The cognitive process of impression formation is complex, enabling perceivers to objectively

capture another’s behavioural dispositions, attributes or traits both coherently and meaningfully

(Chen & Bargh, 1997). Stereotypes, however, refer to schemas based on biased knowledge,

beliefs and expectations on an association between a distinct characteristics and group

membership (Hamilton, Stroessner & Mackie, 1993; Le Pelley et al., 2010; Levy, Stroessner &

Dweck, 1998; Quadflieg & Macrae, 2011). This is evident in the film 12 Angry Men, where

Juror 10, gives a speech generalising individuals living in slums and repeatedly associating them

with criminal behaviour, violence and a lack of morality (Lumet, Fonda & Rose, 1957). This

film and the current psychological literature builds on our understanding of the influence of bias

impression formation on the construction and persistence of stereotypes.

Stereotypes facilitates information processing and the process of impression formation

through social categorisation (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Le Pelley et al., 2010). In the film, the

negative attributes of individuals living in slums, such as criminality are both generalised and

exaggerated by Juror 10 (Lumet et al., 1957). This can be explained by Hamilton & Sherman’s

(1990) illusory correlation which suggests the misperception of an association between a

distinctive attribute and group membership due to their co-occurrence, hence facilitating the

process impression formation. Researchers have found that this correlation as having some

degree of accuracy, tending to be negative in nature and attributed to minorities or outgroups

(Chen & Bargh, 1997; Hamilton & Sherman, 1996; Quadflieg & Macrae, 2011). Furthemore,

researchers have demonstrated that generalisation and hence, the limiting of within-group
variability, rather than forming an individuated impression can save significant cognitive effort

(Levy et al., 1998; Macrae, Milne & Bodenhausen, 1994). Due to the consistent reliance and use

of this association it become both an automatic and unconscious process indiscriminately carried

over various contexts (Chen & Bargh, 1997; Quadflieg & Macrae, 2011).

Stereotypes also involve the active inferential construction by a perceiver, through the

seeking out, attending to and interpretation of information (Chen & Bargh, 1997). From the

beginning, Juror 10 is convinced of the defendant’s guilt solely because of where he is from,

believing the prosecution has proven the facts beyond reasonable doubt and hence sees no point

in discussing the evidence (Lumet et al., 1957). Indeed, researchers have found a selective and

bias allocation of attentional resources to stereotype congruent information also known as the

self-confirmation effect (Hamilton, Sherman & Ruvolo, 1990; Hilton & Von Hippel, 1996;

Sherman, Stoessner, Conrey & Azam, 2005). Additionally, they have shown that this

information is believed and relied on despite little scrutiny of its validity (Chen & Bargh, 1997;

Sherman et al., 2005; Sherman, Kruschke, Percy, Petrocelli & Conrey, 2009). Hence, it is

evident that this effect can cause a bias impression of the defendant and interpretation of the

evidence due to the bias allocation of attentional processes towards confirming the validity of the

perceiver’s belief.

Stereotypes are described as fixed impressions that is maintained regardless of stereotype

threats (Chen & Bargh, 1997). Despite the presence of reasonable doubt due to the growing
circumstantial evidence pertaining to the discrepancies in the witness’ testimony, which Juror 10

had previously justified his guilty verdict on, he clings to his belief that the defendant is guilty

believing the other jurors are ‘twisting the facts’ (Lumet et al., 1957). This can be explained by

the perseverance effect, where despite sufficient evidence discrediting the stereotypical belief,

the perceiver refuses to adapt or discard their initial belief (Levy et al., 1998; Sherman et al.,

2005). Rather, information that is not congruent with the belief is minimised, misinterpreted or

ignored and the perceiver places little to no importance on it, and hence is less likely to rely on

remember in the future (Chen & Bargh, 1997; Sherman et al., 2009). This effect demonstrates

the evaluative processes involved in maintaining an individual’s stereotypical belief.

Conclusively, this film and the psychological literature above demonstrates how

stereotypes are formed through the illusory correlation and is maintained through the

self-confirmation and the perseverance effect. Both highlighted how stereotypes influence the

formation of our impressions of others and consequent categorisation of them, fostering an

ingroup versus outgroup mentality, and hence justifying and promoting societal inequality

(Quadflieg, 2011; Sherman et al., 1998). Despite being operating as a heuristic or cognitive

shortcuts assisting information processing, impression formation and making sense of constantly

changing social contexts, they can cause significant judgemental errors due to a perceiver’s

attentional and evaluative processes. Consequently, this can be detrimental in the objective

observation and evaluation of evidence, as demonstrated in the film, particularly in the context of

a courtroom.
Reference list

Chen, M., & Bargh, J.A. (1997). Nonconscious behavioural confirmation process: the

self-fulfilling consequences of automatic stereotype activation. ​Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology,​ 33(5), 541-560. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1997.1329

Fiske, S. T. (2005). Social cognition and the normality of prejudgement. In J. F. Dovidio, P.

Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), ​On the nature of prejudice (pp. 36–53). Malden, MA:

Blackwell Publishing.

Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from

category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on

attention and interpretation. ​Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,​ 23(1), 1-74.

doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60317-2

Hamilton, D.L., & Sherman, S.J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. ​Psychological Review,

103 (2), 336-355. doi: 10.1037/033-295X.103.2.336

Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Ruvolo, C. M. (1990). Stereotype-based expectancies: Effects

on information processing and social behavior. ​Journal of Social Issues,​ 46(2), 35–60.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb01922.x
Hamilton, D.L., Stroessner, S.J., & Mackie, D.M. (1993). The influence of affect on

stereotyping: the case of illusory correlations. ​Affect, Cognition and Stereotyping:

Interactive Processes in Group Perception,​ 3(1), 39-61.

doi: 10.1016/b978-0-08-088579-7.50007-7

Hilton, J.L. & Von Hippel, W. (1996). Stereotypes. ​Annual Review of Psychology.​ 47(1),

237-271. doi: 10.1146.47.1.237

Kunda, Z., & Sinclair, L. (1999). Motivated reasoning with stereotypes: Activation, application,

and inhibition. ​Psychological Inquiry, ​10(1), 12–22. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli1001_2

Le Pelley, M.E., Reimers, S.J., Calvini, G., Spears, R., Beesley, T., & Murphy., R.A. (2010).

Stereotype formation: biased by association. ​Journal of Experimental Psychology.​

139(1), 138-16. doi: 10.1037/a0018210

Levy, S.R., Stroessner, S.J., & Dweck, C.S (1998). Stereotype formation and endorsement: the

role of implicit theories, ​Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,​ 74(6),

1421-1436. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1421

Lumet, S. (Director), & Fonda, H., & Rose, R. (Producers). (1957). ​TWELVE ANGRY MEN

[Video file]. United States: Studio One. Retrieved March 2, 2019, from
dddddd​https://edutv-informit-com-au.wwwproxy1.library.unsw.edu.au/watch-screen.php?videoI

dddddd​D=2477416

Macrae C.N, Milne A.B., & Bodenhausen, G.V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: a

peek inside the cognitive toolbox. ​Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,​ 66(1),

37-47. doi: 0022-3514/94/3.00

Neuberg, S. L. (1994). Expectancy-confirmation processes in stereotype-tinged social

encounters: The moderating role of social goals. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.),

Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology, Vol. 7. The psychology of

​ ol. 7, pp. 103-130). Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence

prejudice: The Ontario symposium, V

Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Quadflieg, S. & Macrae, N.C. (2011). Stereotypes and stereotyping: What’s the brain got to do

with it?, ​European Review of Social Psychology,​ 22(1), 215-273. doi:

10.1080/10463282.2011.627998

Sherman, J.W., Kruschke, J.K., Sherman., S.J., Percy., E.J., Petrocelli., J. V., & Conrey., F.R.

(2009). Attentional processes in stereotype formation: A common model for category

accentuation and illusory correlation. ​Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

96(2), 305-323. doi:10.1037/a0013778

Sherman, J.W., Stroessner, S.J., Conrey, F.R., & Azam, O.A. (2005). Prejudice and Stereotype

Maintenance Processes: Attention, Attribution and Individuation.​ Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 8​ 9(4), 604-622. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.607