Art of Persuasion: 12 Angry Men teach to convince people

The Power of Group pressure, Biases, Judgments, Prejudice, and Leadership

“Two routes of persuasion”, a low soft voice from behind read the chapter name of my book. “Is it Social Psychology by David Myers? By all means, it’s one of the best books on human behavior.” Surprised, I turned to meet two big brown eyes framed into the circles of glasses under the parchment of heavy eyelids. Their twinkling light did not match the wizened face of their elderly owner. “Then, perhaps you may help me to convince the new barista in this cafeteria that his brew ratios are terrible.”

He was a familiar face here, an island of tranquility in a stormy ocean of morning swarm. Always alone, he sipped his coffee and observed other customers through his extravagant glasses. All of a sudden, he looked straight into my eyes and asked, if I have seen the movie ’12 angry men’.

I certainly did not expect the movie talk but the man’s tone was convincing, and I offered him a seat at my table. In the next few minutes, he told me that he was a Forensic Psychology Professor and that he considered the film to be a piece of art on the art persuasion, ninety minutes of unforgettable lessons on human behavior.” Since I could not retrieve the movie plot immediately, he reminded me that the film was a courtroom drama where jurors debated the fate of a boy from slums accused of his father’s murder. At first, it looked like an open-and-shut case given the boy’s troubled past as well as evidence and testimony of his neighbors.

“However, one juror decided to question the case,” I blurted as the movie scenes started to revive in my memory. “He did not claim the boy was not guilty. In fact, he simply wanted a discussion before making the decision.”

“‘This is somebody’s life? We can’t decide in five minutes,’” the professor cited Henry Fonda’s character. “Indeed, Mr. Davis – Juror 8 – was referring to the reasonable doubt: no jury can declare a man guilty unless it’s SURE.”

My eloquent companion sipped his coffee, his dark eyes glaring. “Will you believe me if I say I used to know this boy and the juror played by Henry Fonda called Mr. Davis?”

Ambushed, I studied the old man. Was he sane? Despite my silent bewildered expression, he continued his reflection. It was hard now to say whether he was talking about the film or the real trial. Anyways, bear with me, and you will learn how this juror convinced the group and how to master the art of persuasion.

The Professor wiped his glasses with a linen handkerchief and continued in his well-spoken and persuasive manner, “If you watched the movie attentively, you might have noticed that there were only four jurors who strongly believed the boy was guilty. You might be asking why the rest voted guilty. And here is the real kicker – they were a group. As you know from your book, group behavior is a fascinating thing.”

At this point I knew he was talking about groupthink, implying that the rest of the jurors simply followed the first four voters.

“Some say two heads are better than one,” he continued. “Unfortunately, many heads under certain circumstances may lead to decisions that crash projects or businesses, destroy talents, and even deprive lives. You might know that a number of studies have proved that people in groups simply tend to avoid controversial issues.” I noticed a glint of sadness in the corner of his eye.

“Could you tell me more about jurors’ personalities, and why did they fall prey to groupthink?” I wondered. His soft smile revealed his appreciation of my query, and he told me about his own classification of personalities who contribute to the herd mentality.

“I named the first type ‘the convinced mules‘,” he said with a sneer. “They never question their position. They believe they are right, and no further discussion is needed. A great example is Juror 3 – the bully. Or Juror 10 – the bigot denouncing the boy as ‘one of them’ and littering the racist speeches.”

The second type is the indifferent moles. Today you can see these free riders thumbing their phones or doing some work on their laptop at a meeting. They may look busy. But the point is that they only care about themselves, and when not moved by the subject of discussion, they eagerly stick to the majority. Whatever stakes. Take, for example, Juror 7, the baseball fan, who changed his vote to hurry up things along.” He paused and gave me a witty glance. “Can you guess the third type?”

“Those who never speak up for fear of being not supported – let’s call them the muted, or fish,” I sniggered.

My companion laughed. “That is a hilarious name. In reality, they may actively participate and speak up, and yet, at the moment of decision-making, they join the opposite side. The best example is Juror 2 – a shy guy, or Juror 9 – the old man. Luckily, in our case, this type was well represented. Confused or uncertain, this group of free riders is the first to change their behavior. Since Mr. Davis was a good listener, he recognized those people among jurors and engaged them in the debate to persuade others.

You might be aware of the term social loafing when people show less effort when working in a group than when they are individually accountable.”

Another key point that professor mentioned was the presence of certain circumstances that usually feed the groupthink, like time constraints, or environmental conditions. In the case of jurors, they were literally locked in a heated courtroom on the hottest day of summer.

However, as the professor noted, the most important factor contributing to groupthink is ambiguity and high stakes.

“When facts are vague, when the future is uncertain, or when testimony is contradictory, and the decision outcome is life-changing and critical, human beings get lost in a maze of possibilities. Hence, they tend to simplify the quest and rely on the opinions of the majority or perceived authorities,” he resumed.

Our conversation seemed to reach another milestone, and before my companion could say anything, I wondered how could he explain the beginning of the movement in the ‘no guilty’ direction, provided that Mr. Davis did not refute the evidence, at least in the beginning.

The professor was peering in the grey of a spring sky behind the huge window. “It will definitely rain soon,” he noted and returned to my question. “A turning point was an old man – Juror 9. It is always the second person who starts moving the needle and transforms a lone nut into a leader. Though initially, he voted guilty, he felt safer during the second anonymous ballot and changed his attitude. Most importantly, Juror 9 in a sense identified with Mr. Davis, whose personality was inspiring and courageous. In other words, he wanted to be like him.”

‘This gentleman chose to stand alone against us. That’s his right. It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone even if you believe in something very strongly. He left the verdict up to us. He gambled for support, and I gave it to him. I want to hear more. The vote is ten to two.’ – Juror #9.

I remembered a Ted Talk video explaining how to start the movement. Likewise, it said the leader is a flint, but the spark that sets the fire is his first follower.

“Better yet,” the professor emphasized, “the role of Juror doesn’t stop here. He rewired the way other members of the group treated the evidence and testimony, which contradicted the newly presented facts. Not only was he the first to follow a ‘freak’, but the one to explain the deceiving nature of the human mind and unreliable testimonies of the old neighbor and the lady across the street. Those witnesses were convinced that they had seen and heard the murder. Yet, it could be their interpretation of the reality and not the fact.”

“Unreliable testimonies,” I murmured, “the top of wrongful convictions.”

The Professor continued in his eloquent manner, “Unreliable memory, environmental factors, questionable lineups, and misrepresentations during the trial. All this controversy boils down to one factor – a desirable interpretation of the events. As Juror 9 noticed, the old neighbor had no intention of lying. That trial was simply his last chance to mark his poor existence. Psychologists call it a misinformation effect. In other words, our schemas fill in the banks with our expectations leading us on the pass that is convenient to our motive.  Take for example some jurors who voted guilty – they continuously disregarded the details that interfered with their expectations.”

To add I reminded the professor of one of the most powerful scenes in the movie – the racist rant of Juror 10. It was so absurd and atrocious, that one after another other jurors stood up and turned their backs as he continued his tirade.

The professor adjusted his glasses. “Most jurors had certain stereotypes about people from slums. Even I do, though I came from this place.”

Surprised, I studied his appearance – he did not have a tiny trace of slums. And then I caught myself thinking in a biased way.

He continued, “As we know stereotypes lead to various attributions and misinterpretations. Juror 10, the bigot, is indeed an excellent showcase of bigotry. In his opinion, the relation to a certain ethnic group and social class proved the criminality of the individual. In Psychology, it is called an internal attribution, which is, by the way, a good tool of persuasion. But only if the audience relates. Luckily, it was not the case.”

‘I don’t understand you people. How can you believe this kid is innocent? Look, you know how these people lie. I don’t have to tell you. They don’t know what the truth is. And lemme tell you, they don’t need any real big reason to kill someone either. You know, they get drunk, and bang, someone’s lying in the gutter. Nobody’s blaming them. That’s how they are. You know what I mean? Violent!‘

– Juror #10

“He was not alone, the bully was prejudiced, too,” I added.

 “You are right. Juror #3. However, the attribution that fueled his close-minded position and aggressive attitude was a poor relationship with his son.”

‘It’s the kids. The way they are–you know? They don’t listen. I’ve got a kid. When he was eight years old he ran away from a fight. I saw him. I was so ashamed, I told him right out, ‘I’m gonna make a man out of you or I’m gonna bust you up into little pieces trying.’ When he was fifteen he hit me in the face. He’s big, you know. I haven’t seen him in three years. Rotten kid! You work your heart out…‘

– Juror #3

By that time I could not stop the flow of questions triggered by this weird and eloquent man, and luckily, he looked pleased. I decided it was time to dismantle the unique personality of Mr. Davis – Juror 8.

To my surprise, the Professor laughed and resumed, “What makes him so special in reality is not that special. Consider this, Mr. Davis justified the boy’s troubled behavior by pointing at the harmful way society treated him – the boy’s father used to beat him up, and the racists or the riches despised him. Make no mistake, this is a bright example of attribution – an external one – regardless of its benevolent nature. And, apparently, this attribution was the source for his humility and empathy.” To put it differently, Mr. Davis was also biased – in his own way.

As my professor assumed, Juror 8 had his reasons. At one point he snapped at Juror 3, “You want to see this boy die because you personally want it—not because of the facts.” Fair enough, but wasn’t he also misled by his schemas and wanted to save the boy to the same extent as Juror 3 wanted to execute him?

Wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth.

– Juror 8

A weird silence hung in the air. The professor was suddenly off the place and conversation. So I tried to get him back to what appeared to be the main subject of our conversations – to the magic Recipe for persuasion.

The Professor looked at me the way teachers look at students. “I am sure you’ve heard about quiet leaders or silent leaders like Mother Theresa or Gandhi.”

The term indeed has been circulating recently. Unlike bold and brash leaders, silent leaders choose to earn respect rather than force people, they listen, engage, they may show empathy, and lead by example.

“Better yet,” the professor marked, “the key to flipping people on your side is to show you are open-minded. People avoid arguments with extroverted preachers like Juror 3. Their virtues are good for pitching, for a campaign, but not for discussion. As a good listener, Mr. Davis was slowly dismantling the groupthink with open questions and encouraged everyone to participate. Correspondingly, listening helped him to succeed in counter-using the biased statements made by some Jurors.”

A group of students rushed into the cafeteria, and a warm gust of wind broke from outside. The air felt heavier even inside with spring moistured clouds moving towards us.

“I think you would love to watch 12 angry men again and look through all your flags in this book.” The professor placed his wrinkled hand on the book and then stood up. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to get into all details. It’s going to rain soon,” he paused for a second, and then resumed, “Hopefully you understand that it was not a one-man show. Despite the fact that Mr. Davis was the engine of the change, every juror contributed to the shift in votes. In essence, this is the best persuasion trick – to engage the group.“

Professor put on his hat that concealed his eyes. He looked much older now.

“And the last question, if you don’t mind. What happened to the boy after the jury’s decision?”

He stood up to button his trench. “Things turned well for the boy. He was lucky to get some help. Eventually, after a tumulous and long trial, he was released.”

“Do you know who killed his father?” I almost whispered.

Professor stared at me out of his hat but then gave me a melancholic smile. “Yes, I do, and does not matter. Look at it this way: the truth and justice do not always march together. The boy’s father was an abusive alcoholic. The truth is that we all fill in the blanks of the story with details convenient to our expectations. And that’s precisely what the movie is about, what human nature is about. The murder and trial is another story for writers to tell or movie makers to show.”

He apologized, turned away, and left. I looked at his figure under the umbrella shading away in the rain. He was right the coffee here was indeed disgusting. I need to check the one next door.

Now, you might be wondering if this story is true. I’ll tell you – everything is true except the lines I invented to convince you. Referring back to the main point – the art of persuasion is not some kind of a manipulation technique, but a mastery of translating your audience’s behavior and needs.

Whether you sell sneakers, design interiors, teach students, write books, or compose music – the knowledge of human behavior is a bonus that you can’t afford to ignore. After all, we all want to learn how to understand and convince people.

How to master this invaluable skill? There are two ways. One is to scroll through an endless number of articles on the internet or study tons of books that share secrets of different kinds of human behavior. But how do you know which one is true for you and your situation?

Now I must let you into a secret – most of those amazing or filthy books and studies are based on the same fundamental research and discoveries that different fields of Psychology, predominantly Social Psychology, studied. So, another most efficient way is to check our favorite sources of Social Psychology that do not beat around the bush. Not only will this way save your precious time but also help you to navigate through other materials in case you want a deeper dive in the future on the subject of your interest.

Group Dynamics and Abilene Paradox -a lecture from the Social Psychology course on Coursera that explains why brainstorming does not work and how to avoid messy group dynamics.

Jury Decision Making – an APA journal that examines how jurors remember and interpret information to make decisions.