"Will You Be My Valentine?"

Belmonte | Em | Guevara | Logarta | Minoza | Rosales 

In our breaching experiment, we violated the norms of ‘social adequacy’. The act of proposing and asking certain people to be their Valentine is usually done with people who are familiar with one another and have spent a certain amount of time together. Proposing to complete strangers in public isn’t normally done and in fact is rarely done outside experimental purposes. In relation, gender roles were violated as well as the breaching experiment that was done involved both opposite genders (boys asking girls & and girls asking boys) and same genders (girl asking girl) initiating and asking each other as well. Lastly, the subject of ‘occasion’ was also violated, as this experiment was done outside the month of February where Valentines is present.

The breaching activity composed of our group mates setting out to different locations within the campus (namely The New Library’s Entrance, De la Costa Building, MVP, FAURA Forest, Sec B and the LS Bookstore) asking different, random people to be their Valentine. The actual activity commenced firstly with our team experimenting with different camera angles, trying to find places where the shot would be clear enough to videotape but well hidden enough so that the actual subjects won’t notice somebody taping them. The experiment was done usually by twos, one filming the activity and the other asking the subjects to be their Valentine. The experiment would usually start out with the experimenter saying romantic phrases and pick-up lines to their subject of choice followed by kneeling (optional but done for the full effect) and the giving of roses to the subject at hand. After the entire scene where the subject accepts the rose, the experimenter then proceeds to orient the subject regarding the experiment, giving information like why it was done, what it was for, and that it was actually okay for them to receive and keep the gifts they were presented with.  

In general, several of the reactions that we received were that of suspicion. A lot of the subjects were suspicious of the nature of our experiment and a lot were actually trying to look for the cameras. If they were unable to spot the camera, most would ask what this was for and such. What we noticed though was that the reactions differed per gender. Generally, the females were more responsive and enthusiastic about the experiment. Though there was the occasional suspicions, most of the women readily accepted the gifts and the invitations. The men, on the other hand, were more on the defensive side. Most would hesitate to accept the gifts that were given and some would actually redirect the invitation to a different person (i.e if the guy was walking with a girl he would say ‘maybe you should give it to her, she would like to be your valentine).

A lot of the subjects would also give out a neutral response like saying thank you, not rejecting nor rejecting the invitation, simply thanking. The reason why we received these reactions was probably due to the fact that none of the subjects wanted to offend us in any way. So in return, a thank you is given.

Gender was a big factor in why the people reacted the way they did. In cases such as the men reacting strangely to the women and the women readily accepting gifts from fellow females. Both genders showed the (general) reaction one usually sees and expects from a specific gender.

The reactions we received from the women happened, in our opinion, because they interpreted our actions as something in the lines of friendliness with no emotions attached especially if it was a girl experimenter asking the girl experimentee. The reactions we received from the men on the other hand might’ve turned out that way because the men saw other implications such as possible romantic feelings or underlying intentions like a prank and such. Another reason with relation to this, might be because men in general are used to being the ones who would give the gifts and not receive them, especially from somebody of the opposite gender.

The factor of immediate circumstance or situation also played its part in their reactions as several of the subjects tended to reject the offers if they were running late for a class of if they had to rush to do or finish something. Most reacted the way they did because they were conscious of the observers and of the suspicion of the presence of a camera. If they notice a camera filming them, most would generally turn out to be more compliant to the activity and accept the gifts and invitation more.

The case of social class also appeared in the scene where our male group mate asked the lady behind the cashier in the LS bookstore to accept his gift. Because of where she was situated, she didn’t have the option of moving out or escaping the offer. And because she was in a certain social position, being a person who worked behind the cashier, she had to respect our group mate because he was a customer in the bookstore.

The consensus of the group was that there was a certain form of hesitancy involved when we did this experiment. When it started out, it felt strange to deviate from the norms as we aren’t usually used to the idea of stepping out of what is considered ‘normal’.

Hesitancy was present also because of the location where we decided to do the activity. Because we did them in open spaces, the activity was prone to a lot of observers giving both the subject and experimenter a slight sense of discomfort.

Aside from gender, it seemed that time was also a factor in how they react. For one of the people experimented, it was at least five to ten minutes before the first bell rang. The experimentee, a male, despite being approached by a female experimenter, showed obvious signs of disinterest and annoyance towards her, and went as far as to say that he was ‘going to be late for class’, even though the experimenter had acted all romantic just for him. Another example was another male experimentee who was with a group of girls outside of the new Rizal library. Initially, he didn’t want to hear what the experimenter (a female) had to say, and said they were ‘busy’, but after being insisted that it would only take a short while, he agreed, although reluctantly. Those who weren’t really doing anything agreed almost right away without making any excuse, while the two examples stated above, because they had a time constraint, tried to make an excuse so they wouldn’t be bothered.

Another thing we noticed was that the moment we, the experimenters, began executing the experiment, we started treating everyone as targets instead of students.

Roses and chocolates were given to the participants/subjects:

A BREACHING EXPERIMENT THAT HAS US JUST WANTING TO BE LOVED: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7wwXZSaR3s