Dealing Effectively With Difficult People, Case Study Example

Abstract

The purpose of this treatise is to discuss the negotiation techniques used by Juror#8 to convince his   fellow jurors to change their verdict from guilty to not guilty. The jury is voting on a case pertaining to a young Hispanic boy who is accused of stabbing his father to death. Most of the jurors who appear to be very racist and conservative are convinced that he is guilty. In most instances their assumptions are based on racism, socioeconomic status and circumstantial evidence. It is ironic that jury is comprised of 12 white men; there is no diversity.  Juror# 8 is the only juror who believes that should weigh the evidence before coming to a conclusion.  He is collaborative negotiator who uses a myriad of negotiation techniques to compel the jurors to change their verdict and vote not guilty.

Introduction

The  purpose of this  treatise is to  discuss the negotiation techniques used by Juror#8 to convince his fellow jurors to change their verdict from guilty in case pertaining to a young Hispanic boy who is accused of stabbing his father to death. The vast majority of jurors, who are white men believe that he is without any doubt guilty. The jurors are very conservative and racist; it is exceedingly difficult to convince them that there is a possibility that he is innocent.  Juror #8 is uncertain and he believes the defendant should have a fair trial. He is an exceptionally talented negotiator who adheres to collaborative negotiation technique. In order to motivate the other jurors to change their vote Juror#8 uses a myriad of negotiation techniques; they run the gamut from disassociation, crossroads and the surprise techniques.

In the conclusion of the deliberations his use of the surprise technique and the social proof technique become very instrumental in changing the jurors’ verdict.

Juror #8

Negotiations Technique

Juror #8 is considered a collaborative negotiator. He is indubitably the most gifted negotiator in the movie; he makes a relentless effort to convince 11 jurors to change their votes. The majority of of these individuals were profoundly convinced based either on strong evidence or prejudice that the defendant is guilty.  It has been asserted that his reservation point is a fair trial for the defendant, and his target point appeared to be a ‘not guilty’ verdict.  With the utilization of a manifold of tactics to influence the audience, patience, and active listening he is quite successful in achieving his goal. As a strong advocate for the “not guilty party” for which subsequently leads to the formation of a partnership, he begins to create authority and proceeds to promote it with  mounting dynamism  as the movie progresses (  Edwards,Komsky & Winkler, 2010).  In order to persuade people to move to his party, he requests votes, particularly when he assumes that some jurors are wavering toward not guilty. The patience of juror number eight plays a significant role in increasing his comprehension of people’s demeanor and his ability to communicate effectively with them.

His negotiation technique appears to include people’s sense of compassion. Initially, he concurs that it is difficult to send the defendant to die without a discussion.   Two of the most significant objectives in any legal proceeding  are people’s compassion and value for human life. He used one of the more unique tactics when he agrees to have them discuss it for more than 1 hour: He concurs:

Look this kid’s been kicked around all his life. He lived in the slum. His mother’s been dead

since he was 9 and lived in an orphanage for a  year and a half while his father was a serving a jail

term for forgery. It’s not a very happy beginning. He’s wild  angry kid, and that ‘s all he’s ever been.

You know why? Because he’s been hit on the head by somebody once a day every day. He’s had a

Pretty miserable 18 years. I, I just think we owe him a few words, that’s all ( Edwards, Komsky &

Winkler, 2010, p.18).

Later in the movie he empathizes with the defendant; this is conducive to the other jurors doing the same thing. In connecting with other individual’s sentiments, he is able to convince them to the concept of listening to his words; this is predominant to urging them to vote “not guilty.” He also appeals to the jurors method of thinking when he maintains that nothing is absolute. Juror #8 was able to connect with the other jurors appealing to the logical nature of the case and the emotional burden of the boy and of the death penalty; he allied with each other jury member.

He also links with people on individual levels. He is exceedingly adept at comprehending their interests, not their socioeconomic status. Initially, he links with Juror #7 by suggesting that they spend an hour, since the ballgame does not begin until 8:00. In this situation he has analyzed that this juror is more concerned about his time than the verdict. In another part of the movie when he is arguing with juror #10 about the validity of the eye-witness’s (woman’s) testimony, he inquires as to whether she is one of them too. In this sense he is linking with the gentleman and his interest in persecuting those in the slums,but he is also formulating objective criteria whereby all individuals in the apartments in that area should be treated with equal regard.

He adheres to many of the major steps associated with collaborative technique. He defines the problem, which is relatively simple in a murder case. In the collaborative strategy it is recommended that the situation should not be inundated with outlying issues that are not pertinent to the primary concern (Lewicki, Hiam & Olander, 2010). Juror #8 defines the problem  without denigrating the jurors (unless it absolutely essential). However, he is very assertive but he exhibits cooperative behavior throughout the case. He also becomes very involved in the needs and interests of the majority of the jurors as well as their fears and concerns.

The literature on the collaborative strategy maintains that it is important to become involved the jurors’ positions since they are very unyielding; therefore as the scholars indicate transforming them compels the jurors to make allowances on both sides. It has also been indicated that the interests define what the jurors are really concerned about. It is believed that if one places emphasis on the interests it will remove many of the personal aspects from the negotiation and redirect it to the fundamental sources (Freedman,1993).

Juror # 8 is a successful collaborator because adheres to the primary explanations that produce successful collaborative  negotiating. He has confidence in his capacity to solve the complications in this murder case. He appears to have excellent listening skills and he displays impartiality in hearing the other jurors’ point of view.

He is also willing to persevere his needs as well as the needs of the other juror. The jurors are compelled to identify their similarities and moderate their differences. Juror # 8 plays a significant role in this process.  He also makes them cognizant of the fact that they allocate a mutual outcome.

Negotiation techniques used by juror#8.

One of the negotiation techniques used by juror #8 is the accommodating technique. Juror #8 does not use all the characteristics of this technique; but he displays many of them.  It has been concurred by the scholars that accommodators are sensitive to the emotional state and verbal signals of  the other parties (Shell, 2006). As indicated earlier in this treatise he tried to accommodate Juror#7 who was more concerned about the baseball game than the case. Juror #8 indicated that the game would not start until 8:00 pm.  Following this it became more evident that juror #7 had very little interest in the case; his principal goal was a guilty verdict. Juror #8’s accommodation of Juror #7 permits the audience to realize that Juror #7’s entire position is based on his desire to leave the jury room and attend a baseball game.  Juror #8 also learns that Juror #7 is the type of individual who likes to take people aside and persuade them to make an autonomous decision.  Eventually his obsession with time and the fact the verdict has become six to six he decides to vote not guilty.

Juror #8 also utilizes the empathy and assertiveness techniques which are really two techniques combined in this film. In the very beginning of the case he empathizes with the jurors and the defendant. He discusses the harsh realities the boy’s life.  As asserted earlier he appears to have patience with the jurors. Nevertheless, he reveals his assertiveness when assaults Juror#10’s attempt to tell a story after the jurors decide to converse for nearly an hour (Edward, Komsky &Winkler, 2010). He because more assertive when he discovers that Jurors #12 and # 2 are playing tic-tac-toe; he quickly he informs that jury deliberation is not a game.

He uses his assertive technique to control the discussions, confirm concepts by paying attention to them or disparaging ideas by considering them with less respect.  In one particular case he used authority through the law. When Juror #2 indicated that the defense attorney did not actually prove that the boy was innocent, juror#8 indicated that the U.S. Constitution places the burden of proof on the prosecution ( Edwards,Komsky & Winkler,2010). In the concluding parts of the movie when the votes become closer he expresses his assertiveness by compelling the jurors to explain the reason for their verdict. This compels each juror to discuss the reason for this decision and eventually his assertiveness in this case leads to a unanimous verdict of “not guilty.”

Juror #8 uses the forbearance technique when Juror# 10 rages about slum dwellers. He restrains himself and waits until this ill-informed individual has expressed his thoughts. Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2010) concur that forbearance entails avoiding expression of one’s feelings  regardless of the temptation. Juror #8 maintains that it’s always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this; wherever you run into it, it always obscures the truth” (Rose & Lumet, 1957). The results of the forbearance technique in this instance Juror #8 unites with the issues regarding this juror and simultaneously he unites with the all jurors; this is conducive to reiterating their positions.

It can be assumed that Juror #8 used the fait accompli technique at the beginning of the film. This technique entails offering or declining something in anticipation that other individual or individuals will respond desirably to your move (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2010).  Initially in the movie, Juror  #10  begins the deliberations with some exceedingly incendiary declarations. Juror #10 concurs that the boy killed murdered his father; he continues to imply that the residents of the neighborhood have no control over their children and possibly they deserve this type of tragedy.  Juror number #8 takes a high risk by voting not guilty; the fait accompli technique involves taking a risk. Juror # 8 assesses the situation: all the jurors except him vote guilty. Juror #8 concludes that he voted “not guilty” not because he is convinced that the defendant is innocent but because he would like to the discuss the case before prejudging him. Juror #8 is cognizant of the fact that he is in the minority; he also realizes that if he advocated acquittal for the defendant he would be discredited by the other jurors (Flour & Fitsakis, 2007). In this instance he is also using the compromising technique. When Juror # 8 suggests that the jury should discuss and assess the evidence this represents a compromising negotiation technique.

The literature asserts that the structure a negotiator selects can be very serious in attaining his or her goals. The scholarly research has maintained that at critical moments in a negotiation process the parties will evaluate each other as individuals-judging their personal credibility, integrity, trustworthiness and authority (Atkinson, 1990). Juror #8 appears to be fully aware of that each juror is judging the other jurors; he makes effective attempts to disprove his adversaries by compelling them to discuss their profound beliefs.

In order to attain his goal he persuades his fellow jurors to discuss their concepts about the case.  Juror #10 makes these contentious statements about the defendant: I don’t mind telling you this, mister. We don’t owe him a thing, He got a fair trial, didn’t he?  What do you think that trial cost? He’s lucky he got it. You know what I mean? Now look, we’re all grown-ups in here. We heard the facts, didn’t we? You’re not gonna’ tell me that we’re supposed to believe this kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I’ve lived among them all my life. You can’t believe a word they say. You know what I mean, they’re born liars (Rose & Lumet,1957).

Subsequently, Juror# 9 implies that Juror #10 is basically an unintelligent individual who assumes that he has monopoly on the truth? In this case it appears that Juror #8’s negotiation techniques: fait accompli and compromising have led to the development of a “groupthink. “ A groupthink is defined as the propensity of associates of a particular group to commend unanimity at the expense of more rational decisions and fail to adequately consider options (Janis 1972 & 1982).  Juror #8 is aware of the fact that groupthink is beginning to formulate; thus he takes advantage of the benefits of its development to reach his goals. It is indicated throughout the film that Juror # 8 does is not convinced that the boy is totally innocent but he maintains that he is entitled to a fair trial.

As the film continues, the jurors who appear to have extremist beliefs about the guilt of the defendant choose to persuade Juror#8 that the boy is guilty.  The process entails permitting each juror a few minutes to discuss his explanation for a guilty verdict. In this situation it is apparent that Juror#8 has decided to use the integrative technique of negotiation; he stresses the significance of the primary issue in lieu of the jurors. Therefore he is separating the people from the problem (Fisher & Ury, 1981). He links with them in cooperative problem solving and in the process makes an effort to form relationships with them.  The integrative negotiation technique entails placing emphasis on the interests of the party in lieu of their subjective starting places, advances negotiation as a mutual problem instead of an individual battle, and demands loyalty to nonpartisan , principled standards as the foundation for settlement ( Brazeal,2009).  The use of the integrative approach was very beneficial for Juror#8.  Through this approach it was revealed that some of the jurors who supported the guilty verdict were racists and extremists. This was conducive to disaffection. This facilitated Juror #8’s ability to disparage the trial and the proficiency of the defense attorney as well as the evidence that was presented.

Juror # 8 also used the crossroads negotiation technique; this method of negotiations includes presenting several problems or subjects into the discussion for the primary objective of acquiring concessions on one hand and precipitating the way. Lewicki, Saunders & Barry (2010) maintain that the utilization of this method entails approaching the other party from numerous directions. It is believed that this method will compel the opposing side to view numerous matters and focus on one of them. After Juror #8 presents the knife which will be discussed later; the jurors are compelled to review a sequence of events pertinent to the murder. These occurrences run the gamut from the defendant leaving the house at 8:00 pm after being punched numerous times by his father to his losing knife on the way to the movies.  The crossroads negotiation causes the jurors to pay more attention to the actual knife and the manner in which the father was stabbed. Eventually this led to some jurors changing their verdict.

Juror # 8 uses the surprise technique when he presents a knife is identical to the knife that defendant supposedly used to murder his father. He concurred that there is a possibility that another individual could have purchased a duplicate knife at the pawn shop and use it to kill the defendant’s father. This surprise technique leads to altercations among the jurors; finally one Juror# 5 changes his vote and joins Juror#8.

In his utilization of the cross-examination technique Juror#8 uses the probe and testing method. He is able to encourage the jurors to contradict what they initially believed to be true Juror #10 depended on the testimony or the witness when earlier he had made disparaging remarks about the members of her ethnic group. He concurred that individuals from her ethnic background were liars. When Juror #12 resists the concept that the witnesses can make errors Juror# 8 asks him whether he can know with certainty that they have not made a mistake  Juror # 12 contends that there is a possibility  of errors.

Juror#8 has the demeanor of a lawyer in many of the scenes; therefore he uses the probe and testing technique in some episodes of the film. During the deliberations he tests whether or not the prosecutor’s case allows latitude for reasonable doubt. He maintains that court-appointed attorneys are not highly motivated to defend clients who have relatively weak cases. He also concurred that both the prosecuting and defense attorney has overlooked the principal physical characteristics of specific witnesses (a limp in one case and poor vision in another, which possibly mitigated their validity.

Juror #8’s probing and testing is conducive to jurors questioning the actions of the lawyers and the testimony of the witness the jurors begin to unite. Juror#11 begins to wonder why the boy returned to the scene of the crime; he also reiterates that the boy looks guilty. It is suggested that they should examine the case more extensively. Juror#9 who is an older gentleman himself implies that the elderly witness exaggerated what he viewed in order to be considered more important. The probing and testing leads to more jurors joining Juror#8 and changing their racist viewpoints.

It has been concurred throughout this treatise that Juror#8 is a collaborative negotiator. He uses this process throughout the deliberations.  He engenders a sentiment of comradeship among the group of strangers. In the breaks during the deliberations he exhibits episodes of interpersonal closeness such as the acceptance of an offered cough drop, the sharing of a personal anecdote-replaces the defensive and hostile digressions. Therefore near the conclusion of the movie the formal process of voting has been merged into the conversation, suggesting a phenomenal and shocking change in the quantity of conversations. The use of the collaborative technique united the jurors and facilitated their working together.

The strong leadership qualities of Juror# 8 are conducive to the use of disassociation technique used when Juror#10 who is very racist and determine to prove that the defendant is guilty begins to rage against minorities. In this scene the juror’s on-by-one turn their backs on his racist sentiments; finally Juror#4 advises him to sit and remain silent. These actions unite the jurors and make them cognizant of Juror #10’s feelings about minorities. It becomes evident that he considers the defendant guilty because he abhors minorities.

It becomes evident that Juror #8 uses the social proof technique. He lures Juror #3 into a condemnation; which is conducive to an exceedingly negative association with Juror #3 and his opinions. When Juror#8 suggests that Juror #3 is a “public avenger” and a “sadist” he is using verbal communication to negate some of the residents’ testimony and Juror #3’s own reliability. Subsequently Juror # 8 concurs that the nine other jurors do not understand the remaining three (who still adhere to a guilty verdict). When Juror# 8 implies that Juror #3 is being foolish and that he is alone. Juror #3 yields and votes not guilty.

The compromises of juror#8

When the movie begins Juror # 8 makes his first compromise by voting not guilty. He is not certain that the defendant is innocent but he feels that the jurors should examine the case more thoroughly. This compromise deters the other jurors from demeaning him and it makes him more cognizant of the extremist views of the other jurors.

In another scene in the film he makes a significant compromise by offering the secret ballot. He wanted the jurors to vote by a secret ballot; he planned to withhold his vote. He indicated that  if there 11 votes for guilty, he would not hang the jury, in lieu of this he would vote guilty. This compromise will eventually lead to other jurors joining him; at the conclusion a not guilty verdict will be revealed.

Techniques that could be applied to business and personal life.

The integrative negotiation could be applied to my personal life when my cousin and I shared  a house we inherited. After she married my cousin did not want to share the responsibilities of a home. I wanted to remain in the home and improve my credit rating. She sold me her half of the house; I was able to attain an FHA mortgage.  This technique allowed to remain in the house and relieved my cousin of unwanted responsibilities. It also improved my credit rating.

Some forms of integrative negotiations are used in marketing. In some retail stores the cosmetic companies offers a gift with a purchase. The customers are required to purchase a specific amount ( at least $37.00 for an example) in return they received a bag filled with various samples. In many cases they have selected some of these items.   In this case the cosmetic company increases their sales and the customer receives many products.

The integrative negotiation could be applied to my use of cable television if I were willing to change plans. The plan I currently have includes cable television and internet. This plan is relatively expensive. If I were willing to include telephone service I would receive a discount. This would benefit me and the company; this represents the win-win aspect of the integrative negotiation.

The compromising technique could be used to negotiate lower payments for merchandise I purchased via a rent to own company. My refrigerator was out of order and could not be repaired. I purchased one through this type of store. The compromise consisted of my paying a lower fee after purchasing another appliance and leaving a relatively large down payment.

This technique could also be used in order to join certain organizations. Many of these organizations cost over $500.00 to join However, they have indicated that they will reduce the price by as much as 50% if I sell tickets for their social affairs and do community work. This technique would allow me to join this organization.

The compromising technique is used in some online business offers. If a customer is willing to pay for training he or she will receive a free website. If I were will to pay for the training of one particular company; they would create a website for me. This compromising technique would allow me to have an online business.

The probing and testing method  was used through one of my friends who owns a resume and interview business. One of my relatives who has not worked in five years wanted  someone to ask her the typical interview questions. It was obvious that most job interview questions represent the probe and test negotiation methods.  Among the questions were the following:

1. How would you describe yourself?
2. What are your strengths and weaknesses?
3. What type of job are you looking for?
4. What can you contribute to this organization
5. What do you look for in a job?

The probe and testing technique was used to help prepare my relative for a job Interview and it made more cognizant of the type of questions they ask during an interview.

The probe and testing technique was also used to determine if I wanted to join an online business. I inquired about the costs, what they offered and the success of their members. I also attempted to determine how many hours per week one would have to spend doing the required work to become successful. I also questioned them about training; they indicated that the training would cost over $600.00. In this case the probe and test technique indicated that this business might be too expensive for me at this present time.

The accommodating strategy could be used in my position concerning working Saturdays. At my job we are required to work alternate Saturdays; in many cases  the employees cannot work their schedule Saturday. In this case another employee will work their Saturday. This tactic maintains camaraderie among the staff.

Among tenants and landlords accommodating strategies are used to make the rental property more appealing. In the case of my last tenants I agreed to pay for the cost of utilities. This is very effective if the landlord has sufficient cash; however he or she is on a budget this is mistake. I assumed that this would ameliorate my relationship with my tenants.  However, in my case it was too expensive; but it is very effective for some landlords.

The collaborating technique could easily be applied to my business and personal life. Collaboration among libraries includes loaning volumes to another library. In some instances there is collaboration between the schools and the libraries concerning reading  lists. I have visited the neighborhood high school in order to give the high school librarian media specialist applications for library cards.

The  objective of the collaborative technique in this case is to promote reading among adolescents. Although the high school library has an excellent collection they still need additional volumes and special projects. In this case the collaborative technique helps students achieve academic excellence.

In some cases community and business organizations have collaborated with the library to present informative programs that are beneficial to the residents of the area. The programs run the gamut from establishing a small business to health and nutrition.

The goal of the collaborative technique in this case is to make the residents more cognizant of the existing organizations and the library. In this the collaborative technique may motivate some individuals to become patrons of the library; this will be conducive to an increase in circulation.

In my church there are many associations; there associations collaborate to raise money for church expenses. I belonged to one group that had various affairs and a fashion show. The members collaborated by selling tickets and modeling in this fashion. In this the objective of the collaborative effort of this group was to earn a significant amount of money.

The collaborative technique is also used among professional librarians and their assistants. When there are after school programs the librarian and her assistant share various responsibilities to make the program a success. The assistant maintains a statistical record of the number of  individuals who attended the program; the librarian distributes flyers throughout the community to make the program a success.

In some unions the collaborative technique is also used; one union may include all the public workers.  Some of the members of my union went to the state capital to protest detrimental changes in benefits. The purpose of this collaborative action was to avoid reductions in raises, pensions and various other benefits.

In some cases the gyms collaborate with community organizations that raise money for charities. I have participated in master classes that included an additional fee and lasted more than an hour. These classes raised money for cancer research. The purpose of this collaborative technique is self-explanatory.

I have also worked in libraries where a collaborative technique was used to encourage adolescents to apply for college. In this case the library offered a college fair which included universities throughout the United States. Additionally, they offered extensive financial aid to qualified students; the financial aid included a myriad of scholarships. The purpose of this collaborative technique is to assistant students’ access to higher education.

The social proof technique can be applied to my business and personal life. One classic example of this is in my career.  The library has posted a promotional exam; initially the majority of those who are qualified are not interested.  When these employees realize that numerous individuals are applying for the exam they suddenly become interested. The human resources department has informed them about the number of applicants who are planning to take the exam. In this case this department has used the social proof technique. I have been engaged in these types of situations; the social proof technique motivated me to take the exam. The results of this technique used in this method could be used to increase one’s income.

I am a member of a union that has used the social proof contact to achieve its goals many times. During one particular meeting we were offered a very small increase in our salary: some people contended they would rather wait a year or two.  The union president asserted that it may take from three to five years to receive another offer; gradually more people raised their hands to accept the initial offer. In this case the primary objective of the social proof technique was to reach an agreement on the library raises.

In some cases I have used the social proof technique to motivate adolescents to join the summer reading club; When they become cognizant of the fact that many of their peers have joined they begin to sign up for it and participate in it.

In the past when the library had special committees they had to beg people to join them.  However, when they discovered that several staff members were joining they decided to participate. In this case the head of the committee had used the social proof technique to increase the number of participants. I could not join because of a conflict of schedule.

Initially, many of my colleagues and friends were not particularly interested in owning a cell phone; we maintained that they were too expensive and too small. The social proof technique was apparently used to market cell phones. When we saw advertisements indicating that a myriad of average Americans owned them we began to purchase them. In this the social proof technique was used to increase sales; apparently it was very effective.

Juror #4

Generally speaking, juror #4 exhibited a collaborative negotiation style. His primary objective was a guilty vote; nevertheless he wanted a fair trial and collaborative and logical discussion of the proof. It is apparent throughout the deliberations he is strongly linked to the evidence presented in the trial. Juror # 4 seems to have a talent for recalling details  about the  proof  presented  by the prosecution. Nevertheless, his intellectual attributes do not deter him from unproven inferences. Juror #4 stereotypes the defendant by suggesting that the majority of children from low-income neighborhoods are potential troublemakers. His primary basis for the guilty verdict is the dearth of the type of knife used in the crime. It was suggested in the court that knife used was very rare; therefore Juror # 4 does not believe any other individual could have perpetrated this crime with the same knife.  The dearth of this type of knife confirmed his belief in the prosecution’s evidence.

Juror #8 uses the surprise negotiation technique when  he reveals the same knife to the other jurors. He contends that he purchased the knife at the pawn shop; this suggests that someone else could have purchased the same knife and murdered the defendant’s father. As a result of this Juror #4 is willing to be less rigid concerning a guilty verdict.

However, he did maintain his vote of guilty after the second vote but juror #4 appears willing to change. Nevertheless he begins to base his contentions on facts in lieu just assumptions.

Although juror #9 was very assertive he could be considered a collaborative negotiator. He used a combination of objective criteria and collaborative technique to change his vote. He noticed that Juror #4 was rubbing the top of his nose and he joined with the other jurors to suggest this was the same manner in which the woman witness rubbed her nose, and with the glasses mark, the jury collaborated and decided that the witness wore glasses. This compelled Juror #4 to join the others and vote not guilty.

Bibliography

Atkinson,G.G. (1990).  Negotiate the best deal.  Cambridge:  Director Books.

Babcock,B.A. & Sassoubie,T.C. (2007). Deliberation in 12 Angry Men.  Chicago-Kent Law Review, 82 (2), 632-641.

Brazel, G. (2009). Against the Gridlock:  The Validity of Interest-Based Legislative Negotiation.  Harvard Law & Policy Review. Online. 3, 1-14.

Edwards., Komsky,S. & Winkler,K. (2010). 12 Angry Multiparty Negotiators: Exploring Negation Tactics used in 12 Angry Men.

Fisher,R. & Ury,W. (1981). Getting to yes:  Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York,N.Y.

Freedman, M. (1993). Dealing Effectively with Difficult People.  Nursing, 93, 97-102.

Lewicki,R.J., Saunders, D.M., & Bruce, B. (2010). Negotiation: Readings, Exercise and Cases. New York,N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Rose, R. & Lumet,S. (1957).  12 Angry men. Los Angeles: Orion-Nova Twelve Angry Men.

Sheel, R. G. (2006). Bargaining for Advantage. New York, N.Y. Penguin Books.