Aveneu Park, Starling, Australia

1. theory he lacked in this theory

1.      1st jury member- (Head coach) Responsible leader and
respects others’ experience. Despite being given the responsibility of
conducting the jurist discussion take
others advice how to carry on proceedings. Flexible with rules that are
traditionally defined. Man with a pretty good ego. 

Theory
of false consensus can
be applied to this member as he previously voted for guilty assuming that most
of them would be voting for it and afterwards when he saw weight shifting on to
the not guilty side, he reversed his vote considering it right.

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


order now

Decision
making theory he lacked
in this theory as he did not took into account the effect of outcome of his
decision. He only considered the probabilistic
side of the matter.                                                               

2.     
2nd
jury member- Sat first
time in a jury, was a bit excited and was a bit concerned about how to act in a
jury and maintain a dignity amongst the jurist. Lacked a decisive view and was
rather more dependent on others view.

 

Micro expressions- through his expressions it can be
seen that he was nervous while presenting his views and moreover he was not
able to maintain an eye contact. This shows that he wasn’t sure but due to
others views he was lying.

 

Social Learning Theory- through others expressions he
observed and associated it with the reinforcement in terms of support they got
from other jury members and therefore he voted guilty at first.

 

Decision Making theory- he believed in this theory and the
value of outcome but it was suppressed by various social expectations of
others.

 

3.      3rd jury member- (Worked in messenger services) Quite
experienced jury member, quite egoistic, took lead for those voting guilty, a
decisive person in making choices but vulnerable to various kind of past events
affecting his present take on decisions.

 

Categorization- as his son left him he categorized
whole generation as being
less responsible.

 

Stereotype- because of his son he stereotyped all
the children who share relationship of bitterness with their parents must be
punished hard. He also thought that the 2nd vote for not guilty
might have come from the 5th jury member as he was also from the
slum.

 

Paralanguage- his voice pitch increased at the last
scene as he knew it was for him to accept that all kids are not like his son
but he kept on denying and lying about the same.

 

Decision Making theory – he lacked decision making skills as
he did not took into account the outcome and kept on comparing it to his
child’s situation.

 

Micro expressions – as he began crying everybody
understood that he has accepted the truth.

 

4.      4th jury member – (broker in stock market exchange) he
was also a knowledgeable person with good observational skills and good memory
power.  Was serious in each and every
discussions and a person who works within the framework of well-defined rules.

 

Gestalt psychology – he associated each and every
instances with each other and framed a scenario in which he was convinced that
the kid was guilty like the kid might not have gone to watch a movie as he did
not remember the cast and story, hit by his father before and buying of a
switch knife and woman seeing him through the window, creating a complete
scene.

 

Stereotype – he considered as the boy was from
a slum so as most of the crimes involve slum boys it might be the case that he
had committed a crime.

 

Impression Formation- Negative effect- he emphasized greatly on the points which were proving the
guy guilty. He was only convinced when his last of the doubts were clear. 

 

5.      5th jury member –he grew up in a slum and later he
was a successful person. It was intolerant for him to bear a blame for a
categorization crime for being grown up in a slum. Respected every other jury
members and was ready for any change in the decisions if required.

 

Impression Formation –from few incidences every jury member
generalized that slum is one of the main reasons of the crime that the boy
committed. But he was an example of a positive side of the slum.

 

Decision Making Theory –he was a good judge of situations
and decisions as initially he voted for guilty like all others and the moment
he got a doubt he reversed his decision taking into account the outcome.

 

6.      6th jury member – was a common working man. Believed
in what was explicitly shown to him and did not try to apply his own logic to
the matter.

 

Motivational Theory –he focused on the motive of the
killing that is the argument between son and his father leading him to commit a
crime in hatred or in some kind of temporary frustrations.

 

Learning Theory –he might had been brought up in a
well-mannered way – respecting elders and talking to them politely that’s why
he warned 3rd jury member for screaming on the elderly 9th
jury member.

 

7.      7th jury member –an irresponsible person, not even
up for a discussion on a matter on which life of a child is at stake. He did
not have any type of views of his own.

 

Fundamental Attribution Error –he was busy thinking about his
tickets for a baseball match. This might have affected his thoughts for the
kid. Moreover he changed his decision for the sake of discussion to get over
soon. He even didn’t pay any attention to the demonstration shown by 8th
jury member as he was busy whistling and smoking.

 

False consensus – he thought initially that everyone
might be voting guilty so it might be true and even after he saw half of the
bench voting not guilty he thought it might be the truth so he voted for not
guilty.

 

8.      8th jury member- he was an indifferent man right
from the beginning of discussion. He investigated the case right through the
court proceedings of several days. He paid attention to each and every small
evidence and tried to relate it in a positive manner i.e. in a manner which can
prove that boy not guilty.

 

Impression Formation –Positive bias –he kept faith in the kid and focused
on positive aspects of the case like kid being brought up in a miserable place,
being bullied all over his life, not being able to remember about the movie
because of the trauma of loss of his father, old man not being able to get to
the stairs in time and might have considered him for granted.

 

Halo Effect – searching the good quality of a
person. He was open for discussions but he always tried to keep himself at the
kid’s place to judge his situation.

 

Gestalt psychology –he also tried to link various
instances in order to get to the truth like scream of the lady being suppressed
by a train’s sound. Old man not able to get to the door in time, might have
seen someone else and knife used for the crime being common at that place.

 

Behaviorism Theory –he explained others that a statement
like ‘I will kill you’ may not actually mean killing someone. It may also
correspond to a stimulus response interaction.

 

9.      9th jury member –he was one of the most experienced
and observant person. He knew that his decision can affect a kid’s life. He was
an enthusiastic person but due to his age he
lacked energy. Moreover he was the first person to support jury member 8 in his mission to at least convince
others for discussions.

 

Forming Impression – Categorization –he pointed out that an old man with a
problem in one of his leg. So he was making a category based reference of old
aged man.

 

Decision Making Theory –he was excellent in decision making
skills as he does not wanted a child’s life to be ended without even giving a
fair discussion, as amount accounted for that decision was one kid’s life.

 

Attribution biases- Negative effects
–he blame the old man
might be lying to seek attention, as he has not been recognized all his life.

 

Gestalt Psychology – He connected few facts together to
create a scenario like 4th jury member rubbing his nose due to
glasses and the witness lady rubbing her nose to the fact that she might be
wearing glasses and at last not able to see through the window clearly without
glasses.

 

10.  10th jury member- He was an old and quite experienced
man and very big ego. He was an orthodox person with stiffness in his decision
and his ego was the reason he was not able to accept the truth. He wanted to be
an authoritative member and act as a leader.

 

Attribution – Stereotype- he was the first person to claim
that a person from slum must be involved in some or the other type crime.

 

Gestalt Psychology- he connected few facts like a woman
watching through the window, lights of the train being on and the woman
imagining boy stabbing his father considering it true.

 

Psychoanalytical Theory- his superego was dominating id
throughout the discussions that he cannot change his decision and the other one
being heard from the society of slum children.

 

11.  11th jury member- A polite, decent and a responsible
person who understands his duty and strengths. He had his all ears from the
starting of the discussion.

 

Integrating impression – Positive bias- he linked some of
the positive points with respect to the acquittal of the kid that why a kid
will return to his home after murdering his father.

 

Decision Making Theory- he was flexible from the starting of
the discussions as he knew although probability of the boy committing a crime
was high but the outcome value of his acquittal was quite high too.

 

12.  12th jury member -he was a light minded person,
selfish and an irresponsible person as from the starting of the discussion he
was busy advertising his ideas and products and paid little attention to the
case.

 

False consensus- as he initially thought that most
of the jury members will vote for guilty so he did it to and even when he saw
tide turning in favor of not guilty he changed his vote to not guilty, it was
only after intimidation from jury member 3 he changed it to guilty again.

 

Decision Making Theory- He didn’t even considered for once what his
decision can do or affect to someone’s life. He took the value of outcome for
granted.

x

Hi!
I'm Simon!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out