Body Language of The Cooperative Side-By-Side Seating Arrangement

Body Language of The Cooperative Side-By-Side Seating Arrangement

BodyLanguageProjectCom - Cooperative Side-By-Side Seating Arrangement 2Cue: Cooperative Side-By-Side Seating Arrangement

Synonym(s): Side-By-Side Position, Sitting Side By Side.

Description: A seating arrangement where people sit side-by-side on the same side of the table.

In One Sentence: When people sit on the same side of the table they are building cooperation and are best able to collaborate.

How To Use it: Use the cooperative side-by-side seating arrangement to build ideas, collaborate with another person or to create intimacy. This is the best seating arrangement in a dating context in order to create romance as there is no barrier present in between the couple. In a business context, one may begin head-to-head and graduate to the same side of the table as the team approaches the closure of a deal. However, if one can start on the same side, regardless of the context, full cooperation is assumed to be the case.

Context: a) General b) Dating c) Business.

Verbal Translation: “We can sit close to one another in order to work cooperatively together on this project and share information freely without worrying about competition.”

Variant: See Casual Corner Seating Arrangement, Competitive Head-To-Head Seating Arrangement.

Cue In Action: a) When meeting to work on a school project they decided to sit on the same side of the table so they could put their books and charts out in front of them and share the workload. b) To show he really cared, they chose a window seat and cuddle up on the same side of the table so they could share food and drink. c) Bill needed to ramp up the offer, so he took the chance to come across to the other side of the desk to show his client charts. This gave him an excuse to build cooperation rather than competitiveness.

Meaning and/or Motivation: A cooperative seating arrangement is used when we wish to remove all the barriers between two people.

There are two possible side-by-side seating arrangements and the variants determine the level of connectivity and interaction between two people. When the chairs are facing forward, or toward the table, it slightly inhibits eye contact decreasing the level of sharing. This orientation shows that there is some cooperation but that it’s not complete. When chairs are facing forward in this manner, it is usually because it is assumed that people are already a part of your team and the two of you are facing off against another party. A second orientation happens when collaborating on a project. Here, the chairs will (and should) be turned at forty-five degrees toward each other. This arrangement represents intimacy since there is no barrier to interfere with the sharing of information.

Cue Cluster: We usually see cooperative and engagement cues such as leaning in, eye contact and head tilted at forty-five degree to show interest.

Body Language Category: Barriers, Body pointing, Blading, Rapport or rapport building, Seating arrangements.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Howells, L. T. and S. W. Becker. 1962. Seating arrangement and leadership emergence.
The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 64(2): 148-150.

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).

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.

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.

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.