Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
NOTE: This sample cooperative exam serves as a prototype for all other exams one
might desire to formulate on text material using cooperative testing procedures.
SMALL GROUP FINAL EXAM
“TWELVE ANGRY MEN”
(Cooperative)
NAMES:
I. Choose the correct answer or answers for each question. There may be more than one correct
answer for each question. Each question is worth 4 points.
A. Juror #10 (the bigoted man with a cold/flu) played which of the following informal roles?
B. The following jurors used the hard bargaining (competitive) negotiation style
during most of the deliberations:
C. Juror #3 who yelled a lot (final holdout) exhibited which of the following
defensive communication patterns?
D. Of the key ways to promote cooperation and teamwork in groups, which of the
following were clearly present during the jury’s deliberations?
E. Which of the following was a leadership style used by juror #8 (the architect)?
F. Which of the following was used by other jurors to gain compliance from the juror #3 (final
holdout juror/man who yells) when the vote was 11-1 for acquittal?
G. Juror #1 (the foreman/coach) had which of the following primary power resources?
H. Which of the following was a form of power exhibited during jury deliberations?
I. Juror #7 (baseball fan) showed communication incompetence because
J. Which of the following were primary informal roles exhibited by the architect (#8)?
K. Juror #11 (watchmaker from Europe) exhibited which of the following informal roles during
the deliberations?
L. Juror #3 (yells a lot/final holdout) demonstrates incompetent communication because
M. The jury has a difficult time reaching a consensus. Which of the following
contribute to the difficulty in reaching a consensus?
N. Juror #4 (the broker with an accent) was primarily
O. Juror #8 (the architect) used which of the following communication styles of conflict
management?
1. Compromising
P. Juror #7 (the baseball fan) exhibited which of the following disruptive roles?
1. Clown
Q. Juror #12 (the Advertising man) exhibited which of the following communication styles of
conflict management?
R. Which of the following jurors expressed destructive anger?
S. The jury does not qualify as a team primarily because
T. The jury did not handle its very difficult members particularly well. What the other
jurors should have done but didn’t do for the most part was
U. Which of the following jurors used competitive interrupting repeatedly?
V. The jury began initial deliberations by each juror explaining his vote in the order of jury
numbers (#2, #3, etc.). This is an example of
W. Which of the jurors was guilty of the ambushing tactic?
II. Identify each statement as TRUE or FALSE. For every FALSE answer provide a reason why it is
false. Each question is worth 4 points.
A. The jury arrived at a true consensus. FALSE
B. Jurors #3 (man yells a lot), #4 (broker), and #8 (architect) all exhibited primary
behaviors that, based on leader emergence research, make them prime candidates for a
C. Juror #1 (the coach) was foreman of the jury. This was an informal, not a formal role.
D. Juror #8 (the architect) focused primarily on the problem (guilt or innocence of the accused)
not the people (personalities of fellow jurors). He thus demonstrated a key element of
E. Juror #3 (final holdout) primarily used the competing, power/forcing style of
G. Most of the jurors concluded that the woman across the El-tracks could not
have seen the boy kill his father because she had marks on her nose that
indicated she wore glasses and she wouldn’t have worn glasses to bed. This is
H. When the architect (juror #8) demonstrated that the old man who was an eye witness couldn’t
have risen from his bed and walked down a hallway in 15 seconds, he was identifying a faulty
I. When two jurors began playing tic-tac-toe, the architect became angry and tore up the paper.
These two jurors were exhibiting indifference to the seriousness of the deliberations and to the
J. Juror #2 who was a bank clerk (cough drop guy) was never a leader in the group because he
K. The jury was guilty of groupthink. FALSE
L. Juror #8 (the architect) is being assertive when he challenges the juror who yells a lot (#3),
M. When the old man (juror #9) votes “not guilty” during the secret ballot, making the vote 10-2
O. When juror #3 (yells a lot) changes his mind and takes the position that a hung jury should be
P. Jurors #3 (man who yells) and #10 (bigot) both express verbal contempt for other jurors at
Q. Despite their animated disagreements, all jurors abided by the 5 standards of ethical
R. The constant bickering and strong disagreements among jurors is an example of negative
U. When juror #10, then later #3 advocated that the jury declare itself a hung jury,
GROUP DISCUSSION EXAM #4
“TWELVE ANGRY MEN”
(Individual)
NAME:
I. Choose the correct answer or answers for each question. There may be more than one correct
answer for each question. Each question is worth 4 points.
A. Juror #10 (the bigot with cold/flu) exhibited which of the following defensive
communication patterns?
B. Juror #9 (the old man) exhibited which of the following informal roles during
the deliberations?
C. Eleven members of the jury accepted eye witness testimony from the old man and the woman
across the El-tracks even after initial discussion. This is an example of
D. Juror #5 (lived in a slum) had which of the following power resources during
the deliberations?
E. Which of the following strategies were used to gain compliance and extinguish the deviance
(defiance) of the lone juror voting “not guilty” (#8, the architect) during initial deliberations?
II. Identify each statement as TRUE or FALSE. For every FALSE answer provide a reason
why it is false. Each question is worth 4 points.
A. Because juror #3 (man who yells) was highly vocal and almost never quiet, you would expect
D. One of the key informal role’s played by juror #7 (the baseball fan) was devil’s advocate.
E. The bigot (#10), the man who yelled a lot (#3), and the baseball fan (#7) had one thing in
common--they all relied primarily on the competing, power/forcing style of conflict
VIII. EXPLANATIONS FOR Cooperative Exam #4, Twelve Angry Men
NOTE: Because answers for the Twelve Angry Men exam cannot be looked up in the
text for the correct answers, and because there is some amount of interpretation
necessary to answer each question, I have provided answers with explanations.
Multiple-Choice
to ram his point of view down the other jurors throats. He was a fighter-controller and
his zealotry was all about his racism.
(threatening, ridiculing, trying to win a contest, pressuring, insisting on
symbols, and no fantasy themes. Juries are not structured as teams.
was always involved so laizzez-faire was never used by him, and he didn’t
delegate any responsibility to anyone—it wasn’t his place to do so.
there is no seduction used (no bribe, etc.), he is ostracized (“You’re all
alone”) by being made to feel apart from the group; he is never coerced
(threatened, ridiculed, etc.).
special expertise, offers no scarce information, and does not hand out
rewards.
among jurors. There is no compromise—just guilty or not guilty.
baseball game than deliberating), was disrespectful to the old man and the
architect, and there was no real commitment to excellence—he made up his
mind and didn’t want to discuss the evidence at all.
wasn’t sure the defendant was not guilty, but he wanted to examine the
evidence (test the strength of the case). He had one brief “fight” with juror
#3 but this was fleeting and hardly a primary role. He was always respectful
of other jurors’ desire to contribute so he wasn’t a stagehog, and he never
had any particular zealous cause to impose on other jurors except the main
task—determine the innocence or guilt of the defendant.
forgotten by other jurors (e.g., why would defendant go back and get the
knife?). He was never an isolate or a fighter-controller.
hypercompetitive (“I’m the competitive type”), and says inappropriate things to
fellow jurors (“I’ll kill you,” “bunch of little old ladies.
with each other as though the deliberations were a contest to win.
N. 3---the broker was a great example of assertiveness. He doesn’t back down
unless the evidence is convincing, but he is not aggressive in pushing his
point of view and he is never passive. He always speaks his mind directly.
juror votes with him; that is an outright yielding to the group. He mostly
uses collaborating (confrontation and smoothing). He is not competitive; he
doesn’t approach the deliberations as a contest to be won, but only an
important decision to be made judiciously. There is no compromise to be made.
others speak and he spoke but didn’t try to monopolize the conversation. He had no
cause to sell—just wanted to leave.
disagreement and tried to avoid direct confrontation. He mostly watched
unless confronted directly, which made him anxious and ineffectual.
#6 exhibit only mild anger infrequently (no intensity or duration). #9 had one minor
flair-up only.
S. 4---not even close to a team; juries aren’t supposed to function as teams. They are
adversarial by nature.
most part. Only fleeting efforts by #8 and others were attempted without success.
members.
before hearing points articulated by other jurors. Only #10 seemed ready to pounce
whenever disagreed with.
True-False
satisfied with the process or outcome and gave no impression that he was
committed to defending the jury decision to outsiders. Juror #3 also was
suspect regarding commitment. He caves seemingly from exhaustion.
personal insults. These are critical elements of principled negotiation.
wrong decision but corrected errors that no single juror would likely have
deduced. Jury deliberations produced a closer, more thoughtful
examination of the evidence. The level of analysis of the evidence was far
superior to individuals working alone and merely pooling conclusions.
Jurors fed off of each others’ analysis and presentation of information.
the old man’s claim, based on the known, or the old man’s testimony and
estimate of time). This inference was questioned by #8 and proven wrong.
weren’t really listening to his arguments.
Being quiet and not very articulate when speaking makes you a prime candidate for
elimination from leader consideration.
necessary antecedent of groupthink. No one was going along to get along except
maybe #11.
accusation is harsh and combative.
continue.
and #10 with help from #7. There was lots of defensiveness and little effort
to cooperate throughout most of the deliberations.
as a justification for giving up and advocating a hung jury. He seems to
have tired of fighting and wants to avoid any further battle.
with him; #3 repeatedly calls jurors who disagree with him “bleeding
hearts” and “little old ladies.”
and #10 acted irresponsibly.
tension
articulating their reasons for voting guilty or not guilty, but #10, #3 and #7 ignored
the norm.
no “half-a-loaf” compromise.
Individual Accountability Exam 12 Angry Men Exam
Multiple Choice
his certitude that he was correct at every juncture of the deliberations,
communicated superiority, especially compared to “those people,” and
negatively evaluated anyone who disagreed with him.
the female witness wearing glasses, and clarified several points about the
The remaining 3 answers are irrelevant.
jury), and he could demonstrate the proper technique for using such a
knife (expertise). He had no rewards to disseminate and he had no legitimate
authority.
Bathroom, two jurors use the “you’re just wasting everyone’s time” and
“what if he really did kill his father and we let him go” tactic, coercion is
used in the form of ridicule and shouting, even a near fistfight with #3, and
#8 is made to feel apart from the rest of the group, all alone in his dissent.
#8 even feels it necessary to leave the room and go to the restroom as the
vote is taken to see if anyone will join him (the old man does).
True-False
unqualified assertions, was bossy and dictatorial, and yelled a lot (irritating
communication pattern).
disagreed and was disagreeable, doing it because he’d already made up his
mind and he wanted to leave.
abrasive and clearly wanted to “win” the argument (all characteristics of
power-forcing style).
exacerbated the tension.
TWELVE ANGRY MEN
A Paper/Exam
INSTRUCTIONS: Answer any 3 of the 6 questions below. Answers must be no
longer than 2 pages per question. Points will be deducted for any answer that exceeds the
maximum length. This assignment must be TYPED, double-spaced with standard margins (about
350 words per page). Each group member must answer the individual accountability question
separately.
1. Analyze jury deliberations in terms of the primary power resources. Concentrate on 4-5 key
members of the jury depicted in the movie. Explain the influence of each key member on the final
2. There are several instances of defiance depicted in the movie. Identify which jury members
were defiant and in what ways they were defiant. Discuss each of these instances of defiance in
3. There is much conflict dramatized in this movie. Discuss the conflict by applying the 5
communication styles of conflict management (e.g., collaborating, accommodating, etc.). Identify
4. What negotiation strategy (i.e., tit-for-tat, hard bargaining, principled negotiation, etc.) did the
architect (juror #8) use? Explain. What negotiation strategies did other jurors (choose 4) use and
6. Identify significant inferences made by members of the jury. Were the inferences faulty?
Explain. Did the jury engage in collective inferential error?
INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY QUESTION
(if exam taken as a group):
Discuss roles and leadership depicted in the movie. Which informal roles were exhibited? By
whom? With what results? Did leadership emerge according to the normal pattern in small
groups? Explain. Was leadership effective? Which leadership styles were used?
Which were effective and why?
