Body Language of Competitive Head-To-Head Seating Arrangement
Cue: Competitive Head-To-Head Seating Arrangement
Synonym(s): Head-To-Head Sitting Position, Sitting Face-To-Face, Sitting Square, Head-On Sitting Position.
Description: A seating arrangement where people sit facing each other directly from across a table.
In One Sentence: The competitive head-to-head seating arrangement signals that one is prepared to square off in battle.
How To Use it: Use this seating arrangement when one wishes to set one apart from another. When you are sure your ideas will oppose another, then sitting on the other side of the table will help show others nonverbally that one is not in agreement. Lawyers are advised to square off in this fashion as it shows that they are against the opposite lawyer while being linked to their clients. In other words, their affiliation is nonverbally obvious.
Bosses, can set up employees in head-to-head arrangements in order to spark debate between them. This can help them come up with competing and often novel solutions to problems.
Head-to-head is common in dating, but it is a double edged sword. Since dates in the West are usually conducted as “job interviews” where one faces off against their opponent, this sitting arrangement works well. It permits the two individuals to share relevant information, answer questions, and each person is able to study the facial expressions of their counterpart. However, this produces a sterile, and, as mentioned, a combative environment. To fix this, simply move to the same side of the table.
Context: a) General b) Business.
Verbal Translation: “We generally disagree with one another and need to keep separate and face off in a competitive position, head-to-head.”
Variant: Chairs can face head-to-head across square, rectangular or circular tables, but the arrangement means the same. See other seating arrangements for variants such as Casual Corner Seating Arrangement and Cooperative Side-By-Side Seating Arrangement.
Cue In Action: a) During the preliminary divorce proceedings Jill and Dave sat across from one another coupled with their proper lawyers in the cooperative side-by-side arrangement. b) Mary always took up the opposite seat to Dave and had a habit of always undermining his opinion.
Meaning and/or Motivation: Competitive head-to-head position sets up combative situations. This closed seating positions convey formality, distance and authority, defensiveness and even divisiveness. Open orientations with chair on the same side of the table convey interest and comfort.
Even when competition isn’t directly encouraged, research finds that the closed position still becomes an issue because the table provides a clear boundary between each party.
Sitting at odds of one another might seem like a great idea during a date because it offers full view, but if true intimacy is desired, then sitting on the same side of the table is advised. When couples do this on a first date, they invite a question and answer, ‘interview style’ interaction where each party tends to face off and challenge one another instead of creating affiliation and cooperation.
Cue Cluster: Parties can either be leaning in to show aggression or leaning backward in a passive posture. Various degrees of aggressiveness might also be present such as finger pointing, loud voices, batoning or averted eyes, head lowered and quiet voice.
Body Language Category: Barriers, Seating arrangements, Closed body language, Defensive, Distancing or moving away.
Resources:
Argyle, M., & Dean, I. Eye contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 1965, 28, 289-304.
Boucher, Michael L. Holzberg, Jules D. (editor). Effect of seating distance on interpersonal attraction in an interview situation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1972 38(1): 15-19.
Bania, Amanda E. ; Stromberg, Erin E. Call, Joseph (editor). The Effect of Body Orientation on Judgments of Human Visual Attention in Western Lowland Gorillas.
Journal of Comparative Psychology. 2013. 127(1): 82-90.
Belhiah, Hassan. Tutoring as an embodied activity: How speech, gaze and body orientation are coordinated to conduct ESL tutorial business. Journal of Pragmatics. 2009. 41(4): 829-841.
Cook, M. Experiments on orientation and proxemics. Human Relations, 1970, 23, 61-67.
Clack, B., Dixon, J., & Tredoux, C. (2005). Eating together apart: Patterns of segregation in a multi-ethnic cafeteria. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15, 1-16. doi:10.1002/casp.787
Castelli, Luigi ; Carraro, Luciana ; Pavan, Giulia ; Murelli, Elisa ; Carraro, Alessia. The Power of the Unsaid: The Influence of Nonverbal Cues on Implicit Attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2012 42(6): 1376-1393.
Coutts, Larrym. ; Ledden, Maribeth. Nonverbal Compensatory Reactions to Changes in Interpersonal Proximity. The Journal of Social Psychology. 1977 102(2): 283-290.
Danielle Jackson, Erika Engstrom and Tara Emmers-Sommer. 2007. Think Leader, Think Male and Female: Sex vs. Seating Arrangement as Leadership Cues. Sex Roles. 57 (9/10): 713-723.
Felipe, N. Interpersonal distance and small group interaction. Cornell Journal of Social Relations, 1966, 1, 59-64.
Felipe, N. Connotations of seating arrangements. Cornell Journal of Social Relations, 1967, 2, 37-44.
Gifford, Robert ; O’Connor, Brian. Nonverbal intimacy: Clarifying the role of seating distance and orientation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 1986 10(4): 207-214.
Gardin, Hershel ; Kaplan, Kalman J. ; Firestone, Ira J. ; Cowan, Gloria A. Lanzetta, John T. (editor). Proxemic effects on cooperation, attitude, and approach-avoidance in a Prisoner’s Dilemma game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1973. 27(1): 13-18.
Greenberg, J. 1976. The role of seating position in group interaction: a review, with applications for group trainers. Group & Organization Management 1 (3): 310-327.
Haase, Richard F. ; Dimattia, Dominic J. Berdie, Ralph F. (editor). Proxemic behavior: Counselor, administrator, and client preference for seating arrangement in dyadic interaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1970 17(4): 319-325.
Kenner, Andrew N. ; Katsimaglis, George. Gender differences in proxemics: taxi-seat choice. Psychological Reports. 1993 72(2): 625(2).
Remland, Martins. ; Jones, Tricias. ; Brinkman, Heidi. Interpersonal Distance, Body Orientation, and Touch: Effects of Culture, Gender, and Age. The Journal of Social Psychology. 1995 135(3): 281-297.
Hietanen, Jari. Social attention orienting integrates visual information from head and body orientation. Psychological Research.2002 66(3): 174-179.
Howells, L. T. and S. W. Becker. 1962. Seating arrangement and leadership emergence.
The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 64(2): 148-150.
Kaminski, Juliane ; Call, Josep ; Tomasello, Michael. Body orientation and face orientation: two factors controlling apes’ begging behavior from humans
Animal Cognition. 2004. 7(4): 216-223.
Lawson, Rebecca P. ; Clifford, Colin W. G. ; Calder, Andrew J. About Turn: The Visual Representation of Human Body Orientation Revealed by Adaptation. Psychological Science. 2009. 20(3): 363(9).
Leventhal, G. 1978, Sex and setting effects on seating arrangement. Journal of Psychology. 100: 21-26.
Lott, D. F. and R. Sommer. 1967. Seating arrangements and status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 7 (1): 90-95.
Montgomery, Derek ; Moran, Christy ; Bach, Leslie. The influence of nonverbal cues associated with looking behavior on young children’s mentalistic attributions.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 1996. 20(4): 229-249.
Michelini, RL, Passalacqua, R., & Cusimano, J. 1976. Effects of seating arrangement on group participation. Journal of Social Psychology. 99: 179-186.
Mackinnon, Sean P. ; Jordan, Christian H. ; Wilson, Anne E. Birds of a feather sit together: Physical similarity predicts seating choice. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin. 2011 37(7): 879(14).
Norum, G.A., Russo, N.J., and Sommer, R. 1967. Seating patterns and group tasks. Source: Psychology in the schools. 4(3): 276-280.
Pease, Barbara and Allan Pease. 2006. The Definitive Book of Body Language Hardcover. Bantam.
Riess, M. and P. Rosenfeld. 1980. Seating preferences as nonverbal communication: a self-presentational analysis. Journal of Applied Communications Research 8(1): 22.
Robinson, Jeffrey David. Getting Down to Business Talk, Gaze, and Body Orientation During Openings of Doctor-Patient Consultations. Human Communication Research. 1998. 25(1): 97-123.
Straube, Benjamin ; Green, Antonia ; Jansen, Andreas ; Chatterjee, Anjan ; Kircher, Tilo. Social cues, mentalizing and the neural processing of speech accompanied by gestures. Neuropsychologia. 2010. 48(2): 382-393.
Stephenson, G. M. and B. K. Kniveton. 1978. Interpersonal and interparty exchange: an experimental study of the effect of seating position on the outcome of negotiations between teams representing parties in dispute. Human Relations 31(6): 555-566.
Scherer, S. E., & Schiff, M. R. Perceived intimacy, physical distance, and eye contact. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1973, 36, 835-841.
Scott, J. A. Comfort and seating distance in living rooms: The relationship of interactants and topic of conversation. Environment and Behavior, 1984, 16, 35-54.
Sommer, R. Studies in personal space. Sociometry, 1959, 22,247-260.
Sommer, R. The distance for comfortable conversation: A further study. Sociometry, 1962, 25, 111-116.
Sommer, R. Personal space: The behavioral basis of design. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 1969.
Weiss, M., & Keys, C. The influence of proxemic variables on dyadic interaction between peers. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association; Chicago, 1975, August.