Page 58 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

Human Communication Processes in the Small Group Context 41

Seating preferences have been found to vary across cultures. Summarizing research
in this area, Ramsey explains that Americans show liking with close interpersonal seat-
61
ing, a forward lean, direct orientation toward the other, and eye contact. Leaders seem
to gravitate to head positions, with high-status individuals sitting nearby. Similar behav-
iors occur in Japan, where the leader sits at one end of a rectangular table, and, the
lower the rank, the farther away the seat. In some cultures, teachers and others need to
be careful in assigning seats for fear of inadvertently violating cultural taboos about who
may sit next to whom. In a few cultures, people sit opposite each other when they have
differences to settle, but sit side by side in rows when eating or enjoying one another’s
company. Most of what we know about seating patterns comes from research on West-
erners; it may not hold true for people of other cultures.
Seating and spatial features of the group’s environment, such as fixed-space perma-
nent features like walls and doors and movable features like furniture, influence the
62
group’s interactions. In a large room, group members may choose to sit closer together
than normal. If a group is meeting in a space normally used for another activity, the
normal use of that space may change the group’s interaction; for example, meeting in a
member’s living room may encourage informality. Sometimes, simply rearranging a
group’s meeting place can turn a chaotic group into a productive one. One of us advised
a student committee whose meetings were characterized by general disorganization,
repetition, and sidebar conversations. The room used by the group was normally set up
for large assemblies, with a head table on a raised platform at the front, which the mem-
bers used for their discussions. The president sat at the center of the long table, with the
rest of the members sitting on either side of her along one side of the table. Only the
members directly next to the president could both see and hear her without great diffi-
culty. The group was advised to stop using the table and instead to rearrange the chairs
in a circle. After just one meeting, members reported substantial improvement.
Issues of proxemics take on a different meaning when group members are using
some form of CMC. Paraproxemics refers to the illusion of proximity individuals may
63
have when they are using videoconferences for group business. If the camera zooms
in on a person, that may create intimacy; however, if that camera gets too close, mem-
bers may become threatened. Remember too that being tied to your computer can
limit the space you have to gesture or move. Keep in mind that while proximity can be
simulated in CMC, it cannot be duplicated.

Eye Contact Eye movements can signal relational messages of disgust, dislike, superiority,
or inferiority, as well as liking; the rules for eye contact are highly culturally dependent. For
most middle-class white Americans, establishing eye contact is the first step to conversing.
Americans use eye contact when they seek feedback, when they want to be spoken to, and
when they want to participate more actively. For many middle-class Americans, lack of
64
eye contact is perceived as dishonesty, rudeness, apathy, or nervousness. Burgoon
65
reported that students given free choice of seating arrangements in small classes chose to sit
in a circular or U-shaped pattern for their meetings so that they could maintain eye contact
66
with as many other members as possible. Although a stare may indicate competitiveness,
67
in a cooperative group it shows friendship and cohesiveness. Eye contact is important but
must be interpreted carefully in context with other verbal and nonverbal behaviors.

gal37018_ch02_021_050.indd 41 3/30/18 11:13 AM