GRUP KARARLARINDA AZINLIK ETKİSİ KAVRAMININ “12 KIZGIN ADAM” FİLMİ ÜZERİNDEN İNCELENMESİ

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, "12 Kızgın Adam" filmindeki grup dinamiği ve karar verme sürecini mikro düzeyde eleştirel söylem analizi ile incelemektir. Çalışma, grup içindeki bir üyenin toplu kararlar üzerindeki etkisini ve yüz yüze grup tartışmasının ilk savunucunun etkisini araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Filmin ana karakteri olan Henry'nin liderlik davranışı, azınlık pozisyonunda olmasına rağmen grubu etkileyerek tartışma platformu oluşturmasını sağlar. Henry, farklı konuları ele alarak çoğunluk arasında fikir ayrılıkları yaratır ve bu sayede her üyenin düşünce tarzını anlayarak konuşmalarını şekillendirir. Henry'nin azınlık etkisi ile gruptaki durumu açıklanabilir; çünkü başlangıçta sadece kendisi "suçsuz" oyu kullanarak çoğunluğa uymamıştır. Ancak daha sonra kararında tutarlı davranarak grubun düşüncelerinin ve oylarının değişmesine neden olmuştur. Bu çalışma, grup dinamikleri ve iletişimin karmaşıklığını anlamak açısından önemli bir örnek sunmaktadır ve liderliğin azınlık etkisi üzerindeki rolünü vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Azınlık Etkisi
• Karar Verme
• Eleştirel Söylem Analizi

ANALYZING THE CONCEPT OF MINORITY INFLUENCE IN GROUP DECISION MAKING THROUGH “12 ANGRY MEN” FILM

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine the group dynamics and decision-making process in the movie "12 Angry Men" with a micro-level critical discourse analysis. The study aims to explore the influence of a member within the group on collective decisions and the influence of the first advocate of face-to-face group discussion. The leadership behavior of Henry, the main character of the movie, influences the group despite being in a minority position, and provides a platform for discussion. By tackling different topics, Henry creates differences of opinion among the majority, thereby understanding the thinking of each member and shaping their speech. Henry's position in the group can be explained by his minority influence; because in the beginning only he did not comply with the majority by voting "not guilty". However, he later acted consistently in his decision, causing the group's thoughts and votes to change. This study provides an important example for understanding the complexity of group dynamics and communication and highlights the role of leadership in minority influence.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Minority Influence
• Decision Making
• Critical Discourse Analysis

Kaynakça

1. Akyuz, C. (2019). 12 kızgın adam filminin sosyal psikolojik incelenmesi. Psikolojik Ağı. Erişim adresi: https://www.psikolojiagi.com/12-kizgin-adam-filminin-sosyal-psikolojik-incelenmesi/
2. Ankaraligil, N. (2008). Media capital and the representation of South Asian muslims in the British press: An ideological analysis. Istanbul University Faculty of Communication Journal, 34, p.37-52.
3. Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2012). Sosyal psikoloji. Kaknüs Yayınları, ISBN: 9789752563520
4. Bal, C. G. & Avcu, G. (2023). A reception analysis on the concept of group interaction in the movie 12 Angry Men. Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(2), p.459-475, doi: 10.53443/anadoluibfd.1176107
5. Bolanos, R., Fontela, E., Nenclare, A., & Pastor, P. (2005). Using interpretive structural modelling in strategic decision‐making groups. Management Decision, ISSN: 0025-1747.
6. Bowling, A. (2002). Research Methods in Health: Investigating Health and Health Services. Philadelphia, PA: McGraw-Hill House.
7. Cengiz, C.B. (2013). İknaya yönelik iletişim ve tutum değişikliği. Gündem Türkiye. Erişim adresi: https://www.gundemturkiye.com/birey/sosyal-psikoloji/tutumlar/iknaya-yonelik-iletisim-ve-tutum-degisikligi.html
8. Cubillo, J.M., Sanches, J., & Cervino, J. (2006). International students' decision‐making process. International Journal of Educational Management. ISSN: 0951-354X

9. Demir, E. & Tore, E. (2021). Examination of bilgievi in the context of management processes: Sample of Kucukcekmece Municipality. İZÜ Eğitim Dergisi, 3(5), p.15-39, doi: 10.46423/izujed.760523
10. Devran, Y. (2010). Haber, söylem, ideoloji. Başlık Yayın Grubu, ISBN: 978-605-4033-02-7
11. Dickens, C. (1837). The pickwick papers. Serialised March 1836 – November 1837; book format 1837.
12. Dikmeci, O., Tekin, Z., Samoylov, Y., Karakose, M.E., Işik, M., Sahin, M.C., Sen, U.M., & Celik, R. (2017). ABD mahkemelerinde jüri nedir? Kimlerden oluşur? Ne yaparlar?. Sahipkiran Stratejik Araştırma Merkezi.
13. Drew, C. (2023). Informational social influence: 10 examples & definition. Erişim adresi: https://helpfulprofessor.com/informational-social-influence/
14. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15. Geddes, J. (2016). Elaboration likelihood model theory: How to use ELM. Interaction desing, Alistapart.
16. Geyer, C. (2017). The social unconscius in action: Linking theory to group work with young adults. Sage Journal, 50(2). Doi:10/1177/0533316417702265
17. Gibbs, A. (1997). Focus groups. Social Research Update, 19. Erişim adresi: http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU19.html
18. Gizer, A. (2011). Odak grup çalışması. Erişim adresi: https://aligizer.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/odak-grup-calismasi/
19. Jhangiani, R. & Tarry H. (2022). Principles of social psychology – 1st international H5P edition. Erişim adresi: https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/
20. Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. 16 (1), 103–121.
21. Kitzinger J. (1995). Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. Natinal Library of Medicine, 29;311(7000):299-302. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299
22. Kokdemir, D. (2003). Decision making and problem solving under uncertainty. Ankara University, Department of Social Psychology, [doctoral dissertation]
23. Krueger, R.A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. London: SAGE.
24. Lerner, J.S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., &Kassam K.S. (2014). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66(1).
25. Mcleod, S. (2023). Moscovici and minority influence in psychology. Simply Psychology, reviewed by Olivia Guy Evans.
26. Moscovici, S. & Lage, E. (1976). Studies in social influence III: Majority versus minority influence in a group. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 149-114.
27. Mugny, G., & Papastamou, S. (1980). When rigidity does not fail: Individualization and psychologization as resistances to the diffusion of minority innovations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10(1), 43–61. Erişim adresi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420100104
28. Nas, S. (2010). Scientific approaches to the decision making styes. Dokuz Eylul University Maritime Faculty Jurnal, 2(2), p.43-65.
29. Nemeth, C. J. (1995). Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes, and judgments. Social Cognition, 13(3), 273–291. Erişim adresi: https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1995.13.3.273
30. Oppermann, M. & Chon, K.S. (1997). Convention participation decision-making process. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(1), p.178-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(96)00049-7
31. Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19(1), p.124-205.
32. Pomerleau, M. (2021). Tension in translation: Spain’s and Catalonia’s discourse on independence. Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 31(3), p.(450-469). Doi: 10.1080/0907676X.2022.2030374
33. Roos, J.M., Hughes, M., & Reichelmann, A.V. (2019). A Puzzle of racial attitudes: A measurement analysis of racial attitudes and policy indicators. Socius. Doi:10.1177/2378023119842738
34. Rose, R. (1996). Twelve angry men. “Plese Copy and Return”, Fist Draft – February 14.
35. Stewart, D.W. & Shamdasani, P.N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
36. Van Dijk., T.A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352-371). Oxford: Blackwell.
37. Van Dijk., T.A. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. H. E. Hamilton, D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen (Yay. Haz.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (2. Basım) içinde (ss. 466-485). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
38. Villines, Z. (2023). Cognitive dissonance: What to know. Medical News Today, reviewed by Yalda Safari.
39. Warner, C.D. (1873). Backlog Studies. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform , ISBN:1540386899
40. Weisband, S.P. (1992). Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53(3), p. 352-380.
41. Williams, C. (2007). Research Methods. Journal of Business & Economic Research, 5, p. 65-72.
42. Williams, K. D., & Zadro, L. (2005). Ostracism: The indiscriminate early detection system. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (p. 19– 34). Psychology Press.