Under the Umbrella with a Stranger - CGMSL's Breaching Experiment

1. What norm did you violate?

            The norm that our group violated is randomly interacting with a stranger, treating them like someone you know. People do not usually interact randomly with people they do not know because it is a norm not to talk, offer something, and whatnot to people you are not acquainted with.

2. Describe the breaching experiment in detail. What was the activity? Where did you do it?

            The breaching experiment that the experimenters conducted is randomly shading a pedestrian under an umbrella and saying random things or singing to him/her. The group is composed of five members, and a specific task was assigned to each member such as taking a video of the back and front angles of the breaching experiment, holding the umbrella, and explaining the purpose of the experiment at the end of it. The experimenters did it at different locations along Katipunan avenue, and a few in a state university.

3. What were the different reactions of the people? List all possible reactions you observed. Why do you think they reacted this way? What caused these reactions? Did the deviant act re-affirm/reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions? 

Here are some of the reactions of the people who underwent the experiment:

a. “What are you doing?” – The person (guy) was annoyed. He reacted this way because he was bothered by the experimenter who randomly shaded him under an umbrella.

b. “Okay” – The girl did not have a violent reaction about it and just smiled, but the weirdness of the situation was very apparent in her reaction. He did not mind the experimenter until the purpose of the experiment was revealed. She was nice to the experimenter, maybe because the experimenter was also doing her a favor.

c. The person just talked to the experimenter. He smiled at the experimenter after and even thanked him for shading him under his umbrella. It seems like he was not bothered by the breaching experiment.

d. The person was trying to stay away from the experimenter, given the oddity of his behavior because of the breaching experiment. It was very obvious that she was avoiding the experimenter. Based on her reaction, we think that she wanted to stay away from the experimenter because she doesn’t know the experimenter and it was “weird” to do that act to a person you do not know.

e. The person did not react. She just continued walking normally as if no one was shading her under an umbrella. We think that this was her reaction (having no reaction is also a “reaction” per se) because she is used to an environment where people do whatever they want to do. (The experiment was done in a school with students who are known to be very liberated.)

            In general, most of the reactions re-affirmed the existing norm that the deviance activity violated. Randomly interacting with a stranger by shading him/her under an umbrella is still “odd” and “weird” for most people in the context of the Filipino society, considering that it is a norm not to randomly interact with a person you do not know.

4. Aside from the norms, what sociological themes are at play for people to react in a certain way? Is it a function of gender (gender norms, roles), social class (norms of the rich & the poor), values/beliefs of institutions (religion, family, peer group, etc.).

            The apparent sociological themes that were at play for people to react on the breaching experiment that we conducted are gender and social class (assumed based on the location of the experiment.) For the first person who underwent the experiment, he showed his being “bothered” by the situation, and thus he asked the experimenter what he is doing. His facial expression displayed that he was uncomfortable with what the experimenter was doing. He directly expressed his thoughts to the experimenter. He is a guy who can be said as a person of a high social class because of the way he spoke, dressed up, and acted.

            On the other hand, the female respondents, though having different ways of reacting on the situation, showed subtle reactions. The second, fourth, and fifth respondents did not show “violent” reactions but their actions depicted them seeing the situation as weird or odd.

            The way of reacting on a specific deviant act also varies with gender. The male respondent (first) directly expressed his discomfort with the situation. In fact, the experimenters were somehow alarmed by this because they thought that there will be problems with the aforementioned respondent. Even more interesting, the female respondents (second, fourth and fifth) stayed calm as much as possible and most of them were nice to the experimenter, although their discomfort with the situation can be seen. It can be concluded based on the experiment that males can be more direct when it comes to dealing with deviant acts than females, which gave subtle reactions in the experiment.

Another interesting angle to look at is the difference of the reactions of the first and fourth respondents and the fifth respondent. The first and fourth respondents are of “higher” social class, the first dressing up, talking, and acting as someone who is of a high social class, and the fourth being a student in Ateneo de Manila University. They both showed their discomfort with the situation right away, displaying their desire to avoid and to stop the experimenter from what he/she was doing. The fifth respondent, on the contrary, coming from a state university, did not mind the experimenter, and was even smiling during the experiment.

            With the stated observations, it can be said that there might be a difference on how a person of a “higher” social class reacts on a specific deviant act and how a person of a “lower” class reacts on it. Based on the breaching experiment, the people described as of “high” social class did not like what the experimenter did to them, that is, randomly shading them under an umbrella. Meanwhile, the person that is assumed to be of “lower” social class accepted the situation, and did not show any negative reactions. 

5. How did you feel when you did this experiment? How does it feel to deviate from the norms? Were you hesitant to do the activity?

Most of us were excited yet hesitant to do the activity. We were a bit nervous about how the people would respond to our experiment and whether these reactions will turn out to be good or bad. Deviating from the norms by sharing an umbrella with strangers brought a certain thrill to all of us, most especially to our two hands-on members. It was very interesting, however, to discover the different reactions the people created throughout our experiment. Another thing that interested us was how different a person's actual reaction is from how you expect it to be based on their physical appearance. For example, there was this guy who looked a bit angry while we were conducting the experiment, but he turned out to be just truly weirded out with what had just occurred. 

6. Other observations and analysis that you may have on the activity and on deviance in general. 

            The most significant thing we discovered is that if one does not act how a person would normally act, even if the person’s doing a good deed, he would be treated as a deviant or a threat.

Experiment by CGMSL (Cabug, Gutierrez, Malabanan, Santos, Llaneta)

Video by Ella Gutierrez