SA21B - "Is This Seat Taken?" by The Breakfast Club

Sheanne Cabantac  

Ezekiel Lagmay

Marcail Ngochua

Ashley Policarpio
Soo Kyung Song
Mica Tandoc

The Breakfast Club

Watch the video here: https://www.facebook.com/ashfranpolicarpio/videos/1738462206436974/

Breaching Experiment Discussions

1. What norm did you violate?

Fast-food restaurants are often crowded with all types of people. Some eat alone and others prefer to be with their friends or family. It has become a norm that every party, whether single-member or multiple-member, occupy a table and reserve it as theirs as they dine. Although the table is considered to be public property and is legally open for others, each party normally separates themselves from others by occupying different areas.

We deviated from such a norm by having representatives from our group occupy these “taken” tables. As each representative sat on tables at fast-food restaurants, they deviated from the norm of the sense of ownership of public property.

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

The breaching experiment involved one representative in each trial. Each representative was tasked to sit in occupied areas for one minute or more, depending on the reaction of the party involved. There were 8 successful trials in total, involving 12 individuals.

Each representative was tasked to be silent as they began the trial, offering no words to the party as they sit down. No representative asked permission, nor did they offer any greeting to the party. They just sat on the tables as one would normally sit if it were unoccupied. They also had food with them so they could eat as one would normally eat in any restaurant.

For the sake of consistency, the group decided to hold every experiment in fast-food chains. This specific experiment was held in McDonald’s and Jollibee along Southbound, Katipunan. The group also chose these places because they are highly populated with people from different walks of life, thus it was possible to gather reactions from varying types of people.

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 their reactions? Did the deviant act re-affirm/reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?

The reactions of the parties involved:

1. All parties involved in the experiment displayed a surprised reaction as the representative sat in their area.
2. Around 6 out of 8 parties repeatedly glared at the representative in trial.
3. No one asked any person to leave the table nor did they directly confront the representative as they sat down.
4. One table (with a group of friends) insisted that the representative can stay as he was about to leave the table.
5. Some parties even moved their things away so that the representative could sit next to them, despite the obvious shock and confusion in their expressions.

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.). [You could design the experiment based on these sociological themes. For example, you could compare reactions according to gender, social class, etc. That would be more interesting - and might obtain a better grade! :)].

The main goal of the breaching experiment was to see if there were any specific groups of people that reacted differently than others. What were noted were the following:

1. Varying genders, age, and social class had the exact same reaction.
2. When people were sitting in groups, they were less interested in the representative as they were more involved in their discussions.
3. For the Atenean subjects (the ones wearing ADMU ID and lanyards), their reactions were consistent as not one of them kicked us out of their tables despite the fact that there were vacant tables around. This can be attributed to the what the university teaches and what it envisions itself to be which is shaping men and women for others. This may have played a role as to how they have reacted since the university emphasizes the value of putting others first before yourself through its core curriculum.

Due to the similarity of their responses, the group connected their reactions to the two things every party had in common: they were Filipino and they were eating.

Accodring to “Five eating habits of filipinos” (http://philnews.ph/2013/10/22/five-5-eating-habits-of-filipinos/), Filipinos tend to be very social when it comes to eating. This could explain why most representatives were not asked to leave and why there was even a group of friends who insisted that one representative could stay.

Additionally, it is highly observed that Filipinos value hospitality. Usually, when Filipinos see hungry strangers they would invite them to come and eat with them. (http://www.foodwine.com/destinations/philippines/phileat.html) Filipinos have an open-arm mentality which manifested in the way the subjects in the experiment reacted. It is a common value among Filipinos that when a guest is present, they should do whatever it takes to make them comfortable and satisfied.

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

There were mixed reactions from different representatives. Some enjoyed it, while others despised the feeling and thought that doing the experiment made them very anxious about what people would think of them. It took a while before they could psych themselves up to sit in another person's table.

“There's a bit of an adrenaline rush after doing the experiment but the anxiety comes back in time for when I had to do the experiment again. I didn't feel happy about deviating from the norm but there's something about it that's freeing. I was hesitant to do the activity but after the whole experiment, it would be nice to try deviating from another norm to see more kinds of reactions.”

• A representative’s insights

“I really enjoyed doing the experiment (in fact, whenever I have the chance to deviate from a norm such that it won’t violate laws, I would pull it off). It was a very pleasant experience, and no matter what others view my deviant act, I would take their reactions as fun and amusing as the main objective was really to observe other’s reactions to the violation of a norm. In short, I wasn’t really hesitant to do the breaching experiment after all.”

• A representative's insights

“Talking about it breaching a norm and actually doing it are two extremely opposite acts since talking about deviating was very easy while actually doing it was very hard. I couldn’t find it in me to muster the courage to do it so I had to ask someone else to do it for me and even at that point I could feel the shame the person I asked was feeling when he did the experiment. At the same time, filming the experiment from afar was actually hilarious because of that-could-have-been-me-but-no feeling. The experiment made me realize the gravity of how social norms impact how people act daily and how it shapes our decisions.”

• A representative’s insights

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

The group members do not often breach norms, and when tasked to do so, the majority felt uncomfortable and uneasy. Perhaps it is because there is a sense of worry about shame or embarrassment that comes with norm-breaching, or perhaps it is because once someone breaches a norm there is a lessened sense of belonging in the given area. The deviance of norms is really not for everyone.

It is interesting to know how it feels to deliberately breach a norm because then the effect of norms on people becomes very evident. One simple act of sitting in a public area becomes seemingly impossible, simply because it is not commonly done. The representatives felt embarrassment, anxiety, and shame, but they also said it was freeing to breach the norm.

SA21 L: Breaching Experiment: Violation of Personal Space & Dating Process

Violation of Personal Space & Dating Process

Giuseppe Lat Joanna Chong Brandon Singson CJ Villaester Troy Devera Eunice Cheng Angela de la Rama

1. What norm did you violate?    

The norm we violated in this breaching experiment is the concept of “hiya” and personal space. People do not usually talk to strangers except for needed circumstances such as asking for directions or buying something. Moreover a stranger does not come into close contact, like centimeters away from a person. However, in our experiment, we straight out talked to the person, came at a close distance and began flirting with them. Aside from this, we violated the norms of the steps in the dating cycle. One does not just walk to a stranger, flirt, and say I love you to them. They usually go through the cycle first of getting to know someone, flirting, courting, etc. which could take a long period of time before they reach that certain stage of bond, so it was quite interesting to witness the reactions when we skipped the whole process.

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

In this breaching experiment, a member of the group will approach a random stranger who is sitting alone. Then he/she will initiate a conversation by flirting with them. Examples of mentioned flirting are pick-up lines and giving the respondents compliments. After complimenting them, the member will then say “I love you” or ask for their phone numbers. This activity was done in multiple places. These are at Gateway food court and Starbucks, at Mall of Asia, and at the Ateneo de Manila 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 reaffirm/ reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?

From the 13 strangers that we have spoken to, these are the summarized reactions that we have gotten:

Male to Female ( Age 16-20)

Female respondents of this age group smiled, looked away, or asked if any event is happening to why the breaching experiment occurred. There was also an instance wherein the respondent thought it was a dare.They were more kind and accepting compared to other respondents.

Male to Female ( Age 30)

The female respondent of this age group looked mad and had a face of contempt. She felt offended after our member said his pick-up line.  

Female to Male (  Age 20-30)

Male respondents of this age group reacted by staring blankly, becoming doubtful and hesitant and asking us to repeat our statements. They had shocked face to their faces and thought it was weird for students our age to be telling them such statements.  

Male to Male ( Age 18-20)

The male respondent reacted by getting angry and looking away. Our member has said that he felt a sense of resentment and that the respondent might have wanted to punch him.

Female to Female ( Age 16-25)

Female respondents of this age group reacted by being considerate, smiling, and just going with the flow of the conversation. One has said that she thought we were advertising something.

We expected people to be surprised or confused because approaching someone and saying “I love you” or other words of affection seem out of the bue and out of context when you’re in a mall. You wouldn’t really observe people approaching other people and telling them these kinds of stuff

Why the test subjects acted this way may have already been caused by sociological factors such as age, gender, social class in such a way that the subjects' reactions appeared to have been consistent with their social group. These reactions all but not reaffirm already existing norms such as how for a Catholic country such as the Philippines, could have it's citizens, Filipinos, react .

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.). [You could design the experiment based on these sociological themes. For example, you could compare reactions according to gender, social class, etc. That would more interesting--and might obtain a better grade! :)]

According to Social Context (Perception of Space in which the Experiment was done):

The researchers observed the difference of conducting the experiment in a crowded and loud place like the Food Court and a private and quiet place like Starbucks. We can say that the perceptions of our subjects about the area and what we should do in such areas affected our results. For example, we got an abrupt but confused reaction from a Food Court subject’s face as the subject is also making sense of what we are doing, with the perception that the Food Court is a place for eating and not for flirting. This resulted to confused and annoyed reactions. Moreover, when our female researchers flirted with our female subjects asking if they can be together romantically, the subjects unintentionally got the wrong meaning and thought that the female researchers were asking to share the table and be seatmates instead. On the other hand for our Starbuck’s subjects, since Starbucks is a quiet cafe to do personal matters (mostly reading, working and studying), we were able to get slower but clearer reactions from them. Since our subject’s perception of a cafe is very intimate and private, upon doing the experiment our subjects were more shocked and surprised. There were less distractions and the subject was able to fully experience the effect of saying “I love you” from the opposite sex, even asking to repeat the words and clarify what we just said.

According to Gender & Age (Treatment towards Male and Female Researchers)

The researchers observed that there was a variation or degree of politeness between our male and female researchers from our respondents depending on their age and gender. For our male researchers towards older female subjects & female researchers towards older male subjects, the respondents already knew not to take the experiment seriously. The subjects were well aware of their position of being older that is why they were able to directly ask if the experiment was a dare or joke, get pissed off or be ideally polite towards one’s juniors. However for our male researchers towards younger female subjects, the respondents were more polite and shy even using ‘po’ and ‘opo.’

However, when asking the same gender, we have gotten various reactions. Male researches were treated badly and scolded by the respondent. One case was when one of our male researchers asked an older man. Being older and following the norms of heterosexuality, he got angry. Our researcher has even said that he felt the vibes that the respondent wanted to punch him. Our females, however, were treated kindly by the same gender. They were polite and just went with the flow of events. All 3 respondents had done the same reaction and just went with the flow.    

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?

When doing the experiment, our group was very embarrassed because we were scared of what people might think. We kept on saying, “I’m never going here ever again” or “I’m starting to regret this.” We thought that this breaching experiment will be ingrained into the minds of the respondents we will be doing it to and we will be thought of as “weird” or “abnormal”. It felt like we were losing our connection to the norms that we have followed since we were born, like we were going out into a completely new world. ( In SA, it might be going to another system. )However, after doing the activity, we laughed together from the various reactions of the respondents because though we expected some of their reactions, we never expected the other reactions.

When deviating from the norms, we felt a little nervous because we thought that we were not going with the flow of the system, making us more noticeable and making people stare at us weirdly since what we were doing something not perceived as normal by society. It was hard to do at first because we have been used to following certain norms and deviating from it feels like not being ourselves, because it’s kind of like a part of who we are. However, after going through the experiment multiple times, it made us feel somewhat satisfied and fulfilled because we found out that there are some patterns to the reactions we have gotten depending on several factors/themes.    

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

The reactions of the strangers will depend largely on several factors. From our breaching statement, there are about 3-4 factors. These are Gender, Age, Social Context, and perhaps even we researchers ourselves. Our facial expressions and possibly the researchers’ physical appearance may have affected the reactions of the respondents by making them think if we were serious or not.  Other people also may have noticed a pattern with what we were doing if we have been there for a very long time (e.g., going around the place, approaching people who were alone).

            

           The breaching experiments being conducted in several locations allowed the varying reactions among test subjects to become more obvious as a slight trend in the reactions among social classes was noticed. Most test subjects seemed to have had a hostile reaction towards the researches conducting the observation and some subjects having been skeptical, predicted  that it was an experiment or dare all along thus making the subject compromised.

Breaching Experiment Report

SA 21 - L
Jose Anadia                                                                                                                    

Leivanne Delos Santos

Gian Glorioso

Marielle Impuerto

Michelle Malata

Kiara Sonza

Breaching Experiment Report-- Free High Fives

1.    What norm did you violate?

●     We deviated from the norm that everyone has personal space and privacy. To be more specific, the norm is that we only high-five our friends and people we agree with.

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

●     We high-fived strangers from different age groups and genders, but we preferred to approach strangers . We did this by walking in UP Town Center, approached 12 strangers and said “High-five!” while doing the “Give me a high five” hand signal.

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 reaffirm/reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?

●     Some of them smiled and high-fived us but there were also strangers who just high-fived us without smiling. The others just stared at us and looked at us in a way that made us think that what we were doing was really weird. We think that those who high-fived us are actually aware of what a high-five is, whereas those who rejected our high-five probably don’t know what it is.

●     Yes, the deviant act reaffirmed the existing norms since not everyone high-fived us. Those who didn’t give us a high five probably felt that we should not have crossed the boundary of their own personal space.

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 and poor), values/beliefs of institutions( religion, family, peer group, etc.) You could design the experiment based on these sociological themes. For example, you could compare reactions according to gender, social class, etc. That would be more interesting-- and might obtain a better grade! :)

●     Aside from the norms, we think that age is a sociological theme that we should consider in this breaching experiment. Among all the people whom we approached for “high-fives”, only two people rejected us, and these two people are probably in their 20s. Considering their age, we think that it has some effect on how open they were with regards to other people suddenly occupying their personal space for a “high-five”. With kids and younger teens (probably around 10 to 15 years old), they are a bit more carefree and would probably find it funny if people suddenly ask them for a “high-five”. Similarly, for not-so-old (30 to 40 years old) and really old people (40 and above), they’re way of thinking is a bit more mature and hence, would probably not mind if people suddenly invade their personal space for a while for a “high-five”. However, for those who are still in college, new graduates, and newly employed people (15 to 25 years old), they might be a bit more guarded and hostile against strangers asking for “high-fives” for fear that these people might be playing a prank or a power trip on them. This may be attributed to the social context inside an educational institution (which they were recently a part of), where bullies would prank other students for fun and where conformity among peers is imminent and being different would reward one with embarrassment. Due to this, people with ages 15 to 25 years old might be on guard against opportunities where other people can invade their personal space, such as random “high-fives” from strangers.

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?

●     At first, it felt like it would be so weird to do it. The group was hesitant to do the activity. We actually spent a few minutes walking around before having the courage to start the experiment. We decided that only one person will do it and the others would document and observe. During the experiment, it was difficult to just come up to the person and ask a high-five from them. Usually, we would check the person out from afar before approaching them to evaluate if the person’s hand was free, wasn’t distracted by something else, or wasn’t with anyone. When approaching them, it was nerve-wracking because we didn’t know the person and we don’t know how they would respond. But the moment they respond, it was uplifting to get a high five from them. The two however who didn’t respond felt really awkward because they would just stare and ignore. 

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

●     The difficulty we experienced during the breaching experiment just goes to show that it takes a lot to challenge and break the norms. Seeing what we did seemed like an easy and simple task. But given the context, I think doing it was not at all comfortable. It is interesting to think how light we think of not wearing an I.D., jaywalking, or throwing a candy wrapper on the streets, when they are actual rules written to be followed. It is interesting how deviance proves to be more powerful in terms of capturing the people’s obedience. Although it is not said, it is still natural for us to hesitate and doubt when disobeying the norms. I think this lies heavily in the response we’ll get. Not following some rules and laws will lead to simple warnings and sanctions. However, furthering away from norms would automatically entail judgment and negative perceptions from others. Knowing this would also explain which people prioritize, in general.

Here's a compilation of a few videos from our breaching experiment: https://youtu.be/zJ50EbS3_SA

SA 21 - L Breaching Experiment

SA 21 - L Breaching Experiment
Random High Fives
Dellosa, Kiu, Mayo, Perez, Umandap

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1rkIhPDwXM

1. What norm did you violate?

-          The norm that we violated was the norm that you can't just randomly ask strangers in public places for high fives or signs of friendship or acquaintance. 

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

-         The breaching experiment we did was we had to ask random strangers on the streets, tricycle stations, and in the mall for high fives. First, we would walk down to our "victims" in a casual way with a camera behind us. Then, as we would pass by them, we would casually ask for a high fives in order to make it seem like we do know those strangers. After seeing their reaction, we would casually walk away or make it clear to them that it is just an experiment. We would repeat this multiple times with different people asking for high fives to make it less suspicious. We would do this activity until we get a sufficient amount of responses from these people. In addition, we did this experiment for multiple and various types of people in different places to see the differences in their reactions.

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?

-         We observed that everyone would start out as being shocked, surprised, or have a bit of a weird feeling when we approached them and asked for a high five. Although, we observed that the people in the streets were more open to accepting these requests while the people in UP Town Center were more reluctant into accepting the high five request. As a result, their "surprised" or "shocked" reaction showed that there is a norm that you cannot just ask random strangers for these physical signs of friendship or acquaintance. 

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, social class, values and beliefs of institutions?

-         Social Class plays an important role in their reactions. We observed this because people who are in the lower class tend to be more open to the request. This is probably due to the fact that they do not have a “snobbish type of attitude. Also, the place might also come into factor because these lower class people also stay in a lower type of area which makes it easier for them to accept the request and be a little informal. In addition, higher class people are more reluctant to accept because they manifest the higher class type of attitude. They are more reluctant to talk to strangers because it would cause them to step out of the formal comfort zone. As a result, social class plays in important role due to the way of thinking of these people based on their beliefs against strangers.

-         Gender also plays an important role because we observed that most women would be reluctant to accept the request especially if it was a man who was asking for a high five. This is probably due to the fact that men may be perceived as a threat or someone who may be planning something that could cause harm to them. In addition, we observed that men are more open to accepting because they do not feel threatened as much even if it as a man who is also asking for the high five. As a result, gender plays an important role because it helps shape the way of thinking these people have against the random strangers who are asking for high fives.

-         People’s different values also have a role in their reactions. This is because we observed that people who have more conservative values in public places tend to be more reluctant to accept the high five request. Also, people who seem to have less conservative values tend to accept the request more. As a result, the different values people have towards strangers in public place play an important role because they help in determining their 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?

-         We felt awkward and extremely hesitant to do this activity because it would be weird to go against the social norms. Also, we thought of what these people would think of us after we conduct this experiment because it wouldn’t be what people perceive as normal. In addition, we also felt reluctant to do this experiment because it would force us to step out of the comfort zones that the social norms provide. Although this experiment was hard at first, it was extremely fulfilling to see and analyze how these people would react to our deviance to these social norms.

-         Deviating from the norms felt a bit disturbing at first. Also, the norms that we deviated from involved interaction with random people in these public places. In addition, it also felt awkward whenever these people would look at us in a different way. This is probably due to the fact that we were going against these social norms and thus, were not doing something that was perceived as normal. As a result, deviating from the social norms is not something that is easy to do because of all the reactions that you may get from the people.

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

-         We also observed that people who are in groups may be more open to accepting the request. This might be due to the fact that being in a group gives them a sense of security and thus, allows them to have a greater chance of accepting the request.

-         The type of place could also play a factor in their reactions. This is because we observed that people who are in less sophisticated places seem to be more open to accept the request. Also, people who are in more sophisticated places (e.g. UP Town Center) seem to be more reluctant because these people are also most probably higher class people. As a result, these place also tend to have an effect on the reactions of people because of the type of people mostly present in these types of locations.

Coe and Physics (CoePhy)

Group Name: Coe and Physics (CoePhy)

Group Members: Shawn Gabriele Cabanes, Stephen Ramos, Sean Im, Julius Ray Guillermo, Christopher Klausner

Breaching Experiment Write-up:

Link to Youtube video: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oks2bhTNeYA&feature=youtu.be

Breaching Experiment # 1: Laglag Grocery Goods.

1. What norm did you you violate?

• The recognition of private and or claimed property. In our case, store goods claimed as property, even before purchase, by shoppers as indicated by the placement inside their grocery cart/basket.

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

• In this breaching experiment, we deviated from the norm of private claimed property within a supermarket setup by placing random store goods into someone else’s basket. Performed in different stores along Katipunan Avenue, our group was able to successfully perform the experiment for 8 instances on a variety of individuals. The first of whom was a young man shopping in Rustan’s who claimed to be a student of another university. Initially after picking him our first target, our group was hesitant and unsure as how to engage and follow through with the person and so we huddled awkwardly and noticeably as a group before being able to approach. In due time, our point person, Sean Im, followed by another member carrying a concealed phone camera, went near our target and plainly placed a potato in his basket. This resulted with Sean and the shopper meeting eye to eye before the shopper decided to give back the potato. With such, our group repeated this type of sequence with progressive variation as we went by and was able to collect similar yet varied responses.

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 reaffirm/reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?

• During the execution of the breaching experiment, the researchers have observed different reactions. Specifically, the first experimentee did not react at all because he was certain that there was an experiment on going by our actions out of norm. However, most of the experimentees felt weird and shocked from the experiment. It differs in intensity but the reactions are all caused by the action of intruding personal property. These reactions proved the norm of respecting private space and property of individuals.
• We were not able to execute the experiment on some of the citizens because they immediately ran away as soon as the researcher approached their cart. Some of the experimentees also refused the interview after the experiment because they thought that the researchers were a group of snatchers. It shows that approaching strangers without consent of the other is also a form of violating the norm of the society.

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), or social class (norms of the rich & poor)?

• Based from the experiments conducted we noticed that some men simply carried on what they were doing and just accepted the object we placed in their basket or push cart, while the women that were a part of our breaching experiment reacted immediately as soon as the object was placed in their basket or push cart. However, we have to take into consideration the object that was placed in their baskets or push carts. For the males, we placed a potato for two male experimentees, and a bitter gourd for the other two males. For the women experimentees, we placed a potato for one female, a squash for two females, a honey dew for one female. We might suggest that these vegetables had an effect on the people’s reactions since some may have considered the object, that we placed, quite strange, while the others might have needed the object that we placed in their basket or push cart.
• As for the shopper who immediately evaded us and left the supermarket, she is able to show how her background influences her perceptions and actions towards us. The person can be viewed to be not part of the welloff customers inside that supermarket and therefore, as interpreted by our members, more knowledgeable and or exposed to modus operandis that may occur in any public space. Her evasion can be interpreted as an act of protecting herself by immediately trying to eject herself from a potentially dangerous situation that poses a threat to her safety and security.
• There were also instances where the responses of some shoppers were influenced by their intuition that something was amiss and that he or she was being subjected to an prank or experiment. This can be viewed as an outside influence, possibly from prior knowledge about psychology or sociology experiments conducted in locations near universities; especially along Katipunan Avenue, a road connecting the University of the Philippines and the Ateneo de Manila University.

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?

• At the first attempt, the researcher was extremely hesitant to execute the experiment due to embarrassment. After the first experiment, the researcher felt guilty, shy, and regretful. However, after numerous experiment, the experimenter enjoyed the activity. It was fun not because of the confused and shocked reaction from the experimentee but it was enjoyable because of the feeling being freed from the fixed and concrete norm of the society.
• There was also a feeling of being afraid of what might happen during or after an experiment. For example, as one of our point persons was about to approach a potential target, he noticed how seemingly upset the person was and therefore avoided the encounter entirely. This stems from the idea that we were only doing a social experiment and still have to somehow respect the personal right to space of an individual.

Breaching Experiment # 2: Banana-Selfie

1. What norm did you you violate?

• People are not supposed to interact with strangers moreover, take a photo with them. We also violated the norm of how selfies are supposed to be taken. Selfies should be taken using a camera or even a cellular phone, but instead we violated this norm by using a banana as the object to take the photo and we treated the banana like a legitimate camera or cellular phone.

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

• The breaching experiment was done at a bench in the Zen Garden. The researchers waited for a student or faculty to pass by and asked permission whether they can take a selfie together. If the experimentee accepted the favor, the researchers posed in preparation of taking a selfie together, but a banana was used to take the selfie as if the banana was an actual camera or mobile phone. The video of the breaching experiment was taken about 10 meters away to get the natural reaction of the experimentee. Specifically, the researchers have recorded 8 respondents to the experiments including one student who declined the selfie. Other seven respondents were kind to accept our favor and to laugh during the execution. Thus, this breaching experiment was much easier work to do than the previous breaching experiment.     

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

• During the experiment the researchers observed the same reaction of people being very surprised. When we first asked them to take a selfie, most people were hesitant in taking the selfie, and one person just walked away when we asked for one. Once we pulled out the banana and lifted it up in the air and in front of our faces, people laughed, questioned what on earth was happening, and even starred at the researchers in a very judgemental way.
• After the experiment the researchers noticed that the experimentees walked away immediately, maybe to just escape the weirdness that they had just experienced. Some people also just laughed or giggled after walking away because of the utter unusual selfie experience they had just experienced.

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 & poor)

• We noticed after the experiment that all of the male representatives that were part of the experiment were willing to take a selfie with us while females were a little bit hesitant. Given that we were all guys we think that this is a factor of this reaction from the females. One female even denied the offer to take selfie and quickly walked away. On the other hand, males were relaxed and more open to the thought of taking a selfie.

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?

• During the experiment proper, we felt nervous because this experiment forced us to talk random strangers into taking a selfie with us. When we sat on the bench waiting for people to pass by, at first we were too nervous and shy to ask the people walking past us, but eventually we just did it and asked the people. Once that part was done, it was fairly easy asking them to pose for the selfie and taking out the banana was no problem at all since we wanted to see their reactions. After the selfie we just thanked them and watch them walk away from  the weirdness they had just taken part in.