· used externally caused factors to attribute the behaviour

·  
Lets
use the storyline of the movie to relate concepts of Social Psychology.
  

 

Basically
the major aspects of social psychology which played a major role in this movie
was Decision making (whether it is at group level or individual level) and
Perception.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

In the
beginning, few facts were presented in front of jury members which when
combined as a whole (gestalt psychology), easily made majority of members to
consider defendant to be guilty. This process involved Individual level
analysis of the case by each member in there conscious and unconscious mind.
Due to the majority choosing guilty, few people chose to vote for guilty due to
attributional bias (False consensus- taking decision which was supported by the
majority). Such implication led to in-group/out-group effect i.e. members
voting “guilty” were considered to be in in-group and vice versa. As the word
attribution appeared in the picture, let’s discuss the Attribution theory which
is also one of the major theories involved in the movie. Social Attribution is
basically understanding why people behave the way they do. Here, J8 used
externally caused factors to attribute the behaviour of defendant child. The
child had suffered a lot from the very early stage of his life, he lost his
mother, lived in slums, got slapped by his father several times, which made him
what he is. Whereas J3 used internally caused factors to attribute child’s
behaviour, according to him kids these days don’t respect their elders or
adults. J10 too used internally caused factors, as he made a stereotype of
people belonging to slum areas and applied them directly on this innocent boy.

There
were too many attribution errors too. Attribution errors are the errors which
occur when people tend to give more emphasis on dispositional factor rather
than external situation. Victims are blamed and not the situation. Lets
consider one of the evidence which was- Old man heard the boy yelling at his
father-“I will kill you”. J3 used this evidence as one of the factors which
according to him made him feel the defendant was guilty. But later when he accidentally
repeated same line for J8 without actually intending to kill him, contradicted
his own views. Similar case was with J4 too. According to him the boy should
have recalled movie which he saw few hours before the murder(such a traumatic
stress condition) . But when it came to him he too was unable to recall movie
details which he saw few days back in spite of stress free environment. This
again shows Self defeating pattern in behaviour.

There
were certain errors in decision making which lead to confirmation bias. These
errors occurred because certain part of information was not perceived
carefully.  Little details such as possibility of more such knives (with
which father was murdered) being made, the old man which was presented in the
court was walking with difficulty, eyeglass marks on the nose of old woman who
saw the boy killing his father, it was not possible that someone could hear “I
will kill you” when the train was crossing nearby.

Self
attribution bias played a role in making J3 blame the new generation kids that
they don’t respect elders. Lack of empathy was shown by most of the jurors
whereas J8 used empathy as his main power to demonstrate his opinion towards
different facts. It was these demonstrations which helped J3 to convince
others.

In my
opinion J3 won the battle because of his own qualities which were sufficient
enough to make others believe in him. Some of his qualities which we can
observed are- he was always consistent, self-confident, cooperative, was
flexible in thought(considered all possibilities in each case), calm, low
tempered, responsible, and lots more. Mainly he actually made others to focus
on little-little fine details which refined their discussion output. Whereas others
(like J3, J4- who voted “guilty” and were convinced almost at the end) used
stereotypes, were high tempered, self contradictory, which clearly led them to
question their own choice and change their vote to “not guilty”.