The movie 12 Angry Men tells the story of a jury trying to reach a verdict in a murder case. The case concerns a young boy accused of murdering his father. Initially, all the jurors agree on the boy's guilt, but one of them is not sure. Throughout the film, this man raises enough reasonable doubts for the entire jury to change their vote one by one to not guilty so that the young boy is ultimately acquitted. This film presents many aspects of social psychology, particularly faulty eyewitness testimony, similar juror characteristics, and subtyping bias. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get the original essay Hidden Aspects of Social Psychology in the Film Plot In the book Intro to Social Psychology by David Myers, it is clear that 'Throughout time, social psychology psychologists have come to show that eyewitness accounts cannot always be a reliable source of information. However, research shows that juries are more likely to believe the eyewitness, even after he or she has been discredited. This is seen several times in the movie 12 Angry Men. At the beginning, when the jurors each go around the table and explain why they think the boy is guilty, most of them bring up the eyewitness accounts. There are two eyewitness accounts that are discussed, one from the old man who lived below the scene of the murder and the other from the lady who lived across the street. After the men who voted not guilty show serious flaws in the old man's testimony, only a few jurors remain who think the boy is guilty. When asked why, they look at the woman's testimony, where she says she's talking about the boy and you can't just dismiss that. Even though there has been plenty of evidence so far that the boy probably did not kill his father, these eyewitness accounts were strong enough for the men to ignore the other evidence and rely solely on the words of someone else to throw a man into prison. prison.Another aspect of social psychology seen in the film concerns the characteristics of jurors. These twelve men are all very different from each other, and each of their differences causes them to view the matter 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 in other aspects of social psychology, such as liking, prejudice, and conformity. In the film, this is seen after a juror makes a prejudiced remark about how the boy grew up in the slums. The man says of course the kid did it because of his upbringing. This really upsets another juror who grew up in the slums. This juror who grew up in the slums defends the boy, saying that just because he grew up in the slums doesn't mean he's a murderer. Shortly after, he changes his vote to not guilty, as he sees his own struggles in the boy at this point. Another aspect of social psychology seen in this particular scene is subtyping. After the man who grew up in the slums is offended by the man who stereotypes slum kids, the attacker says that of course he shouldn't take it that way, because this jury man is obviously different of the accused. This is an example of subtyping, which is when a person does not fit the stereotype they have in mind, so they simply tell themselves that this,.