, marmalade is a fairly trivial item (he even goes so

far as to admit it himself), and a man’s life is far more serious. Because of that, many of his

attempts to influence often come off as boorish or sophomoric, and yield little results.

In the beginning, he attempts to connect with various jurors, mostly to negative or neutral

effect. As everyone joins the room, he offers juror #8 gum, and then begins to talk to juror #5.

He demonstrates that he is sympathetic to juror #10’s cold by stating that he just got over one

of his own. By establishing similarity, he creates a bond, even over something negative like a

cold. An additional example of social proof is when he states that eleven men think the boy is

guilty, and that there’s no need to talk. Clearly, this doesn’t work because the reason juror #8

is voting “not guilty” is because eleven other people think the boy is guilty.

Another of his major influence tactics is to undermine others’ authority. Upon discovering juror

#5 is from Baltimore, he begins to give him a hard time about his sports team, which works

against his style of liking. He continues to make sports associations-a version of social proof-

throughout the movie. Later on, when juror number five is expressing his opinion, he attempts

to invalidate his opinion by saying “Baltimore, please.” To his dismay (if he were mentally

present, that is) his attempt is unheard. This behavior is consistent with when juror #2 asks him

to stop whistling, to which he responds “ok, ok killer.” He seems to attempt to undermine

people he views as weak by attempting to make them feel as if there is an invisible observer

who is there that also agrees with him. We view this as an advanced form of social proof that

seeks to function absent other people.

A third tactic he used, which was contrary to his use of social proof was to pull people aside and

try to reach a decision independent of the group. Once in the bathroom, he attempted to sway

juror #8 by connecting with him as a salesman. He attempted to give him credit for being a

salesman, a soft-seller, then tried to connect by stating that he (juror #7) himself was a

salesman. This is a form of consistency combined with social proof. Next, he attempted to

influence juror #2 at the window by himself. At this point, however, juror #2 had gained

confidence in his position and would not be swayed.

Finally, it is worth noting that twice juror #7 is subjected to threats and intimidation. Once by

juror #6, as previously mentioned, and once by juror #11, who demands reasons for his

changing his decision. Both times, they are unsuccessful as he continues about his behavior or

refuses to acquiesce to the other’s demands.

Juror #8

Juror number eight is the protagonist and very much a collaborating negotiator. He shows

masterful negotiation talent through the movie and is able to eventually convince all 11 people

to switch their votes, some of which were very convinced based either on strong evidence or

prejudice. His reservation point is a fair trial for the defendant, and his target point appeared to

be a “not guilty” verdict. He uses many tactics to influence the audience, but primarily shows

that he is patient, listens actively, and hears their points. He talks to them in their own terms

and is able to connect with each member in a specific way. Additionally, as the leader of the

cause for the “not guilty” party which he eventually beings to build a coalition for, he begins to

establish authority early on, and continues to assert it with increasing vigor as the film

progresses. In order to get people to move to his party, he calls for a lot of votes, especially

when he suspects someone is wavering towards not guilty. His patience helps him understand

how each person acts, and how to communicate with them. For example, he listens patiently

to juror number twelve as he talks about the “luck of a murder case.” He is also extremely

prepared, a key in negotiation. He begins to win votes with his having bought a knife at a pawn

shop in the boy’s neighborhood.

Juror number eight’s primary negotiating tactic is to appeal to people’s sense of compassion. In

the beginning he states “There were eleven votes for guilty. It’s not easy to raise my hand and

send a boy off to die without talking about it first.” People’s compassion and value for human

life is an overarching goal in any proceeding, especially a murder trial. He also used the foot-in-

the door tactic when he originally agrees to have them talk it out for 1 more hour. He states:

“Look this kid’s been kicked around all his life. He lived in a slum. His mother’s been

dead since he was 9 and he lived in an orphanage for a year and a half while his father

was serving a jail term for forgery. It’s not a very happy beginning. He’s a wild angry

kid, and that’s all he’s ever been. You know why? Because he’s been hit on the head by

somebody once a day every day. He’s had a pretty miserable 18 years. I, I just think we

owe him a few words, that’s all.”

Later, he says that he “keeps putting myself in the kid’s place.” In doing so, he generates the

idea in others to do the same. By reaching out to people’s compassion, he is able to open

people up to the idea of listening to his words, which is paramount to his convincing them to

vote “not guilty.” He also appeals to people sense of reason when he states that “nothing is

that positive. I began to get the feeling that the defense counsel wasn’t conducting a thorough

enough cross-examination.” Most people think either emotionally or logically, and by appealing

to the logical nature of the case and the emotional burden of the boy and of the death penalty,

he connected with each other jury member.

He also connects with people on individual levels. He is very adept at understanding their

interests, not their positions. In the beginning, he connects with juror #7 by stating that “let’s

take an hour, the ballgame doesn’t start until 8:00” Here he has already figured out that the

gentleman doesn’t care so much about the verdict as he does his time. Later, when arguing

with juror #10 about the validity of the eye-witness’s (woman) testimony, he asks “isn’t she one

of them too?” In this regard he is connecting with the gentleman and his interest in

persecuting those in slums, but he is also establishing objective criteria whereby all people in

the apartments in that neighborhood should be treated with equal regard. When discussing

the alibi with the stock broker, he asks “let me ask you a personal question” He begins to work

in that person’s life, and in a realm he understands. It connects with him well, removing one of

juror #4’s pillars of guilt. It also causes him to sweat; impressive considering that even the heat

failed in that regard. When discussing the stab wound, he pulls juror #12 aside and asks him

what he thinks, thereby making the decision personal. It also removed the any social pressure

juror #12 may be feeling at the time. One of the more impressive points and a key turning

point in the movie is when juror #10 goes on his tirade about people in the slums. He lets the

ignorant man finish, then goes on to state “It’s always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of

a thing like this; wherever you run into it, it always obscures the truth.” Here, he connects with

what may be concerning that man, and at the same time, connects with the entire room—

helping to reaffirm their position. This also helps him not blame juror #10 for being racially

biased but keep the focus on the problem.

An additional tactic used by juror #8 is his use of authority. He begins to establish authority

when he strikes down juror #10’s attempt to tell a story after the jurors decide to talk for an

hour. He continues to establish the authority when he finds jurors #s 12 and 2 playing tic-tac-

toe, insisting “this isn’t a game.” I submit that his authority originates from his being the only

person defending the boy in the beginning. Because everyone must talk to him to make a case,

he takes on a role to moderate the discussion, to validate ideas by listening to them, or to

deride ideas by treating them with less regard. Additionally, his reasonable demeanor helps

him avoid people’s accusing him of an attempt to commandeer the session, and while

discussing the evidence, he is able to frame each as a joint search for objective criteria.

At times, he borrows his authority from the law. For example, when juror #2 is discussing his

point that the defense never proved the boy’s innocence, juror #8 asserts that the U.S.

Constitution places the burden of proof on the prosecution. As the film ends, he begins to lean

more strongly on his authority. Once the vote is nine-to-three, he uses his authority to call for

other people to explain themselves. At this point, he will raise his voice, which demands his

attention.

Like all members of the jury, juror #8 also uses social proof. One primary example is by baiting

juror #3 into a tirade. In this regard, he creates a negative association with juror #3 and his

opinions. By stating that he’s a “public avenger” and a “sadist” he uses words to illustrate juror

#3’s weak position, and juror #3’s assault using the words “I’ll kill you” invalidate some of the

neighbors’ testimony and juror #3’s own credibility. At the end, he states “we nine don’t

understand how you three are still so sure,” which is interesting considering it’s the exact

argument people used on him. Contrary to the attempt in the beginning, juror #8’s social proof

proves quite powerful and effective. Finally, when juror #3 stands alone, he simply states

“you’re alone” in such an understated tone that it implies juror #3 is being silly. It prompts

juror #3 breakdown and eventual vote change to “not guilty.”

In addition to his major negotiating tactics, juror #8 uses others less frequently. For example,

he utilizes the invention of options when he says “I have a proposition to make to all of you. I

want to call for another vote. I want you to vote by secret ballot. I’ll abstain. If there are 11

votes for guilty, I won’t hang the jury, I’ll vote guilty.” Here it does seem that he’s somewhat

susceptible to peer pressure and social proof. Additionally, when juror #11 smiles at him, he

returns a smile. And once people have voted not-guilty, he begins to be much kinder to them.

For example he helps the old man out several times...two examples of reciprocity. He is also

very interested in letting people know they’re heard, a key tactic when people are the problem.

For example, when juror #3 says “it’s my right” as the film closes, juror #8 affirms that it is in

fact his right, and that he wants to hear juror #3’s arguments.

Juror #9

Juror #9 was highly cooperative, and was the first to follow Juror #8 in the blind vote, claiming "

This gentlemen has been standing alone against us. Now he doesn't' say the boy is not guilty, he

just isn't sure... I respect his motives. The boy on trial is probably guilty, but I want to hear

more. " He was also highly assertive, sometimes too much such as shouting " I'm talking here

you have no write to leave this room!" Overall, his high cooperation, high assertiveness, and

participation in the problem solving showed a collaborative style of negation which was very

useful to the overall verdict of the case.

Juror #9 started out as with a target point of voting guilty based on all of the initial evidence

and a reservation point of reaching a fair verdict without worrying about the time it took. He

was very good at separating the people from the issues, and pointed out to juror #10 early on

that he was being racist and that it "shouldn't matter what kind of boy he is." He also believed

himself to have authority in the room being the oldest, which was sometimes considered a

source of authority during those times. This was supported by Juror #6 who stood up for him

when juror #3 was disrespecting the authority. With the power of authority he discussed

several of his points, the old man that wanted attention, and the glasses marks of the women,

with the attention of the other jurors and was able to sway them.

Juror #9 was a victim of social proof early in the voting. He was the last person to raise his hand

in the initial vote for a guilty verdict, after looking around the room and seeing everyone else

raise their hands. Based on the slowness of his vote, he might have been unsure of his initial

guilty vote, but he waited again for the social proof of juror #9 asking for a blind ballot to

change his mind in favor of further discussion, stating "he gambled for support, and I gave it to

him. " He was not the first for either of these votes and seemed to be heavily influenced by

others.

Juror #9 was able to frame each issue as a join search for objective criteria. He noticed Juror #4

rubbing the top of his nose, and joined with many of the other jurors to conclude that this was

the same way the female witness rubbed her nose, and along with the glasses mark, the jury

together came to the conclusion that the witness wore glasses. He was also able to avoid the

trap of commitment and consistency. Although he did defend himself for changing his vote to

not-guilty and breaking his consistency, he was the first juror to break his consistency in favor

of a fair verdict.

Juror #10

Juror #10 showed low cooperation when it came to trying to find a fair verdict often times

interrupting people and even being hostile when the issues where being discussed. He also was

high assertiveness in favor of the guilty verdict. This together with being dominating and forcing

gave him a competing style of negotiation. He had a clear early flaw of not being able to

separate the people from the issues making the case of "You can't believe a word they say. You

know that. I mean they're born liars" revealing his racial bias early on and initially completely

ignoring the perspectives of the other side. He was also highly emotional and was not able to

acknowledge his emotions. He also seemed to blame other people calling Juror #1 a "kid" when

disputing the way the discussion should work and blaming juror #8 for being "the one who is

keeping us in here."

Overall, juror #10 displayed a personality and negotiation style which makes him very difficult

to negotiation with, which was made evident by him being the second to last person to switch

over to the non-guilty verdict. He had a target point of a guilty vote based on racial prejudice

and he didn't seem to have a clear reservation point because he was bound to his target point

due to his own prejudice and wouldn't change until his prejudice was addressed.

Juror #10 was a little bit sick during the proceedings, and seemed initially at least to have

adopted the strategy of blowing his nose and coughing whenever someone would speak in

favor of the non-guilty verdict which is the opposite of showing people that he is actively

listening. He also did not focus on interest but focused on positions, especially his position

which was very heavily towards to the guilty verdict. He also had a very hard time breaking

through the trap of commitment and consistency at the end and changing his mind on the

verdict. Near the end, he was susceptible to social proof to break through his prejudice beliefs.

The scene where he stands up and starts his racist rant, people start getting up and looking

away. When he is trying to get people to agree with him, no one does, and eventually everyone

was looking away from him and Juror #4 told him to sit down and "not say another word." After

that he realized he was alone in his prejudice and switched over to a non-guilty verdict.

Juror #11

Juror #10 showed very high cooperation and was working hard with the rest of the jury to

achieve a fair verdict. He was also highly assertive, especially when he was getting Juror #7 to

describe their reason he switched over to a non-guilty verdict. Overall he had a collaborative

negotiation style and seemed to be very proud of the American justice system and happy to

collaborate for a fair verdict. He had an initial target point of a guilty verdict based on all of the

initial evidence, but had a reservation point of a fair and just verdict no matter how much time

it would take.

Juror #10 listened actively, and showed this by even taking notes when other jurors were

talking. Because of his active listening, he made a great point for the jury that the defendant

would have to be calm enough to wipe his fingerprints but in enough of a panic to forget the

knife at the scene of the crime. He was also able to break through the trap of commitment and

consistency, and when juror #3 demanded as to why he changed his mind to a non-guilty

verdict he stated "I don't have to explain myself to you, I know have reasonable doubt in my

mind."

Juror #10 was able to interests rather than position and when discussing the case stated "I

don't have to pick one side or the other, I'm simply asking questions." This is also an example of

him never yielded to pressure, only principle. Overall he was very objective and collaborating

when discussing the case and seemed very open to new ideas and listening to the evidence and

arguments in favor of a fair verdict.

Juror #12

Juror #12 showed low assertiveness in his thoughts, and switched between guilty and not-guilty

4 times by the end of the jury deliberation. He seemed more focused on his advertising career

then the trial and said very little regarding the actual case. He was however highly cooperative

and non-resistant, as he seemed to switch sides whenever he was heavily pressured. Overall he

had a accommodating negotiation style. He had a target point of voting guilty based on the

evidence and a reservation point of voting with whatever seemed to be the popular opinion.

He did seem to use the 2nd tactic of negation jujitsu, because he never defended his ideas but

invited criticism and advice, often prefaces his ideas with something similar to "okay here's an

idea, lets run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes it." This helped him convince Juror 1 of

his initial idea of going around the table and having the 11 initial guilty voters convince Juror #8

of their reasons for voting guilty. He also had no problem breaking the trap of commitment and

consistency, as evident by the fact that he switched votes so many times.

Juror #12 was very susceptible to social proof and seemed to yield to pressure over principle

which seemed to be a large basis for his positions. He did sometimes try to help the

conversation whenever it seemed that he could be helpful and in those times he was able to

separate the people from the problem and discuss the issues. Overall he seemed to take on a

collaborative and follower role in the multiparty negotiation. He was not very helpful in finding

a fair verdict but also did not seem to try to get in the way.

CONCLUSION

Although all parties involved ultimately wanted justice to be served in one way or the other,

there was much distributive bargaining that had to take place to lead to the desired outcome.

All parties have the same BATNA - a hung jury, which will probably be voted guilty by the next

jury. This is a good BATNA for people such as juror #3 who are strong convinced of a guilty

verdict but not as good for Juror #8 and the others that start to get convinced of a not guilty

verdict and want to save the boys life. There was the assumption of conflicting goals and the

potential need for comprising on one’s beliefs that created such an intense negotiation.

However through skillful use of negotiation jujitsu, Juror #8 was able to sidestep the attacks by

other Jurors and deflect it against the problem by looking behind their positions and inviting

criticism of his. By framing each issue as a joint search for objective criteria, reasoning and

being open to reason and never yielding to pressure Juror #8 was able to successfully create a

positive bargaining zone where there first appeared to be none. As a result, the twelve (12)

men reached a verdict of not guilty as the film came to a close.

Appendix 1. Summary of Jurors.

Juror Quote Order of not guilty vote Negotiation Style Target Point Reservation Point

"Common we have a job to do now, let's do it"

9 Accomdating

Running the trial based on how everyone else wanted to run it

Reaching a verdict through a fair negotiation

"I saw that its called the amazing Mrs. Bainbridge!"

5 Accomdating

Voting guilty based on all of the initial evidence

Reaching a fair verdict without worring about the time it took

"I've seen all kinds of dishonest in my day but this display takes the cake. You all come in with your hearts bleeding all over the floor about slum kids... What's the matter with you guys! You all know his guilty, your letting him slip through our fingers!... I'll kill him! I'll kill him!" 12 Competing

Voting guilty based on all of the initial evidence

N/A - personal prejudice based on his own child

"It is obvious, to me anyway, that the boy's entire story was flimsy. He claimed he was at the movies the night of the killing, yet one hour later he couldn't remember the names of the films he saw or who played in them." 11 Collaborating

Voting guilty based on all of the initial evidence

Reaching a fair verdict through a collaboritive and logical discussion

"Listen, I've lived in a slum all my life. I used to play in a back yard that was filled with garbage. Maybe it still smells on me."

3 Avoiding

Voting guilty based on all of the initial evidence

Getting a verdict without much contribution

"What are you talking to him like that for? Guy talks like that to an old man really outta get stepped on. You outta have more respect mister. You say stuff like that to him again, i'm gonna lay you out. " 6 Competitive

Voting guilty based on all of the initial evidence

Reaching a verdict through a fair trial where everyones opinion is heard

"Yeah we can all get out of here pretty quick huh? I don't know about the rest of you but I happen to have tickets to that ballgame tonight, Yanks and Cleveland. "

7 Avoiding

Voting guilty based on all of the initial evidence

Reaching any verdict as fast as possible

"Therefore the train had been roaring by the old mans window a full 10 seconds before the body hit the floor. The old man, according to his own testimony, 'i'm going to kill you', body hitting the floor, would have to hear the boy make this statement with the el roaring past his nose. It's not possible!" 1 Collaborating

Voting against the other jurors in order to get more dicussion

A fair trial for the defendant

"This gentlemen has been standing alone against us. Now he doesnt' say the boy is not guilty, he just isn't sure. Well it's not easy to stand alone against the redicule of others, so he gambled for support, and I gave it to him. I respect his motives. The boy on trial is probably guilty, but I want to hear more." 2 Collaborative

Voting guilty based on all of the initial evidence

Reaching a fair verdict without worring about the time it took

"You're not going to tell us that we're supposed to believe him, knowing what he is. I've lived among 'em all my life. You can't believe a word they say. You know that. I mean they're born liars."

10 Competing

Voting guilty based on all of the initial evidence

N/A - racial bias

"Pardon me, I have made some notes here and I would like please to say something. I have been listening very carefully and… the boy looks guilty on the surface, but maybe if we go deeper..."

4 Collaborative

Voting guilty based on all of the initial evidence

Upholding the american justice system

"If not one else has an idea I might have one here. I haven't given it much thought, but let's through it on the stew and see if the cat licks it up."

8 Avoiding

Voting guilty based on all of the initial evidence

Getting a verdict without much contribution