The movie 12 Angry Men is the story of a jury trying to reach a verdict on a murder case. The case concerns a boy accused of killing his father. Initially all the jurors agree on the boy's guilt, but one of them isn't sure. Over the course of the film, this man raises enough reasonable doubt for the entire jury to one by one change their vote to not guilty so that the boy is ultimately acquitted. There are many aspects of social psychology seen in this film, especially seen with faulty eyewitness testimony, similar juror characteristics, and biases across subtypes. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Hidden Aspects of Social Psychology in the Movie Plot In the book Intro to Social Psychology by David Myers, it is clear that over the times social psychologists have come to prove that eyewitness testimony cannot always be a source reliable information. However, research shows that juries are more likely than not to believe the eyewitness, even after being discredited. This is seen several times in the movie 12 Angry Men. At first, when the jurors go around the table and say why they think the boy is guilty, most of them bring up eyewitness testimony. There are two eyewitness accounts that are up for debate, one from the old man who lived under the murder and one from the lady who lived across the street. After the men who voted not guilty showed some serious gaps in the old man's testimony, there are only a few jurors left who think the boy is guilty. When asked why, they go to the woman's testimony, where she says she says it was the boy and you can't just throw him away. Even though there has been so much evidence up to this point to show that the boy probably did not kill his father, this eyewitness testimony was strong enough to cause the men to ignore other evidence and rely solely on someone else's words to cast a man in prison. prison. Another aspect of social psychology seen in the film is the characteristics of the juror. These twelve men are all very different from each other, and each of their differences causes them to see the case in a different light. In David Myer's book we learn that jurors are more likely to side with the defendant if the defendant is similar to the juror. This is also true of other aspects of social psychology, such as sympathy, prejudice, and conformity. In the film this is seen after a juror makes a prejudicial remark about how the boy grew up in the slums. The man is saying that obviously the boy did this because of his upbringing. This really upsets another juror who actually grew up in the slums. This slum-raised juror defends the boy by saying that just because he grew up in the slums doesn't mean he's a murderer. Shortly thereafter, he changes his vote to not guilty, as at this point he sees his own difficulties in the boy. Another aspect of social psychology seen in this particular scene is subtyping. After the man who grew up in the slums takes offense at the man who stereotypes slum kids, the offending man says that of course he shouldn't take it that way, because this man on the jury is obviously different from the defendant. This is an example of subtyping, which is when someone doesn't fit the stereotype someone has in mind, so they tell themselves that that person is an exception to the rule. This is a form of prejudice, in which the person,.