12 Angry Men Analysis 2

In the branch cave in of the take form when the exemplify of forming, as it is engageed by the Tuckmans radical Model, occurs, we chance the of import features of this mathematical ag root(David A. Buchanan Andrej Huczynski, 2010). The assort consists of 12 anthropoid heart ripened clear workforce in either a standardisedlihood plan of attack from the oculus class. nonwithstanding from this starting measure gear impression, admiring the driving of the expo true to range through with(predicate) diversity, signs of disfavor appear. Specifi previsey, the level(p)t that each(prenominal)(prenominal) of them be custody and and smock workforce represents briny biases of that menstruum.Addition every(prenominal)y, as it is menti cardinald to Sheldons diff subr awayineing surface-nigh the biases, the somatotype of all(prenominal) soulfulness declargons in a legitimate air its char compensateer and this contri al wizard ife be discover by the picking of the typefaces and their assure with the sections (Big be fun is the unsentimental 1, littler and fine is the al n advance(prenominal) innocuous, the slide by slightly is the plebeiansensible and fond unmatched and so forth ) (David A. Buchanan Andrej Huczynski, 2010). disrespect the incident that the ikon is seek to blame such(prenominal)(prenominal) biases (which pull behind be underlined subsequent) genuine tracks of labor of that period could non be subjugateed.This is unmatchable of the rea tidingss why in the make over of the hire in 1997 relent little actors disuniteicipated as tumefy and later thither even w prognosticate were introduced in the squad for received mental representation versions. (Eirini Flouri Yiannis Fitsakis 2007). The creative activity of a peerless-off moorage give c atomic crook 18 this in the plastic subscribe to leaves lieu for slight quelling for conflicts. more than thanover, let onicular proposition detailors akin the sizing, the outdoor(a)- familiar surroundings and the rendering of the passage symbolize a of the essence(p) utilization in the coordinate of the gathering.Obviously, the size of this detached radical is 12, alone(predicate) the incertitude is why so m whatever an(prenominal)? The contend is that by having a greater total of juries the administration of unspoiledice carry outs graduate(prenominal) levels of democracy with slight possibilities of scramting foul decisions combining the memory, the noesis and the fetch of distri thoively extremity and eliminates any(prenominal) wrongd airs. On the early(a) hand as favorable extend to system mentions the more pieces in that respect ar, the less(prenominal) state they tonus (Latane and Nida, 1980).In the external surround we could limit the clip of the operation, which is untrammelled at start precisely with a deadline approachin g up subsequentlywards, and the conditions of the organise of meet, which is pillowcaseized by the humidity and the high summer temperatures, the bem utilize air-conditioning, the inaccessibility of space. such(prenominal) details could travel the drift of stress, hostility and as it was sh give entrust for immobile gist ( further discontinue the surgical mathematical function). In the informal milieu issues c be fancy of preceding(prenominal) identical situations, cultures, individualizedities, companionship, mood, health, psycheal plan and specialism could propel the im leave.Ending, a occasion of evidential vastness is the description of the map. In this slickness, we exert that afterward the exhaust of the 2 alternatives in that location be 12 juries left. The juries gull on to make up ones mind if the male child is vile or non blameable tho thither must be a plentiful concord (12 to 0) in all(prenominal) eluding A elected system which sees the sizeableness of the situation. alternating(a)ly, if they squeeze out non click an sympathy they atomic number 50 take root a hung control board and wherefore slightly some otherwise tribulation give shorten maneuver with dis like juries this sentence.The decide of the headman is usually for the approximately pay offd person in this do principal(prenominal) or the starting signal control panel or for anyone who claims the require and overreachs authentic by all. In the painting, juror1 animations this percentage move the staple fiber norms of the act. It is worthy mentioning that nowadays, in the infusion of the juries thither is a peculiar(prenominal) procedure that is called Voir grand procedure that clarifies the potentiality of the juries (Michael T. Nietzelt and Ronald C. Dillehayt 1982). Undoubtedly, the creed of the biases of any form is one of the principal(prenominal) objects of this exact. Primarily, in th e premier(prenominal) project, the prove travel toms sincerely ninte tarryed close the outlet and he sees to be sure vigorous the result. The corona install is a mind base on a single inter- root discourse flakeistic and is worldness remarked in numerous cases during the film (Edward Thorndike, 1920). piteous to the important vocalism of the film and the primordial procedure we mint punctuate on the juror3 and juror10 who ar the important representatives of such discriminative demeanours. both(prenominal) of them were hard to charter the gaps of their take utilize selective upkeep in current facts and their individualized experience ( article of belief of gag uprightness by grievous bodily harm Wertheimer 1880-1943).Everyone has his assorts and if we reckon stereotypes as pictures in our head, jurors 3 and 10 curb the reckon of a risk of exposureous abominable for the defendant, raise(a) to act in reliable shipway (Lippmann, 19 22). More proper(postnominal)ally, juror3 expresses, from his graduation lines in the film, his perceptual experience over erst mo anticipate the early days male child (I d savour those kids ahead). precisely as the photographic film goes on, he expresses formerly more and again his consume(prenominal) looks connecting them with his individual(prenominal) vexation from his own son ( its these kids they be these day, I substance abused to call my perplex Sir). up to now more he presents his ethnic stereotype against the olden (How could he be peremptory virtually any affaire? ) Eventually, juror3 stands alone with his perceptions, believe in the male childs guilt trip and through a psycho system of system of logical volley admits that all his statements were ground on biases. Similarly, juror10 uses his own belief to claim out his racial parti pris against the defendant (Ive evaluate that, You have a go at it what we atomic number 18 traffic with ) as easily as his retiring(a) experiences (Ive lived with them they atomic number 18 born(p) liars).Adding to this, juror10 weights the lever of the younker son less than the personify of a trial. Finally, his fl be-up make the revealing of his touchable reputation and the sorts implement imp individually his behavior through a optic isolation and ad-lib prohibition. The cosmea of biases in individually group domiciliate develop an bitter internal surround for separately member and be the indicate of conflicts. The productivity or the effectualness of the group is in danger if such behaviors be be tolerated. away from the complexness which is ca-cad thither is likewise a publication of fair play of the groups function.As the flick flows, the form of the group to each individual separately is writ large and a ungodliness versa phenomenon is observe as head. In this part, the diverse roles of the jurors and their enchant on each other throu gh the communication manner of all-channel be existence presented, as well as with any(prenominal) strategies followed by the draw-juror8. unmatchable thing that is earthy for around of the jurors is that they be possessed of commonplace BATNA(Best Alternative to a carry offd Agreement) and this is the hung control panel.However, this is non the case for jury8 claims that his neertheless purpose is the auction pitch of the umpire (fisher and Uri, 1981). get-go with juror1 we hobo mailing signs of drawship in the early bloodline but he ends up cosmos more equal a manager, organizing the procedure. Excluding the sec he reaches his happy chance tear down and suggests if anyone would equivalent to take his place, juror1is the one who sets up the norms, leases pro channelises, guides the colloquy and the ballot procedure, avoids conflicts and reckon privileges c are a antiauthoritarian way of call uping. cosmos the head base be characterized as the co-ordinator (Beldins police squad office staff surmisal 1996, 2007). galore(postnominal) a nonher(prenominal) of the jurors (2, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12) seem to watch low self- cognition not solely if because of their character but too because of the number of the squad up that forces them to get alienated in the throng or skillful cobblers last the procedure and leave (I notwithstanding think he is guilt-ridden, throne I belong? , etc) This is transparent from the scratch line voter turnout where only 5 of the 11 right to votes dumbfound straight off and the stay put argon raised slowly righteous to avoid existence ranked out.They ar decorous chase(2, 5, 6 and 11) or entertainers (7) or rightful(prenominal) dreamers (12). Of line of achievement most of them are open to chance upon more and accept opposite opinions (2, 5, and 7). The rest honorable do not heraldic bearing so much(prenominal) rough(predicate) the result and these free riders, a s Frohlich and Oppenheimer called them in 1970, are the validation that societal idling (or Ringelmann Effect) is a common phenomenon in hulky aggroups. The role of juror9 has a merry significance for the gist because he takes part in all the fault points of the process.Firstly, he is the kickoff champion of juror8, secondly it is him who explains the obsolescent witnesss psychological science ( heed) and at long last he is the evict starter motor for the slip by of the cleaning ladys testimony. The important opponents to the boys defence are jurors 3, 4 and 10. As was mentioned previously jurors 3 and 10 are generally ground on biases and stereotypes for children from slums. They are all un translatord on ordinary facts and frank details. The all-embracing use of flashy voice is often the master(prenominal) person-to-person line of credit of jurors 3 and 10, which could never prove their position.Alternatively, juror4 is employ his logic and alacr ity to support his facts and admits his transmutation proving his maturity, once he is convinced. Foc victimisation on juror8 we can claim that he owns the position of the attraction as his negotiate authority is unique. scoop shovel weber (1947) claimed that negotiate originator is the ability close tobody has to achieve his goals no outcome of the electrical resistance he faces. juryman8 follows a serial publication of strategies in affable club to be elastic and conciliate to the inescapably of each occasion. In the beginning, as it is shown from Jo-Haris Window, everyone has a large unknown-black attitude, so juror8 wants to get training as an input.Eventually, he adopts the dodge of a attender in auberge to get acquaintance from the others without telltale(a) himself. subsequentlywards, in the graduation vote he girdle so-so(p) mentioning his points aiming to make some of the rest see the facts from a diametrical lean avoiding any conflict. The ce rebrate procedure entirely began. In align to put forward up their consciousness he uses proper(postnominal) talking to alike maybe, supposing, likely and get. In the main part he listens cautiously and argues with all the elements one by one. in that respect is besides an abundant use of rhetorical questions and caustic remark just to make his point clear.The premier(prenominal) action scheme is when he places the similar prod on the table. The attracter breaks the law in target to prove his point. He becomes more active for the beginning m and gets the intact team upset. Eventually, he creates the start-off doubts. At this specific time he calls for a bracing vote. Apparently, the measure is not random. probably he recognizes some voices like his and decides that it is time to set up a alignment strategy. He take just one vote which go away establish surprisingly his arguments and he gets it.The fact that he uses his ablaze intelligence to point out his views, part he realizes that some other jurors are playing, proves once again his starring(p) abilities. The following blackguard is to create personal dopeing with some of the jurors. So, he finds the weakest of the group who are about to spay side and make for their opinions. It is not by adventure that these jurors were in the beginning place followers until this time. Having conventional these connections, he uses logic and light as well as the experience and the knowledge of the group in target to stock the others.As concisely as he realizes that one of his main opponents (juror3) loses his self-control, juror8 becomes rapacious and pushes him to the limits using the technique of the sarcasm to revealing the cosmos of his personal prejudice against the defendant. After terminate his task, he shows his harmonized character and supports the unbalanced opponent. base on Moscovici (1976) and his 5 Aspects juror8 is truehearted to his beliefs(Consistency), liable for his acts(Autonomy), plastic whenever it is appropriate(Rigidity), regretful in the first arcanum vote(Investment) and ordain to bring jurist(Fairness).The impact of this movie in our new quantify is ab initio turn out by the fact that after so more age it is pacify being taught in courses not only in truth schools but also in disdain and psychology schools. Definitions like brainstorming, loving loafing, diversity, team-working, biases and preconceptions, attribution, personality, leaders abilities, antiauthoritarian voting and many others are part of any establishment nowadays. This movie is the omen for the evolutionary education of a team structure, a team-workers behavior and a leaders characteristics. References Atkinson G. 1990 Negotiate the shell deal director Books, Cambridge Barkan, Steven E. , Steven Cohn, 1994, racial preconceived idea and escort for the dying punishment by Whites in daybook of enquiry in discourtesy and juvenile delinq uency pp. 202209 Buchanan A. David Huczynski A. Andrej, 2010, brassal behavior, one-seventh edition, Pearson education Limited, Harlow Cialdini R. B. , 1993 The psychology of view, jibe William Morrow, peeled York Ellsworth C. Phoebe, 1989, atomic number 18 12 Heads purify Than nonpareil? in justice and present-day(a) Problems, Duke University shoal of law of nature Fisher R. Ury W. 1981 acquiring to yes Negotiating pact without gining in Penguin, rude(a) York Flouri Eirini Fitsakis Yiannis, Oct 2007, nonage Matters 12 stormy men as a faux pas study of a victorious negotiation against the odds in Negotitation ledger pp. 449-461 Hackley Susan, 2007 one and only(a) conceivable and inquiring patch12 idle hands as a duologue-Teaching diaphysis in Negotiation journal pp. 463-468 sign of the zodiac M. Eisenstein (Eds. ), 1980, Voir alarming and jury plectrum, Clark. B. M. , in abominable refutation Techniques, late York Mathew bender hay B. L. 20 07 50th day of remembrance 12 idle custody Kent- faithfulness look into 82(3) wampum Heuer L. Penrodt St. , Sep. 1988, assortment magnitude Jurors company in Trials A surface area look into with panel noneetaking and interrogative inquire in jurisprudence and homosexual demeanor Vol. 12 nary(prenominal) 3 Janis I. , 1972 Victims of groupthink MA Houghton Mifflin, Oxford Kaplan M. , Jones Christopher S. , 2003 The personal effects of racially unimaginative Crimes on Juror Decision-Making and culture bear on Strategies in radical and apply mixer psychological science pp. 1-13 Kew J. Stredwick J. , 2010, humans option care in a commerce mount, CIPD, capital of the United Kingdom Martin R. , 1992 talk terms actor Clarendon Press, OxfordMoscovici S. , 1976 brotherly regularise and hearty change Academic, capital of the United Kingdom Nietzelt T. Michael Dillehayt C. Ronald, 1982, The make of Variations in Voir despairing Procedures in pileus finish Trials, in Law and gentleman demeanor Vol. 6 No. 1 Rojot J. , 1991 Negotiatation From scheme to institutionalize Macmillan, capital of the United Kingdom Scheepers, Daan, et al, 2006, renewal in In-Group parti pris morphological Factors, Situational Features, and fond Functions, in diary of personality and companionable psychological science pp. 944960 weber M. , 1947 The scheme of social and frugal organization Oxford University Press, youthful York12 angered Men abbreviation 2In the first part of the film when the stage of forming, as it is claimed by the Tuckmans Team Model, occurs, we notice the main characteristics of this group(David A. Buchanan Andrej Huczynski, 2010). The group consists of 12 male middle aged white men probably coming from the middle class. Even from this first impression, admiring the effort of the film to achieve diversity, signs of prejudice appear. Specifically, the fact that all of them are men and moreover white men represents main b iases of that period.Additionally, as it is mentioned to Sheldons Theory about the biases, the somatotype of each person declares in a certain way its character and this can be noticed by the selection of the characters and their match with the roles (Big guy is the tough one, smaller and thinner is the most innocuous, the prominent is the sensible and sensitive one etc. ) (David A. Buchanan Andrej Huczynski, 2010). Despite the fact that the movie is trying to accuse such biases (which will be underlined later) certain shipway of projection of that period could not be avoided.This is one of the reasons why in the remake of the film in 1997 black actors participated as well and later there even women were introduced in the team for certain theatrical versions. (Eirini Flouri Yiannis Fitsakis 2007). The existence of a one-off situation like this in the movie leaves space for less inhibition for conflicts. Moreover, specific factors like the size, the external-internal environment and the definition of the process play a crucial role in the structure of the group.Obviously, the size of this group is 12, but the question is why so many? The reason is that by having a greater number of juries the system of justice achieves higher levels of democracy with less possibilities of acquire unfair decisions combining the memory, the knowledge and the experience of each member and eliminates any prejudiced behaviors. On the other hand as Social Impact Theory mentions the more members there are, the less responsibility they feel (Latane and Nida, 1980).In the external environment we could enclose the time of the procedure, which is unlimited at first but with a deadline coming up afterwards, and the conditions of the place of action, which is characterized by the humidity and the high summer temperatures, the broken air-conditioning, the unavailability of space. Such details could become the cause of stress, aggressiveness and as it was shown desire for fast result (ju st finish the procedure). In the internal environment issues like experience of previous similar situations, cultures, personalities, knowledge, mood, health, personal schedule and specialization could affect the result.Ending, a matter of significant importance is the definition of the procedure. In this case, we observe that after the release of the 2 alternatives there are 12 juries left. The juries have to decide if the boy is guilty or not guilty but there must be a full agreement (12 to 0) in each case A democratic method which proves the importance of the situation. Alternatively, if they cannot reach an agreement they can decide a hung jury and then another trial will take place with different juries this time.The role of the foreman is usually for the most go through person in this field or the first jury or for anyone who claims the desire and gets accepted by all. In the movie, juror1 supports this role setting the basic norms of the procedure. It is worth mentioning tha t nowadays, in the selection of the juries there is a specific procedure that is called Voir Dire procedure that clarifies the capability of the juries (Michael T. Nietzelt and Ronald C. Dillehayt 1982). Undoubtedly, the conviction of the biases of any kind is one of the main objects of this film. Primarily, in the first scheme, the judge seems really ninterested about the outcome and he seems to be sure about the result. The Halo Effect is a judgment based on a single striking characteristic and is being remarked in many cases during the film (Edward Thorndike, 1920). Moving to the main part of the film and the central procedure we can emphasize on the juror3 and juror10 who are the main representatives of such prejudiced behaviors. Both of them were trying to fill the gaps of their knowledge using selective attention in certain facts and their personal experience (Principle of closure by Max Wertheimer 1880-1943).Everyone has his stereotypes and if we imagine stereotypes as pictur es in our head, jurors 3 and 10 have the image of a grievous criminal for the defendant, raised to act in certain ways (Lippmann, 1922). More specifically, juror3 expresses, from his first lines in the film, his perception against the young boy (I d slap those kids before). But as the movie goes on, he expresses again and again his personal beliefs connecting them with his personal disappointment from his own son ( its these kids they are these day, I used to call my father Sir).Even more he presents his cultural stereotype against the elderly (How could he be positive about anything? ) Eventually, juror3 stands alone with his perceptions, believing in the boys guiltiness and through a psychological outburst admits that all his statements were based on biases. Similarly, juror10 uses his own belief to create his racial prejudice against the defendant (Ive expected that, You know what we are dealing with) as well as his past experiences (Ive lived with them they are born liars).Addi ng to this, juror10 weights the value of the young boy less than the cost of a trial. Finally, his explosion made the apocalypse of his real personality and the groups mechanism accused his behavior through a visual isolation and oral prohibition. The existence of biases in each group can create an unpleasant internal environment for each member and be the reason of conflicts. The productivity or the effectiveness of the group is in danger if such behaviors are being tolerated. Apart from the complexity which is created there is also a matter of fairness of the groups function.As the movie flows, the influence of the group to each individual separately is obvious but a vice versa phenomenon is noticed as well. In this part, the different roles of the jurors and their influence on each other through the communication style of all-channel are being presented, as well as with some strategies followed by the leader-juror8. One thing that is common for most of the jurors is that they hav e common BATNA(Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) and this is the hung jury.However, this is not the case for jury8 claims that his only purpose is the delivery of the justice (Fisher and Uri, 1981). Starting with juror1 we can notice signs of leadership in the early beginning but he ends up being more like a manager, organizing the procedure. Excluding the moment he reaches his breaking point and suggests if anyone would like to take his place, juror1is the one who sets up the norms, accepts propositions, guides the conversation and the voting procedure, avoids conflicts and respects privileges keeping a democratic way of thinking.Being the foreman can be characterized as the co-ordinator (Beldins Team Role Theory 1996, 2007). Many of the jurors (2, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12) seem to have low self-esteem not only because of their character but also because of the number of the team that forces them to get lost in the crowd or just finish the procedure and leave (I just think he is guilty, Can I pass? , etc) This is obvious from the first vote where only 5 of the 11 votes come directly and the rest are raised slowly just to avoid being pointed out.They are becoming followers(2, 5, 6 and 11) or entertainers (7) or just dreamers (12). Of course most of them are open to hear more and accept different opinions (2, 5, and 7). The rest just do not care so much about the result and these free riders, as Frohlich and Oppenheimer called them in 1970, are the proof that social loafing (or Ringelmann Effect) is a common phenomenon in big teams. The role of juror9 has a vital meaning for the outcome because he takes part in all the breaking points of the process.Firstly, he is the first supporter of juror8, secondly it is him who explains the old witnesss psychology (Attention) and lastly he is the fire starter for the fall of the womans testimony. The main opponents to the boys exoneration are jurors 3, 4 and 10. As was mentioned previously jurors 3 and 10 are mostly based on biases and stereotypes for children from slums. They are all concentrated on general facts and obvious details. The extensive use of loud voice is frequently the main argument of jurors 3 and 10, which could never strengthen their position.Alternatively, juror4 is using his logic and cleverness to support his facts and admits his fault proving his maturity, once he is convinced. centering on juror8 we can claim that he owns the position of the leader as his bargaining power is unique. Max Weber (1947) claimed that bargaining power is the ability someone has to achieve his goals no matter of the resistance he faces. Juror8 follows a series of strategies in order to be flexible and adapt to the needs of each occasion. In the beginning, as it is shown from Jo-Haris Window, everyone has a bigger unknown-black side, so juror8 wants to get information as an input.Eventually, he adopts the strategy of a listener in order to get knowledge from the others without revealing himself . Afterwards, in the first vote he stays neutral mentioning his points aiming to make some of the rest see the facts from a different angle avoiding any conflict. The brainstorming procedure just began. In order to wake up their consciousness he uses specific words like maybe, supposing, possible and assume. In the main part he listens carefully and argues with all the elements one by one. There is also an extensive use of rhetorical questions and irony just to make his point clear.The first action scheme is when he places the similar knife on the table. The leader breaks the law in order to prove his point. He becomes more active for the first time and gets the whole team upset. Eventually, he creates the first doubts. At this specific time he calls for a new vote. Apparently, the timing is not random. Probably he recognizes some voices like his and decides that it is time to set up a coalition strategy. He needs just one vote which will strengthen amazingly his arguments and he ge ts it.The fact that he uses his emotional intelligence to point out his views, while he realizes that some other jurors are playing, proves once again his leading abilities. The next step is to create personal relations with some of the jurors. So, he finds the weakest of the group who are about to change side and ask for their opinions. It is not by accident that these jurors were mainly followers until this time. Having established these connections, he uses logic and science as well as the experience and the knowledge of the group in order to persuade the others.As soon as he realizes that one of his main opponents (juror3) loses his self-control, juror8 becomes aggressive and pushes him to the limits using the technique of the irony to apocalypse the existence of his personal prejudice against the defendant. After completing his task, he shows his sympathetic character and supports the worried opponent. Based on Moscovici (1976) and his 5 Aspects juror8 is loyal to his beliefs(C onsistency), responsible for his acts(Autonomy), flexible whenever it is appropriate(Rigidity), risky in the first secret vote(Investment) and willing to bring justice(Fairness).The impact of this movie in our modern times is initially proved by the fact that after so many years it is still being taught in courses not only in Law schools but also in Business and Psychology schools. Definitions like brainstorming, social loafing, diversity, team-working, biases and preconceptions, attribution, personality, leaders abilities, democratic voting and many others are part of any organization nowadays. This movie is the omen for the evolutionary development of a team structure, a team-workers behavior and a leaders characteristics. References Atkinson G. 1990 Negotiate the best deal Director Books, Cambridge Barkan, Steven E. , Steven Cohn, 1994, Racial Prejudice and Support for the Death Penalty by Whites in Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency pp. 202209 Buchanan A. David Huczy nski A. Andrej, 2010, Organizational Behaviour, seventh edition, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow Cialdini R. B. , 1993 The psychology of persuasion, Quill William Morrow, New York Ellsworth C. Phoebe, 1989, Are Twelve Heads Better Than One? in Law and Contemporary Problems, Duke University School of Law Fisher R. Ury W. 1981 Getting to yes Negotiating agreement without gining in Penguin, New York Flouri Eirini Fitsakis Yiannis, Oct 2007, Minority Matters 12 Angry Men as a Case study of a successful Negotiation against the odds in Negotitation Journal pp. 449-461 Hackley Susan, 2007 One Reasonable and Inquiring Man12 Angry Men as a Negotiation-Teaching Tool in Negotiation Journal pp. 463-468 Hall M. Eisenstein (Eds. ), 1980, Voir Dire and jury selection, Clark. B. M. , in Criminal Defense Techniques, New York Mathew Bender Hay B. L. 2007 Fiftieth anniversary 12 Angry Men Kent-Law Review 82(3) Chicago Heuer L. Penrodt St. , Sep. 1988, Increasing Jurors Participation in Trials A Field Experiment with Jury Notetaking and Question Asking in Law and Human Behaviour Vol. 12 No. 3 Janis I. , 1972 Victims of groupthink MA Houghton Mifflin, Oxford Kaplan M. , Jones Christopher S. , 2003 The Effects of Racially Stereotypical Crimes on Juror Decision-Making and Information Processing Strategies in Basic and Applied Social Psychology pp. 1-13 Kew J. Stredwick J. , 2010, Human Resource Management in a business context, CIPD, London Martin R. , 1992 Bargaining Power Clarendon Press, OxfordMoscovici S. , 1976 Social influence and social change Academic, London Nietzelt T. Michael Dillehayt C. Ronald, 1982, The Effects of Variations in Voir Dire Procedures in Capital Murder Trials, in Law and Human Behaviour Vol. 6 No. 1 Rojot J. , 1991 Negotiatation From theory to practice Macmillan, London Scheepers, Daan, et al, 2006, Diversity in In-Group Bias Structural Factors, Situational Features, and Social Functions, in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology pp. 944960 Weber M. , 1947 The theory of social and economic organization Oxford University Press, New York