Tag Archive for University Of California

How We Really Detect Lies

It is traditionally assumed that deception detection occurs simultaneously to the telling of a lie. Meaning, as people speak, lie detectors were able to pick up on nonverbal and verbal cues to ‘read’ people. Most of the research to date suggests that we can’t use any body language cue, or collection of cues in a comprehensive manner to read liars, but this might just be a limitation or flaw in the design of the studies. In 2002 research by Hee Sun Park working out of the University of California in Santa Barbara it was found that success in real-world lie detection happens gradually, over time and not on one chance encounter. Her research found that the most often reported method of disseminating lies included third party information, confessions and physical evidence, none of which the studies thus far have provided. Therefore, with respect to how people really read lies, the scientific investigations to date, haven’t provided people with information necessary to accurately detect lies.

Reading lies in real life is an active comparison from information we know for certain, and information told to us. No doubt, nonverbal language can provide clues to us as a full package, but it doesn’t permit us to ascertain conclusive evidence. We should therefore use untrustworthy or nervous body language as motivation to spark further investigation.

Deciphering Cause And Effect From Seating Position

So which is it cause or effect? What happens when you assign seating versus allow people to choose their seating? A study by Douglas Levine of the University of California in 1980 sought out to measure this exact question. The study examined two phases, one where students were allowed to choose their own seating and the second where seating was randomly assigned. They found that students sitting at the front did much better than those sitting at the rear but only if the seats were chosen by the students. When the seating was assigned there was no discernible different in test scores. They did find that student involvement was affected by seating however, as in both cases participation was greater for those sitting in the front seats. Thus, it becomes evident that students who want to learn more choose seats in the front rows because it allows them a better view of the teacher and also allows them to participate more. Those that want to blend in and avoid participation sit at the rear and sides. Other studies show that keener students often choose seats in the front and also those that relate better to the instructor will orient themselves in relation to them.

In another study conducted in 2004 arranged seating was found to affect test scores contrary to the study presented above. Here economics professors Mary Benedict and John Hoag at Bowling Green State University found that students who were forced forward produced a net gain in test scores. For example, a student who preferred a back seat but was forced to a center row, reduced the probability of receiving a D or F from twenty-three to twelve percent for an overall gain of eleven percent. The study also suggests a lower probability of receiving an A and a higher probability for receiving a D or F for those students forced from the middle aisle seats to the side aisle seats.

Therefore, when presenting information organized seating can have a subtle effect, but can be somewhat limited in scope. If you wish to wow someone in particular, position them in the front as you’ll be better able to connect with them. Those parties you wish to mute can be placed at the back-sides to reduce their ability to speak out. The data from research seems to suggest that audiences naturally arrange themselves according to how interested they are to learn especially in theater style auditoriums. Thus, this information can be used passively to choose the most qualified or interested parties for important projects.

Other strategies come from the walk and talk method taken from lab style learning. Here, the instructor is permitted to travel through rows and isle and connect with more than just the front row of listeners eliminating the side effects of rows and columns. Orienting seating into a horseshoe also eliminates the effects that rows and columns hold and so too does smaller group sizes. It’s much more difficult to be forgotten in a small group and functionally impossible when speaking one on one!

Early Research Into Seating Arrangements

In a business setting people sitting kitty-corner (D and F) tend to talk 6 times as often as those sitting opposite (B and C). Those sitting next to each other (C and E) talk about half as often as kitty-corner but still 3 times as often as sitting on opposite sides of the table. The head position or leader position, tends to be spoken to the least.

In a business setting people sitting kitty-corner (D and F) tend to talk 6 times as often as those sitting opposite (B and C). Those sitting next to each other (C and E) talk about half as often as kitty-corner but still 3 times as often as sitting on opposite sides of the table. The head position or leader position, tends to be spoken to the least.

One of the

Boardrooms present an interesting power effect.  In this case "A" is the head of the table because he benefits by seeing who might be entering through the door.  "B" is also head of the table, but might be taken by surprise as the door is at his back.  Power trickles down from the head of the table to "C" and "D" (flaking the head), "E" and "F" (flanking the flanks), and finally "G" and "H" who share the lowest rank..

Boardrooms present an interesting power effect. In this case “A” is the head of the table because he benefits by seeing who might be entering through the door. “B” is also head of the table, but might be taken by surprise as the door is at his back. Power trickles down from the head of the table to “C” and “D” (flaking the head), “E” and “F” (flanking the flanks), and finally “G” and “H” who share the lowest rank..

earliest research studies was done by American psychologist Robert Sommer of the University of California in the 1950’s. He examined the effects of extensive renovations done to an old age home. The ward received new colourful paint, new lighting was installed, new chairs brought in and several small rooms were converted into one large day room. The furniture was also re-arranged to make conversations more likely amongst the patients by creating more face-to-face encounters. This rearrangement was based on what he observed daily in the hallways just outside the ward. Here, every morning the chairs were placed into straight rows, shoulder to shoulder, against the wall to make mopping easier. But if you entered sometime later in the day, you’d find them re-arranged into groups. It was the patient’s family members who moved the chairs to speak with the patients, rather than what the patient actually preferred themselves. From this observation and the fact that any changes in the ward were met with resistance it was obvious that the patients would resist the ward remodel. In fact, it was common knowledge around the home that every piece of furniture and chair “had its place.” A lot of which had been there, regardless of any logical or functional reason. The conclusions drawn from the study were less than positive likely because the study involved mentally handicapped patients. In fact, it was concluded that modification of furniture arrangements was not enough in and of itself to adequately increasing social interactions. However, drawing on his initial observations from the hallway, where regular visitors rearranged furniture, Dr. Sommer felt he was onto something important.

His future studies examined visitors interacting in a hospital cafeteria, students in classrooms, children in public, and a myriad of other social situations. He found that when conversing over a rectangular table, patterns began to emerge as a function of the shape and proximity speakers had to one another. In all arrangements it is the nature of the meeting which dictated the spatial “ecology”, he concluded. He learned that eye contact and distance are the two fundamental concepts governing how we sit, which in turn affects our ability to exchange information, speak effectively, or even draw lines of division. The next few paragraphs covers the ecology of round, and rectangular seating arrangements with respect to reasons for meeting, be it a casual meeting with friends, cooperative sharing of information, independent working or leadership purposes.

Loving Tight Jeans, Short Skirts And Ornamentation Means You’re Shopping

Dressing sexy is not a sexual invitation by itself, but it does give us clues to the intensions and attitudes present. In most cases, overt cleavage, short skirts and heavy make-up tells us that women are available and shopping. Women who dress sexily all the time appear as non-cues though, because it is just what they do. Their baseline says that nothing new is happening, although it does tell us something about their general baseline, doesn’t it. These women appear “dressy” and always put together, but if we notice extra dressiness, or as we shall see extra frills or “ornamentation” we know she’s probably feeling receptive. Conversely if we see a lack of dressiness, we know that maybe she’s particularly down and unreceptive. The research supports this. Women, at around the time of ovulation, will display more sexually, they will break out their high heels, tend to dance more, talk more suggestively, and even walk differently near ovulation.

In one such study by Martie Haselton and her colleagues of the University of California in 2006 it was found that women chose more revealing outfits, and outfits containing more ornamentation when they were close to their peak fertility. In other words, as women near ovulation, the most fertile phase, they tended to dress “to impress.” This particular study had a panel of judges rate a pair of couples throughout the women’s fertility cycle. This allowed the researchers to create a baseline by which subjects could be compared to themselves. If they noted any differences in dress, they could then correlate it back to their fertility. They found noticeable differences in terms of overt self-grooming and ornamentation especially in terms of choice of dress as women approached their most fertile. They chose tops laced with trim and wore skirts rather than pants. The overall trend was to show more skin. The study also found that men rated women as more attractive when they were in their ovulation cycle.

Other studies show that women are more apt to find dominant men with square jaws and facial hair more attractive during ovulation and even find male body odor less pungent and more tolerable. During their high fertility days, women tend to flirt more often and solicit male attention, or in other words, tend to be more in tune with overall ‘maleness.’ Women are also found to go out more to parties or clubs, and other target rich environments, where they might meet men. No doubt there are many factors that play into how a woman dresses, but when it comes to being seductive, she turns it on when she’s ready to procreate despite what thoughts come into consciousness. While dress alone isn’t a full on invitation to pursue, it does tell us a little bit about what frame of mind a woman is in.

Advertising fertility with overt dress makes sense because women, unlike most animals, fail to advertise their ovulation. This is what scientists call “hidden ovulation” or “concealed ovulation” of which dozens of competing theories try to explain, but of which all fail to do conclusively. One of them says that women hide ovulation to keep men around so they will continue to provide her with resources while she offers sex in exchange. Hidden ovulation is a fascinating topic for discussion, because it is very complex and will likely never be solved. In other animals ovulation or “heat” is prominently advertised. Two such examples include swelling and redness of the genitalia in baboons and the release of pheromones in many animals including cats. However, in humans, even women themselves fail to consciously realize when they are fertile. To be accurate this last point has been disputed by various studies, even by this very section, but the point remains that aside from really trying to tune in, it would go unnoticed by many. The point is that women are rare in the animal kingdom by not prominently signaling fertility as do many other animals. However, this study and this chapter at large, shows us that they have other ways to convey this to men, even if in a more discrete manner.

While women might not be aware of the reason for dressing provocatively, most women are aware of the signals they give off to men, and therefore shouldn’t be surprise to receive additional attention when they show more skin. From a prowling male perspective therefore, it would pay back in dividends to make note of which women dress provocatively and deviate from their baseline and which women wear more frills and glitz. Tight jeans, elaborate decoration and short skirts, not only signal sexuality, but also interest in sex.