Tag Archive for Robert Sommer

Who In The Audience Is The Most Keen?

by  • March 6, 2013 • 0 Comments

Research by Robert Sommer in the late 1960’s showed how attention and participation was neatly tied to seating positions. This was especially true for very large audiences where it’s possible to have an uneven distribution of connectivity with the speaker. His research examined classroom ecology and revealed that students sitting in the front rows participated much more than those in the back rows and those in the middle, the most.

Front and center had the highest rate of participation whereas the rear left and rear right the least. One can picture a reverse arrangement with the largest percentage of participators at the “mouth” of the funnel nearest the speaker and the “end” of the funnel at the back with the fewest participators. As one travels back in the seats, those at the sides progressively get left out. Those at the back edges can more easily ‘escape’ and find refuge from the speaker.

Early Research Into Seating Arrangements

by  • March 6, 2013 • 0 Comments

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.

High/Low Context, Culture And Touching

by  • March 5, 2013 • 0 Comments

Leaning away is a signal that personal space is being invaded.

Leaning away is a signal that personal space is being invaded.

The term “personal space” was first used by psychologist Robert Sommer in 1969 to describe the comfortable zones that people like to keep around them. His observations stemmed from the uneasiness experienced by hospital patients when he encroached on them. Further research into personal space has found that closeness tolerances vary by culture, and so too does touch. For example, Americans tend to prefer large amounts of space whereas Latin Americans, Italians and Middle Easterners require far less. Americans come from a culture with what is called “low context” and those from the middle-east come from “high context” cultures. In a high context culture the rules for conduct do not have to be specifically outlined or verbalized because everyone already knows them. Thus, in a high context culture the rules are set and the countries demographics doesn’t vary widely from person to person. High context cultures have a long standing history so practically everyone in the country understands the rules of touching. In a low context culture, where the individual is valued more than the that of the whole, touching is far less frequent or tolerated. In a low context culture the content of speech is delivered through words instead of touching. Examples of low context cultures where touching is infrequent includes America, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and Australia. High context countries where touching is more frequent includes the Middle East, Asia, Africa, Italy, Latin America and South America. Middle ground countries include France, China and India.

A business man from Australia visiting Italy or France can be shocked to have a potential business partner touch over coffee to emphasize a point. Those unaware of their host’s cultural norms could misrepresent touching as a sexual advance especially if your company is of the opposite sex. Then again, touch avoidance might also be misconstrued as rude or standoffish to a high context culture. An attempt should be made to follow cultural norms out of respect so in a high context culture one must fight the natural urge to pull back to avoid offending and in a low context culture we should respect their need for privacy and personal space by limiting touching.

Here is a quick breakdown of countries by touch tolerances:

[A] English-speaking countries (Canada, United States), Australia, Japan and northern Europe. Avoid casual touching.
[B] China, France, India. Accept some casual touching.
[C] Latin America, South America, Africa, the Mediterranean, Middle East, Italy, Russia and parts of Asia. Freely use casual touching.