Category: Seating arrangements

*No Photo, Barriers, Courtship display, Indicators of disinterest (IOD), Liking, Orienting reflex or orienting response, Ownership gesture, Seating arrangements

Body Language of Loving Circle Leg Cross

by  •  • 0 Comments

Body Language of Loving Circle Leg Cross

No picCue: Loving Circle Leg Cross

Synonym(s): N/A

Description: When lovers, family members, or associates sit on a couch or in chairs close together, and orient their legs toward each other forming a closed loop. The arms can sometimes meet over the backs for the couch. This gives the impression of a system that is closed off from others.

In One Sentence: The loving circle signals the desire to be close and create an intimate area at the exclusion of others.

How To Use it: Use the loving circle to show partners that you are focused wholly on them and don’t want other people to interfere or distract from what is being cultivated between the two of you. This can work between family members, but is best done between intimate couples. Close friends can also use the loving circle to be totally immerse in each others presence. When viewed by other people it signals the desire not to be interrupted so this can work to repel unwanted outside conversations.

Context: a) General b) Dating.

Verbal Translation: “We agree and are close. We are so united that we are forming our bodies into a barrier preventing others from penetrating our social circle.”

Variant: See Leg Crossing and Leg Crossing Direction.

Cue In Action: a) The husband and his wife sat on the sofa with their legs crossed toward one another in a sea of unfamiliar people at a social gathering. They used their bodies to protect themselves from the unfamiliar. Their daughter snuggled up in between them. b) A young couple grew more intimate as the night wore on. Near the middle of the night, they had formed a loving circle by crossing their legs toward one another coupled with hand-in-hand over the back of the sofa.

Meaning and/or Motivation: The loving circle can happen within families, with close friends, associates and between and amongst the sexes. It signifies agreement, unity and commonality.

The legs and arms create a closed barrier which prevents other people from getting close or breaking into the conversation. When lovers perform this posture they signify intimacy and a desire for privacy and isolation from outside intruders.

Cue Cluster: Often the loving circle includes leaning in, eye contact, and touching.

Body Language Category: Barriers, Courtship displays, Indicator of interest (IoI), Liking, Orienting reflex or orienting response (a), Ownership gestures, Seating arrangements.

Resources:

Aiello, J. 1977. A further look at equilibrium theory. Visual interaction as a function of
interpersonal distance. Environmental Psychology & Nonverbal Behavior, 1: 122-140.

Astrom, Jan. Introductory greeting behavior: a laboratory investigation of approaching and closing salutation phases. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1994. 79(2): 863(35).

Argyle, M., & Dean, I. Eye contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 1965, 28, 289-304.

Baxter, James C. ; Rozelle, Richard M. Lanzetta, John T. (editor). Nonverbal expression as a function of crowding during a simulated police-citizen encounter. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1975. 32(1): 40-54.

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, Mark. 1970. Experiments on orientation and proxemics. Human Relations 23 (1): 61-76.

Chance RMA (1962) An interpretation of some agonistic postures: the role of “cut-off” acts and postures. Symp Zool Soc Lond 8: 71–89.

Coutts, Larrym. ; Ledden, Maribeth. Nonverbal Compensatory Reactions to Changes in Interpersonal Proximity. The Journal of Social Psychology. 1977 102(2): 283-290.

DeSteno, D.; Breazeal, C.; Frank, R. H.; Pizarro, D.; Baumann, J.; Dickens, L, and Lee, J. Detecting the Trustworthiness of Novel Partners in Economic Exchange. Psychological Science. 2012. 23, 1549-1556.
http://bodylanguageproject.com/articles/use-body-language-cues-create-trust

Doody, John ; Bull, Peter. Asperger’s Syndrome and the Decoding of Boredom, Interest, and Disagreement from Body Posture. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 2011. 35(2): 87-100.

Dowell, Nia M. and Jeffrey S. Berman. Therapist Nonverbal Behavior and Perceptions of Empathy, Alliance, and Treatment Credibility. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration. 2013. 23(2): 158-165. DOI: 10.1037/a0031421. http://bodylanguageproject.com/articles/lean-make-eye-contact-create-impressions-empathy-leaning-body-language-creates-greater-credibility

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.

Fretz, Bruce R. Counselor Nonverbal Behaviors and Client Evaluations. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1979. 26(4): 304-11.

Genthner, Robert W. ; Moughan, James Osipow, Samuel H. (editor). Introverts’ and extraverts’ responses to nonverbal attending behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1977. 24(2): 144-146.

Girard, Jeffrey M.; Jeffrey F. Cohna; Mohammad H.Mahoor S.; Mohammad Mavadati;
Zakia Hammal; and Dean P. Rosenwalda. Nonverbal Social Withdrawal In Depression: Evidence From Manual And Automatic Analyses. Image and Vision Computing. 2013.
http://bodylanguageproject.com/articles/body-language-signals-withdrawal-depression/

Gorkan Ahmetoglu, Viren Swami. Do Women Prefer “Nice Guys?” The Effect Of Male Dominance Behavior On Women’s Ratings. Social Behavior And Personality, 2012; 40(4), 667-672.
http://bodylanguageproject.com/articles/how-to-significantly-increase-male-attractiveness-with-simple-body-language-nice-guys-finish-last-once-again/

Gregersen, Tammy S. Nonverbal Cues: Clues to the Detection of Foreign Language Anxiety. Foreign Language Annals. 2005. 38(3): 388-400
http://bodylanguageproject.com/articles/what-anxious-learners-can-tell-us-about-anxious-body-language-how-to-read-nonverbal-behavior/

Goodboy, Alan, K. and Maria Brann. Flirtation Rejection Strategies: Towards an Understanding of Communicative Disinterest in Flirting. The Quantitative Report. 2010. 15(2): 268-278.
http://bodylanguageproject.com/articles/how-to-reject-flirting-using-nonverbal-and-verbal-tactics/

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.

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.

Hall, Jeffrey A. and Chong Xing. The Verbal and Nonverbal Correlates of the Five Flirting Styles. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 2015. 39:41–68. DOI 10.1007/s10919-014-0199-8
http://bodylanguageproject.com/articles/first-12-minutes-flirting-using-nonverbal-communication-study-reveals-26-body-language-cues-attraction/

Harrigan J. and Rosenthal R. Physicians’ head and body positions as determinants of perceived rapport. J. appl. Sot. Psychol. 13, 496, 1983.

Hall, Judith ; LeBeau, Lavonia ; Reinoso, Jeannette ; Thayer, Frank. Status, Gender, and Nonverbal Behavior in Candid and Posed Photographs: A Study of Conversations Between University Employees. Sex Roles. 2001 44(11): 677-692.

Hietanen, Jari. Social attention orienting integrates visual information from head and body orientation. Psychological Research.2002 66(3): 174-179.

Jenkins, R., Beaver, J.D., & Calder, A.J. (2006). I thought you were looking at me: Direction-specific aftereffects in gaze perception. Psychological Science, 17, 506–513.

Katza, Carmit; Irit Hershkowitz; Lindsay C. Malloya; Michael E. Lamba; Armita Atabakia and Sabine Spindlera. Non-Verbal Behavior of Children Who Disclose or do not Disclose Child Abuse in Investigative Interviews. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2012. 36: 12-20.
http://bodylanguageproject.com/articles/reading-nonverbal-behaviour-child-abuse-cases-encourage-children-divulge-information-truth-telling

Kahlbaugh, Patricia ; Haviland, Jeannette. Nonverbal communication between parents and adolescents: A study of approach and avoidance behaviors. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 1994 18(1): 91-113.

Kenner, Andrew N. ; Katsimaglis, George. Gender differences in proxemics: taxi-seat choice. Psychological Reports. 1993 72(2): 625(2).

Langton, S. R. H., & Bruce, V. (2000). You must see the point: Automatic processing of cues to the direction of social attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 747–757.

Langton, S. R. H. (2000). The mutual influence of gaze and head orientation in the analysis of social attention direction. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 825–845.

Mehrabian, Albert Holzberg, Jules D. (editor). Inference of Attitudes From the Posture, Orientation and Distance of a Communicator. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1968. 32(3): 296-308.

Mehrabian, Albert Deese, James (editor). Significance of posture and position in the communication of attitude and status relationships. Psychological Bulletin. 1969. 71(5): 359-372.

Mehrabian, A., Friar, J., 1969. Encoding of attitude by a seated communicator via posture and position cues. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 33: 330–336.

Moore, Monica. Courtship Signaling and Adolescents: Girls Just Wanna Have Fun. Journal of Sex Research. 1995. 32(4): 319-328.
http://bodylanguageproject.com/articles/girls-just-want-to-have-fun-the-origins-of-courtship-cues-in-girls-and-women/

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).

Pinar, Rukiye ; Ataalkin, Sıddıka ; Watson, Roger. The effect of crossing legs on blood pressure in hypertensive patients. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2010. 19(9-10): 1284-1288.

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.

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.

Trout, Deborah ; Rosenfeld, Howard. The effect of postural lean and body congruence on the judgment of psychotherapeutic rapport. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 1980. 4(3): 176-190.

Underwood, M. K.. Glares of Contempt, Eye Rolls of Disgust and Turning Away to Exclude: Non-Verbal Forms of Social Aggression among Girls. Feminism & Psychology. 2004 14(3): 371-375.

Willis, F. 1966. Initial speaking distance as a function of the speaker’s relationship.
Psychonomic Science. 5: 221-222.

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.

Barriers, Blading, Body pointing, Rapport or rapport building, Seating arrangements

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

by  •  • 0 Comments

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.

Barriers, Closed body language, Defensive body language, Distancing or moving away, Seating arrangements

Body Language of Competitive Head-To-Head Seating Arrangement

by  •  • 0 Comments

Body Language of Competitive Head-To-Head Seating Arrangement

BodyLanguageProjectCom - Competitive Head-To-Head Seating Arrangement 1Cue: 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.

*No Photo, Barriers, Blading, Body pointing, Orienting reflex or orienting response, Rapport or rapport building, Seating arrangements

Body Language Casual Corner Seating Arrangement

by  •  • 0 Comments

Body Language Casual Corner Seating Arrangement

No picCue: Casual Corner Seating Arrangement

Synonym(s): Kitty Corner, Right Angle Seating, Sitting At The Corner Of The Table, Across The Corner Of The Table.

Description: A seating arrangement where people sit at the corner of rectangular tables.

In One Sentence: The casual corner seating arrangement is defined by sitting across the corners of the table and is a way to maintain separation but also collaborate.

How To Use it: Use the casual corner seating arrangement when you want to provide a client with some privacy but also want to be relatively intimate. This is effective when working on a project that requires independent thought such as brainstorming new ideas or when going over fine details. Friends and family should also meet this way as it is creates a less confrontational feeling.

Context: Social, Business

Verbal Translation: “We sit close to one another in a casual way but still maintain our separation by having the corner of the table between us.”

Variant: The chairs can face forward toward the table reduce eye contact or at angles so as to face the other person directly which is more intimate. See other seating arrangements for variants such as Competitive Head-To-Head Seating Position Arrangement and Cooperative Side-By-Side Seating Arrangement.

Cue In Action: a) When meeting to discuss the acquisition of a new business, the partners sat at the corner of the table to share information and discuss the possibilities amicably. b) When interviewing for the new position, the boss decided to meet over the corner of the table to build comfort and rapport rather than interview in her office across her desk.

Meaning and/or Motivation: Sitting across the corner of the table preserves closeness, but also offers a partial barrier to maintain privacy. This seating position is unique because it allows for independent thought, but the proximity still permits intimacy through closeness rather than aggression and secrecy as with a head-to-head arrangement.

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

Body Language Category: Barriers, Body pointing, Blading, Orienting reflex or orienting response, Rapport or rapport building, Seating arrangements.

Resources:

Argyle, M., & Dean, I. Eye contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 1965, 28, 289-304.

Beaulieu, Catherine. Intercultural Study of Personal Space: A Case Study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2004 34(4):794-805.

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.

Dolphin, Carol Zinner. Beyond hall: Variables in the use of personal space in intercultural transactions. Howard Journal of Communications. 1988. 1(1): 23-38.

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.

Greenberg, Carl I. ; Firestone, Ira J. Greenwald, Anthony G. (editor). Compensatory responses to crowding: Effects of personal space intrusion and privacy reduction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1977. 35(9): 637-644.

Graziano, Michael S.A. and Cooke, Dylan F. Parieto-frontal interactions, personal space, and defensive behavior. Neuropsychologia. 2006. 44(6): 845-859.

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.

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

Jackson, Danielle ; Engstrom, Erika ; Hassenzahl, David M. Effects of sex and seating arrangement on selection of leader. Perceptual and motor skills. 2005. 100(3 Pt 1): 815-8

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.

Newman, Robert C. ; Pollack, Donald Holzberg, Jules D. (editor). Proxemics in deviant adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1973 40(1): 6-8.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Werner, Carol ; Brown, Barbara ; Damron, Gary Steiner, Ivan D. (editor). Territorial marking in a game arcade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1981. 41(6): 1094-1104.