Course Name: Leading Self and Teams (Term-1)

Assignment Title: Assignment 1

Submitted by: SG H11

Aarsh Shah 62410353

Abheet Shaju 62410495
Ankit Jayant 62410670
Priyanshi Sharma 62410256
Suhani Gupta 62410581
The movie "12 Angry Men" illustrates how decision-making of 12 jurors is impacted by their

biases and behaviors. In the following points, we explain the tactics that impacted their

decision-making and how they were or could be diffused.

1. Confirmation Bias – This was one of the strongest biases that we saw in the decision-

making process of the jurors. Most of the jurors had prematurely believed that the boy was

guilty of murder, and then they were interpreting the information in ways that supported their

belief. For example, juror #3 began the discussion by saying “it’s an open and shut case”, juror

#2 said “I just think he’s guilty”, multiple jurors saying that “such kids” from such backgrounds

often become criminals. All these examples show that they first came to the verdict, and then

fit the arguments to suit their verdict.

• Diffusing Tactic - Fair Procedures: the foreman tried to establish a fair procedure by taking

everybody’s vote and opinion to counter the confirmation bias.

2. Social Proof – It’s a phenomenon where people look to the actions and opinions of others

to guide their own behavior or beliefs, especially in uncertain or ambiguous situations. On

similar lines, information influence leads one to adopt the norm of the group rather than

internalize their own perspectives. The unanimity (except Juror #8) in the initial vote is an

example of social proof, as the majority-opinion influenced individual jurors to conform and

adopt the same stance without thoroughly examining the evidence. In the early stages of

deliberation, many jurors were hesitant to voice dissenting opinions/ challenge the majority.

• Diffusing tactic – The secret ballot vote allowed each juror to vote anonymously. This

defused the social pressure, allowing jurors to vote as per their true beliefs.

3. Stereotyping – Majority of the jurors stereotyped the boy based on his background. For

example, juror #4, while talking about the boy, said “He was born in a slum. Slums are breeding

grounds for criminals. I know it. So do you”, juror #4 said, “Children from slum background

are potential menaces to society”. So, they used their own stereotypes to conclude that the boy

was a criminal. Juror #3 also had a personal bias due to his experiences. He narrated the story
of his son hitting him and running away. While making an emotional appeal with his own story,

he generalized his son’s behaviour to stereotype boys with phrases such as “kids these days”.

Hence, he created a personal bias against the accused boy.

• Diffusing Tactic – Awareness of the stereotype - Juror #5 implicitly makes the other jurors

aware of their stereotype by saying that he lived in a slum all his life, to make them realize

that being from a slum doesn’t make one a criminal.

4. System-1 and System-2 Thinking – In the preliminary voting, we see that most of jurors

(except juror #8) adopted System-1 Thinking (“fast” thinking) which is evidently reflected in

their effortless, unconscious and subjective thoughts. Other characteristics such as the hot

temperature in the room, some jurors wanting to leave early and arguments by “sharp”

prosecutor also influenced their judgments & decision-making. This created a cognitive bias in

jurors, and they believed the evidence and witness testimonies without validating the

information. However, they did not look at the boy’s story with same objectivity.

• Diffusing Tactic – Juror #8 adopted System-2 Thinking (“Central route”) to think more

objectively focusing on quality of arguments and asking the right questions to other jurors.

5. Foot-in-the-door – This is a principle used to persuade people to agree to a larger request

by first getting them to agree to a smaller, more manageable request. All eleven members of

jury who voted guilty did not want an elaborate discussion and wanted to get done with it

quickly.

• Diffusing Tactic – Juror #8 employs foot-in-the-door technique early in process. He tells

Juror #7 that he is not looking to change his mind and just asks for an hour to discuss their

discussion as the ballgame did not start until 8 o’clock anyway. He begins by simply

requesting a discussion rather than immediately pushing for a "not guilty" verdict. He

doesn't directly challenge the majority opinion that the defendant is guilty; instead, he asks

the other jurors to consider the evidence more thoroughly before making a final decision.
6. Role of Process in Teams – In any decision-making process, how the final decision is

reached is crucial. By considering diverse and conflicting information, the process ensures

well-rounded decisions. When foreman suggested seating based on juror numbers, a structured

approach was established to give each juror an equal chance to speak, fostering fairness and

inclusivity. However, challenges arose despite clear guidelines. For instance, Juror #3 disrupted

the process by speaking out of turn and chastising Juror #2 for suggesting adherence to the

speaking order, highlighting the difficulties in maintaining order and respect in group

discussions.

7. Overconfidence Trap – Several jurors exhibit the overconfidence trap, a bias where

individuals have excessive confidence in their own judgments or abilities. The groupthink

mentality can also reinforce overconfidence in the collective judgment of the group without

sufficient scrutiny of the facts. This is very evident when the foreman asked Juror #8 to tell the

others what he was thinking and that they will show him how he has gotten it ‘mixed up’.

• Diffusing Tactic – Cognitive diversity in a team enables a broad spectrum of knowledge

to be distributed across individuals. If jurors from different backgrounds, experiences, and

opinions had discussed more openly, the jury could have fully capitalized on their cognitive

diversity.

8. Groupthink – It occurs when cognitively diverse teams end up agreeing to reach a

conclusion due to social conformity and marginalization of differing opinions. In preliminary

voting there was no anonymity, which led to groupthink, thus created a false sense of unity and

pressurized some jurors to conform.

• Diffusing Tactic - Juror #8 challenged this by acting as a devil's advocate to promote

objective discussion and unbiased decision-making. He proposed that it’s possible that the

accused is not guilty. His dissent encouraged Juror #9 to show disagreement. This allowed

group to consider viable alternatives, ensuring more thorough and open discussion of facts.
9. Availability Heuristic – Jurors relied on readily available information without questioning

the quality of the information or whether the information is complete. For example, simply

because they were told that the murder weapon (knife) is rare, they believed it. They also

generalized about the boy based on his background as that information was readily available.

• Diffusing Tactic – One instance of diffusing this was when juror #8 took the effort to find

out the complete information. He showed the group that the knife was not rare, and that he

found it easily too. The generalization from the boy’s background could’ve been diffused

by a tactic like 4-cell analysis. The jurors should also have questioned the relevance and

the reliability to form the judgement (e.g., availability of knife, testimony of neighbors).

10. Common Knowledge Effect – Preliminary voting gave everybody the common info that

most people (11/12 jurors) think he’s guilty. The common knowledge effect is in force as the

team converges on an answer, there’s a tendency to not bring up new facts.

• Diffusing Tactic – Juror #8 diffused this by bringing new facts that countered the common

knowledge, for example, telling the group about how the knife was not rare.

12. Argument Dilution – Argument dilution is when equal weightage to important and

unimportant arguments reduces the impact of more important arguments. In the murder trial, it

is irrelevant if someone came from ‘slum’ or not. These generalizations do not help in making

a specific case against the defendant and only inflame people's worst assumptions about others.

This information was not directly relevant. What mattered was what happened on the night of

the murder and the supporting evidence and facts for each side. However, most of the jurors

faced argument dilution, diverting attention away from the truly important question at hand.

• Diffusing tactic – Juror #8 diffused this by bringing everybody’s attention back to the key

task and use of objective evidence in the case, keeping away the peripheral information.

13. First Follower – The concept of first follower describes that while it’s the leader who starts

the movement, it’s the first follower who creates the impetus for others to join. It would have

been easy for Juror #8 to submit to the will of the group and follow the rest. However, he made
a simple appeal “If we are to send a man to his death, we at least owe him a conversation.” The

first follower (juror #9) heard this appeal and changed his vote to “not guilty”. He takes

initiative in the movement to present the case against a guilty verdict.

14. Shortcomings in Team Decisions – Despite having a diverse team, shortcomings in team

decisions can still occur. Issues arise when members aren't allowed to speak their minds or are

shunned for differing viewpoints. The first issue can be mitigated with a clear process, but

social conformity is harder to address, as people prefer to align with the majority. For example,

when juror #8 declared the accused not guilty, the others assumed he was wrong and tried to

convince him otherwise. This conformity was also seen during the initial vote, where hesitant

jurors followed the majority.

• Diffusing Tactic - Juror #8's proposal for anonymous voting in the second round allowed

initially hesitant jurors to express their opinions freely. As we have learned, with

anonymity, they could let go of the pressure to fit in.