Not everyone exhibited a commitment to the group?s decision. The most obvious example of this is the baseball fan. After insisting throughout deliberations that the boy was guilty, he suddenly changes his mind and votes not guilty. The watchmaker agrees with his vote but he challenges it, saying, ?it would be wrong to change your vote just because you have had enough?. When he demands an explanation the baseball fan is completely unable to give even a single reason. All he can say is, ?I just think he?s not guilty?. It is apparent that he was tired of being there and changed his vote just so it would end sooner. The advertising executive?s vote is also questionable because he changed it three times. His decision seemed to be based on whoever spoke last. We aren?t really clear on whether the angry man really believed in his vote of not guilty. The movie doesn?t give enough information to back it up. The angry man changes his vote in the last minutes of the film and leaves you wondering if he truly had a change of heart or if he was just giving in to the pressure of being the last holdout. We have the same question about the man with the cold. He quietly changed his vote after his speech made everyone turn on him. He doesn?t have much to say after that so it is hard to judge his motives. One thing is clear. For a true consensus each member must be satisfied with the decision. According to DeStephen and Dirokawa (1988), this means the decision cannot contradict any deeply held beliefs. The man with the cold and the angry man both have very deeply rooted prejudices. It would be almost impossible for them to be satisfied with their decision.