Tag Archive for Cooperation

Are Truth Tellers Less Cooperative?

by  • March 6, 2013 • 0 Comments

The most influential manual regarding suspect interviewing was written by Fred Inbau, Reid and Buckley in 2001 “Criminal interrogation and confession” and is the handbook used by police officers in training. The “Reid nine steps” claims that after being accused of having committed a crime, those under investigation who are innocent will tend to be more cooperative than deceptive when compared to guilty suspects. The theory says that honest suspects will cooperate and work harder to show their innocence, whereas the guilty will appear less cooperative, and so appear less convincing.

Inbau provides a few examples. He says that suspects who are guilty will want to exit the interview as quickly as possible. They will say things like “Well, I figured you wouldn’t believe me. It’s been nice talking to you but I have an attorney to see.” On the other hand, suspects who are innocent will not want to exit the interview room after being falsely accused so they will insist on remaining as long as possible to present the truth to the investigator. In fact, the manual states that innocent suspects, will remain until they have had the opportunity to present enough information to eliminate themselves as a suspect.

The argument of cooperation does seem plausible and some studies do support the argument, however others do not. One such study by Aldert Vrij of the University of Portsmouth in the United Kingdom in 2005 showed that there was no relationship between cooperation and guilt. He found that suspects who were shy tended to cooperate less despite their guilt or innocence. Therefore by Inbau’s logic would be falsely labeled as guilty. At issue here are many factors and ones that need to be considered before anyone can be labeled as a liar or otherwise. Deceivers are just as likely to be concerned with the impressions they make as non-deceivers so this is non-issue. However, the context does come across as a big factor.

For example, a criminal at a boarder crossing who is moving drugs with a suitcase would obviously be unwilling to cooperate by opening his bag so as to delay being caught, but so too might someone holding particularly private or personal items. Lest we not forget about a human rights activist who’s occupation involves protecting the freedoms of people. The activists will be just as unlikely to cooperate with law enforcement since his goals are best served by drawing attention to the injustices around him. What better way to make a point about global big brother than to become a victim yourself. Liars on the other hand might try harder to appear more honest by cooperating, or show that they have nothing to fear, and even appeal to discrimination and unjustness of the process. In the case of the honest suspect, they aren’t concerned about the impression they make on others, so can also appear less cooperative, even combative. Thus, cooperation, in and of itself, does not lead necessarily indicate deception, but on the surface, has some merit.

Other Complex Seating Arrangements

by  • March 6, 2013 • 0 Comments

See text for explanation.

See text for explanation.

It is possible to create a highly influential seating arrangement when we wish to influence a particularly important, but as yet undecided individual. The first person or the main presenter (Pr) should sit head-on with the “object” in the face-to-face competitive position (Ob). This competitive position aligns the “object” with the person he most expects to object with. Next, we add an affiliate (Af) to the objects left or right, that is, at the casual corner position to act as a friend, or to their side in the cooperative position (Co). The subconscious effect can be powerful if the positions are matched with the outlooks they should hold. That is, the cooperative position should play the advocate against the competitive position in cooperation with the object, except (of course) showing a bias towards agreement with the competitive position.

The affiliate can also “bait” the competitive position and control the conversation by giving up relevant points without sounding pushy. This person can demonstrate ‘the other side of the coin’ and work through the dialogue saving the object from having to voice negative positions himself. This saves him from going through counterproductive mental reasoning that can prove a damaging exercise. Powerful negotiators can use the affiliate to blow the argument out of proportion thereby forcing the object to side with the competitor and bridge the original argument. Obviously this isn’t a simple strategy and requires some advanced preparation, but when it is an important matter it is justified, not to mention fun!

Independent And Opposite Position

by  • March 6, 2013 • 0 Comments

When people sit to do work but do not want to talk to each other, they will sit in the "independent and opposite" seating arrangement. We see this with strangers in a limited seating cafeteria or in a library when strangers share tables.

When people sit to do work but do not want to talk to each other, they will sit in the “independent and opposite” seating arrangement. We see this with strangers in a limited seating cafeteria or in a library when strangers share tables.

When the object is to show independence, than an opposite, yet diagonal seating position is recommended. We see this most often in cafeteria style arrangements when sitting by oneself isn’t possible and tables are filled with strangers but we still want the most amount of privacy possible. Students will choose this arrangement when studying separately in a library as it permits independent thought and separation avoids any direct eye contact should either party need a break from their work. When subjects were asked to sit and do work quietly in one study this was the most common seating arrangement. Usually the space between the parties will be evenly split and be occupied by handbags, books, papers and other belongings to reserve them from being taken up. Obviously this position should be avoided when cooperation and affiliation formation is has the reverse effect. The independent and opposite position when it is not expected creates hostility and shows indifference.

Cooperative Side-By-Side Position

by  • March 6, 2013 • 0 Comments

Chairs on the same side of the table is the "cooperative" seating arrangement as no barrier is present between the participants. It is the most open way of interacting.

Chairs on the same side of the table is the “cooperative” seating arrangement as no barrier is present between the participants. It is the most open way of interacting.

The cooperative position contrasts the casual corner position with a side-by-side orientation on the same side of the table rather than kitty-corner or cross-corner. There are two possible arrangements for the side-by-side 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. Working on a common goal, a project or presentation are a few examples of when it’s best to use this arrangement. Intimate couples will also choose this position at restaurants except where moving the chairs about is not permitted. Other couples fail to see this and instead choose competitive arrangements as if they are on job interviews, or are facing off against each other in twenty questions!

There are times when sitting on the same side of the table can appear too intimate, as if invading someone else’s space. One can begin by taking up positions across the table and then finding an excuse to pass documents across it. After some time, moving to the other side of the table and sitting down to clarify the information provides enough of a reason to bridge the gap between people and being fostering intimacy.

Introduction – Chapter 15

by  • March 6, 2013 • 0 Comments

Where we sit at a table or how we arrange our guests can influence the ability to form bonds and share information. Sometimes arriving to a table early helps, other times we end up at a disadvantage because those we wish to communicate with most end up sitting in locations that make them less accessible. Arriving midway through represents the best case scenario, but if you aren’t aware of the propensity to which people speak to one another, this will give you no advantage at all since you won’t know where to sit.

The most powerful people will almost always prefer to sit facing the entry because it allows them to see first hand who is entering and prevents them from sneaking up from behind. Likewise, we find that sitting on the inside at a restaurant allows us the best vantage because it puts everyone else in front of us and inhibits interruptions from those passing in isles. In this chapter we will learn that it’s best to avoid sitting side by side if possible, especially when trying to form a good impression or when trying to assess someone. Reading people is best done face-to-face but this raises a competitive head to head arrangement, as we shall see. We will also learn that our reasons for meeting will tell us how we should sit because, and what affect seating has on the outcome.

In this chapter we will cover seating arrangements and their effect. We will learn that how we sit indicates our reason for meeting, how rectangular tables and circular tables have trickle down leadership effects, how square tables can set up cooperation or confrontation, how leaders always choose to sit at the head of the table or will lose their status to he who does, and how we can change minds by boxing in our “object” with the right associates. Next we cover how offices should be set up, how artifacts aren’t just for decoration and how high-chairs aren’t for babies. We then learn about where to sit in an auditorium to be completely forgotten and where the keeners sit in class.

Touching To Get What You Want.

by  • March 5, 2013 • 0 Comments

Touching is a primitive grooming gesture.

Touching is a primitive grooming gesture.

A study by Chris Keinke in 1980 revealed that touch can influence compliance with a request. In the study, an experimenter left a dime in a phone booth in a Boston airport. As the subjects emerged from the airport the experimenter asked for the return of their dime. It was found that compliance was more frequent when the request was accompanied by a light touch on the arm. A similar study in 1982 by Joel Brockner and colleagues showed comparable findings but specify that only sixty three percent of the non-touched returned the dime, whereas ninety six percent of those that were touched returned the dime.

Further research shows that justification that accompanying a light touch also helps in compliance. Therefore, we can add to the effectiveness of touching by briefly outlining our reasoning. It might go something like “I’ve left a dime here, and I really need it to make an important phone call.” followed by a light touch of the arm or forearm “Have you seen it”. This approach would have the most significant results. Other studies show similar results when people are asked to sign a petition or in a super market when asked to sample a new product. In the study, half of the shoppers were briefly touched, while the other half was not. The results show that, not only were people more likely to test the food, but they were also more likely to buy the product as well. Touching customers in a store also resulted in increased shopping time and more positive evaluation of the store. Patrons of taverns in the U.S. who were touched spent more time drinking and also consumed more alcohol then patrons that were not touched by the staff. In reference to tipping behaviour, touch was also a factor. Patrons that were touched by the waiter or waitress were far more likely to tip and to also tip higher. It seems that slight touching of a stranger on the upper arm has a very powerful affect on cooperation. The effects of touch has been widely studied and the influence it has on behaviour and requests are conclusive, touching really can help you get what you want from others.

Illustrators: To Colour Language

by  • March 5, 2013 • 0 Comments

"Was your fish THIS big?!?"

“Was your fish THIS big?!?”

A second type of gesture, illustrators, are use in cooperation with words to emphasize them. Illustrators do just that, they illustrate the meaning of words. An example of an illustrator is the motion of throwing whilst speaking of tossing a ball or a punching motion to emphasize what happened during a fight. We could describe an trophy fish, as in “It was this long” then spreading the hands apart to show just how long it was. Other examples include, finger pointing, head bobbing, batoning or slapping the hands together. Bill Clinton made the batoning motion famous as he emphasized nearly each word in his denial speech against his involvement with Monica Lewinsky “I did not, have, sexual, relations, with, that, women.” as his arm pumped up and down. Other examples include Adolf Hitler as he gestured his followers into submission and television evangelists who forcefully hammer their words onto others.

The type of illustrators used, vary by culture and also vary in frequency. Latin cultures for example, will use more illustrators than Anglo-Saxon cultures, and they in turn, use more than Asian cultures. In business, the differences between cultures are especially important since Asian cultures might see the use of illustrators as a lack of intelligence if used too frequently and in Latin cultures it might be construed as a lack of interest or involvement to use too few.