Kids for a Day

Breaching Experiment by:

Maynard Joshua Alanano,Kyra Isabel Miguel, Maria Isabela Mosquera

SA21-C

1) What norm did you violate?

We tried to violate the norm of making too much noise when outside in public, as it is often deemed shameful or “nakakahiya” to be noisy and attract the attention of the people in a public area as per our culture in the Philippines. We also violated the norm that young adults shouldn’t be playing games like nanay-tatay in public, as playing these kind of games are labelled as games that children play.

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

We as a group decided to play nanay tatay in front of the entrance and in the middle of the establishment where the guard and the patrons can see us clearly. We went to two different establishments, namely Starbucks and Jollibee.

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?

• STARBUCKS

The patrons were surprisingly not bothered by us at all. Some were staring at us as we went about the experiment, but other than that most, if not all, of them had blank faces. We were honestly expecting the guard to at least tell us to quiet down, but all he did was walk by us and he looked like he didn’t even mind us. We think that we got these reactions (or non-reactions) because people were busy doing their own stuff since it is finals week.  Since there was really no reaction to base it on, we personally thought that it did because of how we felt about the experiment. As was said we felt a certain type of shame as we were doing the experiment which actually shows us that we are deviating from a social norm.

• JOLLIBEE

The reactions were not all that different from that of Starbucks patrons. We received

more stares from the patrons and even some employees but that’s all they did, one girl was even seen turning her head to get a better look at who was making the noise. In the end the security guard approached our member who was holding the camera saying that it was okay to film but taking a video which would have the menu on film was prohibited, in the end he was only concerned that the filming was including the menu.

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! :)]

Gender did not play a big role in the experiment. We were actually hoping that social class would in a way play a role. Being that most Starbucks has a certain stigma of being a “sosyal” place and Jollibee having been a symbol for common filipino folk. although reactions from the patrons of both establishment were the same. We also hoped that beliefs of institutions would play a big role in the experiment. We were expecting to get more judgemental stares from patrons at Starbucks being that people go there to study or have casual office meetings. We were expecting for Jollibee patrons to stare but not really mind being that this is a family appropriate establishment where children play, but us being 18 year olds playing “nanay-tatay” we still got blank stare 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 like we were going to get scolded for making a lot of noise and people within that space would judge us outright. We were scared that our experiment won’t have the effect that we wanted it to have.As a group, we were hesitant to do it since there would be people who would stare at us and judge us. In the end we gathered our courage and decided to be shameless to finish the requirement. It was funny because we were doing something out of the blue and random in a public place.
6) Other observations and analysis that you may have on the activity and on deviance in general

We noticed that people would just look and not do anything. What we were doing might not be of the norms but the people ignored it since it did not bother them directly. Most of the people were too busy with their activities to notice us. In Starbucks and Jollibee, the guards either looked at us or just ignored us which shows that they would rather not disturb our game since one of our groupmates bought food. The act of buying food might have an effect to the way people treated us in the restaurants and/or the coffee shops. 

Camping Out (by 6+1+1)

Camping Out SA21

Getting Intimate - SA 21 B Da Silva, Marcelo, Sy, Tateno

Getting Intimate

Ysa Da Silva, Anna Marcelo, Regine Sy, Maho Tateno

_________________

1. What norm did you violate?

When approaching strangers, the norm in society is for us to be very formal and polite. Normally when asking questions or for help, you do not request for too much because you do not know the person very well. In this, there is respect for the person’s personal space and privacy, as well as for the time they are giving you. Another norm in society is for intimate questions to be reserved for those you know intimately. When people are more comfortable with the person they are speaking with, it is easier to talk about more private, or even taboo topics. It could also be considered rude or awkward by someone you do not know to ask them to divulge a secret related to them when you do not have any experience with them.

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

For the experiment, the group approached different strangers in UPTC and the UP Shopping Center under the guise of asking them for some assistance. When the people agreed, the group would then ask them an intimate question usually reserved for someone you would know better. Questions used were as follows: “Do you believe in God? Why?” “My boyfriend is cheating on me. What should I do?” “What kind of porn do you watch?” After being asked the question, their reactions were observed and analyzed.

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

• “Do you believe in God? Why?””
• Most of the respondents had no violent reactions and merely answered with a calm affirmative. When asked why, they gave serious answers. One of the respondents dismissed the interviewer upon hearing the question. We believe this is because the respondent thought we were trying to convert her. This shows how religion is an important value in the Philippines, as the question is responded to in a serious manner. Questions regarding this religion affirmed the religious norms in our country.
• “My boyfriend is cheating on me. What should I do?”
• Most respondents were confused and a little uncomfortable with the question. One of the respondents was first eager to help (even taking off his glasses), but when he heard the question he quickly switched to speaking in Filipino and said that he was late for work. They reacted like this because it is a question concerning a personal problem that you wouldn’t normally talk to strangers about. This affirms that there is a norm of dealing with your problems or divulging them among your social circle than a stranger.
• For the question about porn preference
• Most were shocked and some were even offended. Their reactions were warranted because we live in a dominantly Christian society where porn is considered as a topic not suited for polite company. Those in a group would try to pass the question to someone else. Another factor could be that the question was asked by a woman. In a very religious society, anything sexual is “wrong” and should not be brought up in public. It also reinforces the “kababaeng tao mo” concept where girls should not know about, much less address, anything crude or sexual (like porn) in 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), social class (norms of the rich and the poor), values/beliefs of institutions (religion, family, peer group, etc.).

After conducting the experiment, we have concluded that it is a combination of gender, social class, and the values and beliefs of institutions. During the process of approaching people, it seemed as though the respondents were more willing to talk to us because we were girls (i.e. less threatening). Furthermore, as stated before, the experiment revealed an unwillingness to accept that girls can also be knowledgeable in risqué topics. Social class also seemed to have an impact on the reactions. In UPTC, most of the respondents were open to the “scandalous” questions. This could be because the rich are more educated and have more experience regarding these matters. On the other hand, the people in UP Shopping Center were less reactive and more cautious of our questions. Their social class could contribute to their reaction because, typically, the people in the lower social class only get the barest minimum of education. This lack of education leads to a lack of understanding toward other cultures. As such, they are more prone to conservative views. Even the language we used (English) solicited reactions in itself - such as one person commenting, “Ang hirap sa English...” and another switching to Filipino after hearing the question. In addition, we had deliberately picked questions we assumed would get the most reactions. From our choices, it is evident that the more uncomfortable questions mostly revolve around the values and beliefs of an institutions.

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?

This experiment was an eye-opening experience because it showed which norms are being followed in the society we move in. Deviating from the norms was liberating but stressful. It felt satisfying to go against the dictates of society because there seems to be no logical reason for some of the norms we violated. Concurrently, deviating from the norms was difficult because the end result would always be sanctions. In some cases, sanctions would come in the form of hostility or plain anger. The kinder sanctions involved more nervous laughter or confusion on the part of the respondent. Prior to conducting the experiment, there was definitely some feelings of skepticism. There was an uncertainty with how people would react. However, after the initial interviews, deviating became easier and enjoyable.

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

What is considered as ‘Deviant’ varies according to the social background of the area. What’s considered abnormal to the norm changes in degrees according to social class, who says it, and even the status of religion in the area. It was seen as the reactions varied in  the different areas with how much it offended them. People in each area differ even from slight distance, making sociology interesting.

The group was composed of all females, and we wonder what would have changed if it had been males who had approached them under the guise of asking for help. Typically women attract more sympathy or are seen as gentle or even weaker by Philippine society. Especially if a man had asked for help regarding a cheating girlfriend, perhaps the reactions would have varied, been more blunt, or may have gone as far as getting pissed.

SA21 - C: Barefoot Social Breaching Experiment

Barnes, Kassandra

Borja, Segis

Chan, Jeamille

Chan, Queenie

Pepino, Chanel

Tagle, Aaron

Barefoot Social Breaching Experiment

1. What norm did you violate?

The group decided to violate the norm of wearing shoes when going out.

(c) Kassandra Barnes

Wearing shoes when going outside is a practice in most developed/developing societies with urban settings around the world, including the Philippines, and to not wear shoes while going outside would go against the normal way of life. The kind of footwear would depend on the individual's ability to purchase shoes and while the most common footwear for the middle to upper classes would be closed shoes, the lower classes are seen using slippers more commonly as they are much cheaper and easier to maintain compared to shoes. The need for footwear extends to all social classes, however there are cases where individuals could be seen without any footwear of any kind and these people are commonly perceived as the lowest in society.

(c) Queenie Chan 

These members of the lower social classes typically register either the image of a homeless person or one that has a mental handicap and therefore this contributes to the rejection of the idea of not wearing of shoes outside by the upper/middle classes. Aside from the idea of being associated with the lower classes, the environment in the Philippines is also a reason to wear shoes outside. First of all, the maintenance of civilian passages is very poor. It is very dirty along the streets of the country and with personal hygiene being a priority among the people, stepping on the ill-maintained streets and sidewalks would naturally be avoided. Secondly, while having open footwear like slippers would be the ideal in a tropical country, not having any protection from the ground during the day could lead to injury or major discomfort because of the high temperatures of paved surfaces. These factors then all contribute to the mindset that everyone must wear shoes when outside for the sake of comfort, protection, and maintaining a proper appearance in front of others.

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

For this experiment, a member, or the ‘deviant’, will walk around a mall barefoot for 20 minutes. The ‘deviant’ will be wearing casual clothes that one is normally expected to wear outside and not wearing shoes will be the only unusual aspect of their attire. They will then will visit at least five establishments (one of which will be a restaurant) while barefoot during the time allowed and the other members will observe the reactions of those around them regarding the member without any shoes. Should they be apprehended by mall security or approached by anyone regarding the lack of footwear, the member will simply tell the other person that they did not want to wear shoes. If this results in the member being escorted out of the premises, the experiment will end there and the other members will approach the individual, explaining the project. All observations will be reported to the group and compiled. In order to have more data, this experiment will be done twice in two different malls. Additionally, if time allows, the group may also include gender as one of the variables of the experiment and have one female and one male member go around a mall barefoot.

(c) Aaron Tagle

The group expects those going around the mall to be surprised by the group member’s lack of footwear and should they be with another person or group, they would most likely point it out to them. As for any security or mall authority that are able to see the member, they might approach them and ask about the member’s lack of footwear, and possibly ask them to leave the premises until they acquire shoes. The experiment was documented by videotaping the experiment as well as taking pictures with a camera. Another member made qualitative observations of the people from afar. Aside from the member without shoes, there will be two other members that will accompany them, one with a camera and one to take notes. They will stay around the member walking around the mall by either walking in the area or sitting somewhere as the member approaches.

On the one hand, the Eastwood Group walked barefoot in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th floors of the mall. The 2nd floor was crowded, with food stalls and kiosks selling Christmas and other holiday goods. They also passed by shoe stores in the 2nd floor, and then proceeded to the 3rd floor where more or less of the same things were being sold, with the exception of having better lighting there. After the 3rd floor, the group went up to the 4th floor where ‘high class’ establishments were found, such as Starbucks, Fully Booked, and a better food court. The cinema and grocery store was also located on this floor. On the other hand, the SM Sta. Mesa Group walked around different types of stores - the Cyber Zone (appliances and cellphones section), a clothing store, a bookstore, and by a children’s daycare center. Both groups roamed around different types of stores in their designated malls.

3. What were the different reactions of 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?

The Eastwood Group had some small reactions. Only some double takes by bystanders were shown, but none of absolute shock in the 2nd floor. More reactions were garnered when the group moved to the 3rd floor, with the better lighting. It helped that the 3rd floor was more crowded than the 2nd, receiving more reactions than when the group roamed around the 2nd floor.

Reactions were more animated in the experience of the SM Sta. Mesa Group. There were also some passersby who took double takes,  but when the deviant went inside a clothing store there was a girl happened to walk in at the same time, but quickly turned around when she saw that there was someone who was not wearing shoes. The observer then noticed that the girl had went back to her group of friends and they started pointing at the member who was not wearing shoes. There was also a saleslady who saw the member walking barefooted, and she quickly pointed it out to a fellow salesperson. This kind of reaction was usually seen more with females and this was because they were mostly in groups and so could share this unusual occurrence easier, unlike the male passersby who were mostly by themselves.  Furthermore, when the members passed by the children’s daycare center, there were more reactions garnered from the people in the area, such as a couple, and some of the parents and employees of the daycare center.  A possible explanation would be because parents wish to create safe environments for their children, not wishing to expose them to anything that is out of the norm. Thus, seeing someone walking barefoot surprised them, near a daycare center nevertheless may have been the reason for their reactions.

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 the institutions (religions, family, peer group, etc.)?

Regarding gender, there was not much discrepancy regarding the treatment of the deviant member. In the case of the Sta. Mesa Group, only one female member was able to do the experiment, therefore to answer this question, the Eastwood Group decided to switch deviants for each floor they went to. Initially, for the female member, no one paid any attention to her lack of footwear. Even crossing directly in front of a guard and a few maintenance staff, there were no observable reactions to her. On the other hand, when the deviants were men, there were a few incidents where those managing the shops would notice the male members and their lack of shoes. One possible explanation for this would be that people know of the existence of flesh-toned shoes that are typically worn by women, therefore when not paying close attention to another’s feet, an individual would most likely assume her to be wearing those shoes.

             However, regarding the cases of the male members, the shop employees most likely noticed their lack of footwear due to the fact that they had nothing to occupy their attention at the moment. One example is when one member was taking off his shoes to begin the experiment, and immediately we noticed one of the employees eyeing his feet. The other mall-goers would not notice this as they would be busy going to different stores, however as it is the employee's job to cater to the needs of shoppers, it is not uncommon for them to be paying close attention to them.

           Also, as stated earlier, the Sta. Mesa Group was not able to compare reactions to different genders, however from the results of that group, we are able to make observations regarding the social dynamics of typical lower-middle class mall-goers. Individually, those that had visible reactions only took a longer look at the member’s lack of footwear. As it violates the norm and is out of place, the people most likely wanted to confirm that they had seen properly. The difference in reaction could commonly be seen in whether the person was alone or in a group. Alone, they would only take a second glance, however when with a group, they would point it out to their companions. This act of sharing observations to companions could be related to the enforcement of norms as by bringing the lack of shoes up as a point of interest to others, the others will either perceive it as positive or negative and from there, an enforcement of social norms regarding the point of interest will take place and then be further developed as each companion interacts with different social circles.

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 the deviants felt that the experiment was liberating. It was also refreshing for them to walk around a place barefoot where one is not supposed to be barefoot. Although the floor was cold and dirty, the experiment did not cause any of the deviants to contract diseases. It was not a difficult experience, since the experiment did not trigger anyone to believe that it was a part of a modus operandi. Usually, deviating from the norms feels awkward and embarrassing, but the deviants were game to do the experiment. Although there were fears of getting kicked out of the mall, fortunately that did not happen during the course of the experiment.

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

Initially the group had expected a variety of reactions such as being approached and asked why the member was not wearing shoes and even be told to leave the premises for not wearing shoes. However, none of this happened and most people do not really look down when walking around a mall, so it walking around barefoot is not as noticeable as say going around top-less or with no pants on. Furthermore, the members were dressed casually, and looked well-off, so at first glance there would seem as though nothing is out of the ordinary thus this form of deviance is not as evident as other forms, thus less reactions. However, in spite of the lack of reactions, there were still many who reacted and this remind us that no matter how small a deviance, there will still be negative reactions to said deviance because society is really set upon following the norms.

Breaching Experiment Report [Zamora]

SA 21 - C

Group: Zamora, Zamora, & oh look, another Zamora [jk it's just me, "Fly home, Buddy. I work alone." (Mr. Incredible, 2004)]

1) What norm did you violate?

All throughout the experiment, I basically violated people's personal space and made them feel uncomfortable by sitting really close to them in public areas.

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

The plan was to simply sit beside people with little to almost no space between us and to observe their reactions once they noticed my presence and how close I was to where they were. I did the experiment inside UP Diliman, specifically AS Lobby, Sunken Garden, Area 2, and the Engg Lobby (I don't know the "formal" names of these places or if there are any). I didn't choose whether or not I would sit beside groups, couples, or people who were by themselves; I simply sat beside the people who didn't look as if they could murder me (because you know, safety first). 

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?

There were tons of uncomfortable shifting in their seats done by the people I sat beside as well as odd stares and some tried slowly moving away in order to create some distance between me and them. There were a few that tried to ignore me and pretended that I wasn't right beside them and carried along conversing with their friends, only to end up moving farther away from me when they had the chance. There was only one person during the experiment, a girl, who asked quite nicely if I could move a bit.

They acted this way because I was violating their personal space; even though it was a public area and people are free to sit anywhere, it’s kind of a silent rule that you have to leave just a bit of space between you and others (unless you absolutely can’t) because of safety/ the “stranger danger”. The act definitely reinforced this norm and mentality of having to be wary of strangers.

                                   

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 the institutions (religions, family, peer group, etc.). [You could compare reactions according to gender, social class, etc. That would be more interesting]

Gender definitely played a part in this experiment given the fact that out of the people I observed in the experiment, the women were the ones who immediately observed that there was someone next to them. Their body language also showed that they were a bit more “iffy” and tense during the experiment compared to the men who only seemed slightly bothered that I was invading their personal space. The only one who called me out on what I was doing was also a girl. This is probably because of the “fear of strangers” that’s instilled in our heads as kids, especially to girls who have been told to be wary of strangers who could rape, steal from, or kill you. (I’m not saying that men aren’t taught the same thing, it’s just that that teaching is drilled into young girls’ heads more than into boys’).

Social class would’ve played a role if there were some modifications to the experiment such as if I was wearing something seen as “sosyal” compared to something that’s very casual. Reactions from other people would’ve been different if I presented myself to them as either rich or poor.

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?

I would be lying if I said that I wasn't scared or nervous at the start of the experiment. I was quite fine with the idea bothering other people just to see their reactions, but I was nervous because I did the experiment by myself (hence the lack of photos or videos, it would be too obvious if I suddenly whipped out my phone to take a selfie and I couldn't leave a camera recording somewhere because a) I don't have one and b) what if my nonexistent camera got stolen? Oh no). I did have a friend to show me around UP and to help me choose the spots I used but other than that, I was a one woman team. Aside from being a one woman team, my other source of fear was my social anxiety. Usually I can't even order for myself in restaurants, but anything for my grades!

At the start of the experiment, I felt as if I was being rude since I had an idea of how they felt but as I continued on repeating the experiment to other innocent bystanders, I began to feel quite pleased with myself and my ability to make others feel bothered by simply just sitting beside them. It felt nice to break away from the norms and to be able to make people uncomfortable since they had to stick with the norms and I wasn’t bound by them. I was a bit frightened though while doing the experiment that someone would confront me or scold me for bothering UP students.

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

The experiment just shows how people value their personal space and how they treat those who violate it.  The idea of having your own space or territory definitely play a part in your interactions with others. (Also, although I enjoyed what I was doing at the end of the experiment, I honestly hope I don’t have to do anything like this again. My anxiety wouldn’t let me take it if I had to repeat something like this.)

 Upon this Roque, I will Build My Church

Niel Fuentes, Raphael Diaz, Ariana Manalo, Meg Lo, Ivan Grasparin, 

Rob Lastimoso, Jego Mallilin, Jc Mendiola, 

1. The norm that was tested in this breaching experiment is the norm of conservative society. The experiment tested what is considered taboo in our society by engaging in  uncomfortable conversations while buying condoms in convenient stores.

2. The group was divided into pairs. One person would purchase the condom and then engage in an uncomfortable conversation with the cashier through saying the following lines: “Mabilis ba itong masira, ate?”, “may banana flavor ba kayo? gusto yun ng boyfriend ko eh”, “ano best seller niyo? first time ko kasi eh”, “kakasya ba ito, paano kung malaki?”, “masasarapan ba ako dito?” and the like. The person talking to the cashier would also be secretly recording their conversation. While the other half would be discreetly documenting the reactions through photographs or video. Participants would vary in gender (e.g. guy, girl, gay, straight, etc.) and the experiment was conducted in convenience stores (7-11, Ministop) along Katipunan and Xavierville.

3. Reactions:

1. Respondent 1:

Question asked: “Mabilis ba itong masira, ate?” “may banana flavor ba kayo? gusto yun ng boyfriend ko eh”

Reactions: The salesperson appeared to be holding in a smile and was trying to compose herself and answered “di ko pa alam”. The pace at which she was working was also speeding up, as if she wanted to finish our transaction immediately.

2. Respondent 2 (7-11 Burgundy Plaza)Reactions:

Question asked: “Masasarapan ba ako dito?” “hindi ba ito mabubutas?”

Reaction: The other customer kept distance and avoided eye contact, while the attendant showed very little interest in the subject matter. Her body language showed disapproval of the choice of conversation and desire to be no part of it. She kept her distance from the counter between us and made no eye contact whatsoever.  The cashier’s reply was, “Wala po akong alam sa mga ganyan ma’am,” in a very disgusted, discriminatory tone of voice. She rolled her eyes  twice throughout the encounter. Near the end, she suggested their “best-selling” condoms, and hurriedly ended the conversation.

3. Respondent 3 (Ministop)

Question/s asked: “ano po pinaka-effective dito?”,”mabubutas ba ito?”,  “Masasarapan kaya ako dito?”, “nakagamit ka na ba ng ganito?”

Reactions: The cashier declares that they were only briefed to sell the product, not explain the product, in some half-nervous, half-confused voice. Her co-worker batted a fierce eye roll at in complete judgment and perhaps disgust.

4. Other General Reactions:

• Unexpressive/indifferent to the questions
• Seemingly uncomfortable with the situation though they were accommodating with our questions
• Other cashiers were uncomfortable and tried to avoid the questions or hurried up the conversation altogether
• In an instance where there were two cashiers, they only exchanged confused and bewildered glances at each other
• In one convenience store, a woman glanced curiously at one of our groupmates as she talked to the cashier
• Another cashier was holding in a smile as our gay group-mate conversed with her
• One more cashier was holding in her bewilderment and amusement from the flurry of questions
• There is protocol to only sell the product and not to explain how it works according to one of the cashiers
• Eye-rolling and judging gazes at the buyer from the cashier
• Openly showed disapproval towards the buyer
• Half-hearted replies

4. A. Gender:

For the most part, the buyers in our group were girls. Since it is more common for guys to buy condoms,  the girls would be different from what the cashiers would be used to. It is strange how the cashiers reacted differently to the girls of our group, giving them more curious stares than when the guys in our group bought the condoms. Also, the reaction of the cashier to our gay group-mate was rather amusing because of how homosexual relationships are still considered taboo in our society.

B. Religion:

The shaping of our society by Christianity has made our society more conservative by deeming sex and anything related to sex as taboo.

C. Front Stage and Dramaturgy

The status of server and customer (e.g. “the customer is always right.”) could also be taken into consideration. With this in mind, the server had to act proper and with composure in order to not embarrass the buyer.

5. Most of us were nervous or uncomfortable at first but gradually their inhibitions were let go as we continued with the experiment. After the initial hurdle though, the experimenters felt liberated from social norms and performed the task as something that would be considered normal or commonplace. Another reason people felt uncomfortable was because of the presence of others in the area (e.g. old people, other students, etc.) This was because of the consciousness of people’s judging looks and unspoken shaming. However, through this initial anxiety, nervousness, or discomfort, the all the experimenters felt liberated about conducting the experiment. One of our group mates, however, was unfazed at the act and would gladly repeat the experiment, though the judging gaze of those around her (e.g. the cashier, any bystanders) made her feel insulted.

6. Other observations:
• “I wonder why Mini Stop doesn’t put condoms on the countertop beside the cashier, and puts them instead in the aisles. Food for thought. Oh, and their chicken is so good.”
• “The most popular condom is the thin durex one. The people at 7-eleven hardly ever get purchases of the vibrator ring. Female attendants assisting female customers on this experiment tend to behave more hostilely to the one doing the breaching.”

Carlos, David, Go, Rabago, Sin, Tambaoan

SA21 - C

SA21 Breaching Experiment: “Barya lang po sa Umaga”

Part I. Norm

The norm we violated was the “barya lang po sa umaga” concept. When one rides a tricycle it is often understood that the fare would range from around fifteen to thirty pesos. Being so, passengers and tricycle drivers are accustomed to dealing with denominations which are relatively close to these amounts (e.g., 20 peso bills, 50 peso bills, coins). This is the social expectation in this situation, that we the passengers would present payments which would be reasonable enough for the tricycle driver to deal with. Instead, we presented considerably large bills to them such as 500 peso bills in order to test how they would respond to the violation of the said norm.

Part II. Description of the Breaching Experiment

The breaching experiment was performed across multiple locations by different people in order to cover a wider scope of factors. Each experimenter would step inside a tricycle and travel to a predetermined location. Upon arriving at the destination, the experimenter would pull out a 500 peso bill from his or her wallet and offer it to the tricycle driver to see how he would react. The observer would then take note of these reactions and record them later on. After it becomes apparent that the conversation is not going anywhere the experimenter would then present a more reasonable amount of money for the tricycle driver to deal with. At this point he or she would also attempt to explain to the tricycle driver that this was a social experiment. Afterwards, the experimenter would travel a reasonable distance to find another tricycle driver who was oblivious to the experiment conducted on the previous tricycle driver. The process would then be repeated at least three times. It was done in varying locations in order to factor in the social expectations of the tricycle drivers. One location was Maginhawa which we deemed to be “average” with a primarily middle class population. Another area was along Katipunan which we considered as a high-to-middle-class spot. It was also conducted along Holy Spirit Drive, which we deemed to be middle class, and inside one of the villages there which we deemed to high class. Another location was outside Sandiganbayan which can be considered low class because of the informal settlers nearby.

Part III. Results and Analysis

Observations - Gabe

• Maginhawa (average)
• Mainly middle to lower class population

Subject A: Charged 15, Gave 500

• Surprised, shy and embarrassed to impose
• Did not take the 500 peso bill
• Waits for me to offer some solution
• “Ay wala po sir”
• “Wala talaga”
• Did not really understand when I explained it was a social experiment

Subject B: Charged 35, Gave 500

• No major reaction, quietly complies
• Did not take the 500 peso bill
• Opens up pouch to check if he has enough change
• Finds out his change isn’t enough
• “Wala po ba kayong barya sir?”
• Did not really understand when I explained it was a social experiment

Subject C: Charged 18, Gave 500

• Surprised and amused
• Immediately says he doesn’t have change
• Did not take the 500 peso bill
• Waits for me to offer some solution
• “Ay wala po talaga”
• “Wala talaga”
• Told him it was a social experiment
• Explained how he recently sent money through M Lhuillier
• “Pero hindi naman talaga ako magagalit”

Observations - Giulia

• Eliazo Hall - One Burgundy Place Condominium along Katipunan (high-middle)

Subject A: Charged 25, Gave 500

• Smiled and said nothing
• Did not take the 500 Peso bill
• Did not even look for change and laughed
• Just waited for me to figure out what to do
• Shook his head when I ask if he had change
• Smiles but looks like he’s on the brink of irritation because his face twitched to a frown
• Smiled when I explained it was for a school project
• Smiled for a photo and seemed relieved I had change/exact paymentc

Subject B: Charged 25, Gave 500

• Shook his head, mumbled and smiled
• Did not take the 500 Peso bill
• Checked his pockets to show he had nothing or maybe not enough change if ever
• Waited for me to figure things out
• Smiled and said he didn’t have change when I asked
• Softly laughed when I said it was for a school project and gave him change/exact payment

Subject C: Charged 25, Gave 500

• Smiled and said he had no change
• Did not take the 500 Peso bill
• Asked if I had a smaller bill even a 100 Peso
• Told me to search my wallet deeper or ask my friend who was with me
• Laughed while I fumbled through my bag
• Smiled when I explained it was for a school project and finally gave him change/exact payment

https://www.dropbox.com/s/txzw3s0y1vkd524/MVI_7013%20(1).MOV?dl=0

Observations - Sofia

• Mcdo - Regis Center along Katipunan (with trips back and forth)

Subject A: Charged 25, Gave 1000

• gave a shy smile
• said that he really had no change by showing the wallet with no smaller bills
• when I offered a more reasonable amount of payment (100 php),he seemed a lot more relieved and initially gave me the bills without the coins necessary
• I left without asking for the remaining change, but he called my attention to return it.

Subject B: Charged 25, gave 1000

• looked shocked with me being serious about giving a thousand-peso bill
• shook his head saying he really had no cash
• asked the people I was with in the trike if they had change for me
• when I explained it was an experiment, he seemed rather annoyed

Subject C: Charged 25, gave 1000

• looked really apologetic when I handed him the thousand-peso bill
• He showed me that he had a 200-peso bill, but it wasn’t enough
• Once I explained it was a social experiment, he just nodded appearing a little bit confused.  

Observations - Cholo

• Holy Spirit Drive
• Outside Sandiganbayan

Subject A: Charged 30, Gave 500 (I went with a companion) (Middle-ish)

• I handed over the 500 peso bill

• Had a shocked look on his face
• Did not take the 500 peso bill
• Asked “Wala ho ba kayong barya?” in a nice way
• I asked if my companion had change
• Gave the money
• Explained it was a social experiment
• Driver just nodded
• I asked for a pic and the other trike drivers started teasing him

Subject B: Charged 25, Gave 500 (High End)

• I handed over the 500 peso bill
• Driver laughed quite loudly and smiled
• Asked “May barya po ba kayo?” in a nice way
• I asked how much and got the money from my pocket
• Explained it was a social experiment
• Driver kept smiling
• Driver seemed flattered and happy when I asked for a pic

Subject C: Charged 25, Gave 500 (Low End)

• I handed over the 500 peso bill
• Driver had a confused look on his face
• Asked “Wala po bang barya?” nicely
• Checked my pockets and gave the money
• Explained it was a social experiment
• Driver started smiling
• No pic cause no one was around and I didn’t wanna take a selfie HAHA

The breaching experiment was conducted by four different people across three different locations namely, Maginhawa, Katipunan and Holy Spirit Drive/Sandiganbayan. One of the factors which affected how the tricycle drivers reacted was where we asked them to go to. For example, for the high class neighborhood, the residents there are expected to be well-off so the tricycle driver for that destination simply laughed when the 500 peso bill was handed over. He was more amused than surprised since it seemed believable that someone from this neighborhood would hand over denominations like this. On the other hand, one of the drivers from the “low end” areas seemed quite confused since you wouldn’t expect someone from that neighborhood to pay with a denomination that big.

Another thing that we can factor in is how the rider himself/herself looked like. Since we were dressed quite well and did not go out in just a sando and shorts, the driver might have thought that it made sense for someone like that to hand over a 500 peso bill. If we were dressed less formally, then the driver might have thought that we were just messing with him by handing over such a huge bill.

Generally, the tricycle drivers all reacted in a similar fashion. They were all surprised but maintained a polite outlook even to the point of referring to us passengers using “po” even if we proved to be a nuisance. Their job was to bring us to our desired location while our job was to pay them for their service. But because we “did not” have change, it seemed as if we would be unable to pay them the money they earned. At this point, we had a liability to them because we had yet to pay them for the service they had already rendered. However, it seemed as if these tricycle drivers were reluctant to force us into paying what was due. In short, they reacted to our deviant behavior by further reinforcing another norm which can be summed up by the saying “the customer is always right.”

Part IV. Sociological Themes in Breaching Experiment (Social Class, Gender, etc.)

In this breaching experiment the most noticeable sociological theme present is the element of social class. That is what the experimenters tried to factor in by designing the experiment in such a way that they covered locations wherein different social classes are represented, from the lower classes, middle, and upper classes. Given this come certain expectations on the part of the tricycle drivers, as they would probably have an idea of the kind of payments their regular passengers would be giving them for the service that they render. Perhaps those that are situated in a high-end location would be more accustomed to handling people of higher social class, thus more used to dealing with bigger bills, than those who are not and vice versa. This is something the experimenters kept in mind when designing the breaching experiment.

Another element that the experimenters took interest in is the mode of transportation available in each of the locations. Generally for the locations that the experimenters visited, the most common mode of transportation were private vehicles, jeepneys, and tricycles. Most of the upper class will not even use public transportation which explains the abundance of private vehicles. Regular commuters would make use of the jeepneys to get around, just like everywhere else in the country. Tricycles are utilized mostly by people who are unfamiliar with a certain place, those who are in a rush, or by those who can afford the marginally more expensive fare as opposed to jeepneys. There is some expectation on the part of the tricycle drivers that their passengers would have the capacity to pay their fares, but of course to rule out the problem of not being able to give ample change they have signages that say “barya lang sa umaga” to discourage passengers from paying large bills. Inasmuch as the fare tricycles charge are only slightly higher, only as much as PhP12 to Php22 pesos higher than a jeepney, these will not reach the range of PhP500 to PhP1,000.

        Another sociological theme we tried to factor in was how gender may have affected the outcome of the breaching experiment. The experimenters wanted to find out if the reactions of the tricycle drivers would be any different if it were a male or female that deviated from the norm. The initial assumption is that the trike drivers, who were generally male, would be more lenient in their reaction to the female experimenters as opposed to the male experimenters. But as seen in the reactions that the experimenters got, gender was not so much an issue because their treatment to each experimenter was the same regardless of gender. Perhaps this observation is still questionable to an extent, because in the experiment the variables of gender and social class were not changed at the same time. There was a one experimenter to one location designation, so this is something that can still be configured and tested on in future experiments of this nature.

Part V. Reflection

Having been used to taking tricycles, the main structure of the breaching experiment did not really seem to worry me too much. Although because we were going to incorporate deviant behavior into this everyday activity, I felt apprehensive every time we would be nearing our destination. I knew that they wouldn’t have enough change to deal with the 500 peso bill I would be forcing them to deal with but at the same time I wasn’t sure about how they would react. I’ve always had this notion of tricycle drivers being very loud and masculine so I sort of expected them to grumble at me. Surprisingly however it turned out that even those who seemed to appear like that were still polite enough to wait for me to decide on what to do. That’s something I honestly did not expect, but it’s nice to know that there are really nice people out there. (Gabe)

Being a little bit accustomed to taking trike rides around Katipunan, I didn’t feel nervous doing the experiment. In fact, I made sure that my social class would make an impact to the trike driver’s reaction by dressing stereotypically “conyo” and speaking with the accent as well. It was personally amusing for me, but after witnessing the trike drivers’ reactions, I felt a bit sorry for taking their time. Most of them would shake their head in annoyance or perhaps, due to their surprise by my apparent ignorance with the situation. Keeping this in mind, I figured that if ever a person were really to hand out such a bill, they would possibly be offended by the trike drivers’ responses. (Sofia)

I was hesitant to do the experiment at first since I was scared that the driver might get mad at me for handing over such a huge bill. In the low class neighborhood, I was actually scared that he might curse at me. While in the tricycle, I got more nervous as we got closer to the destination. It didn’t feel nice deviating from the norm since I actually wasted some of the tricycle driver’s time in “trying” to look for change. (Cholo)

It wasn’t such a great feeling having to watch the driver suffer in suspense to see if I actually had change during the experiment. The driver’s money spent on the gas and time used for the ride would have been for nothing and would have been a huge waste if I wasn’t actually going to be able to pay up. I, in general, don’t like troubling anyone especially people who have jobs that are so dependent on time so I wasn’t exactly ecstatic to do the experiment. I wasn’t that hesitant either though knowing that it was just an experiment. However, I still felt pretty bad having to force the driver to deal with my very limited Tagalog vocabulary and knowledge on how to ride trikes and then that huge 500 Peso bill. I was surprised to still be responded to kindly even with all these factors that I could imagine would be very irritating to these busy people. I’m hoping it was because I smiled a lot and seemed genuinely unsure (because I genuinely was) about what was happening that the manong wasn’t too hard on me. I was so relieved to be able to leave the driver with a smile though and I respect them so much more because of the way they handled the entire situation. (Giulia)

Part VI. Other Observations and Analysis on Activity or Deviance (Summary)

In conducting the experiment, the group found it interesting to point out how each member felt uneasy knowing that they had to break a norm. It shows just how strong the concept of Social Control is in each of us. While there was no formal control to sanction us from deviating from the norm, there was a very strong objection from the self-control, and the informal controls. First from the self-control because each has internalized the norm of giving a small bill denomination when commuting, and because of this we have the very strong urge to conform to this. Second, each of the experimenters felt uneasy of conducting the experiment because they were scared of how the driver would react when they gave large bills to pay for their fares. Being Filipinos, growing up we were taught to follow rules, even those not formally put into law, and this is how great the social control is to us as individuals. We are made to understand that there are certain forms of behavior that we should not do, and upon doing deviant behavior we have our socially constructed conscience telling us that something is not right.

Aside from the strong urge to not break the norm, the group was also met with sanctions which further reinforces the norm in question. Upon showing the drivers a large bill denomination as payment we were given 2 distinct reactions. The first being laughter, and the second are frowns or looks of concern. Although not entirely polar, they have more or less the same effect on the experimenters who deviated from the norm. Further examination of these reactions are needed to understand how they help reinforce this specific norm. Of the two reactions the researchers were given the more obvious or expected one was that of frowning or a general look of disapproval. Since there is no law that would legally sanction the members for this deviant behavior they instead were given an informal sanction in the form of a simangot and a few paranigs about not having enough money for giving change. In a way this is a kind of shaming on the part of those who were paying large bills, this is the only way that the drivers can show that what they were doing is out of the ordinary without being too harsh or turning to legal authorities for the predicament that they were in. Despite the best efforts of the group members to explain and try to push for giving the large bill as payment, there really is nothing else that the driver could do. Here now it can be seen how the simangot is an action used to shame the group member for not doing what is expected out of him/her, especially since they had various signages saying Barya lang po sa umaga in the tricycles and even the stations where they are situated in. The second reaction is a less severe kind of shaming because instead of showing outright disapproval of the action, the driver found the act as something comedic in nature. The laughter then is a tool to shame the person into acting according to what is expected by society, which in this case was to give a payment that was at least manageable by the driver.

The experiment was able to give the group a better understanding of the tools and mechanisms that are made available by the structures in society in order to maintain social control and discourage deviance in behavior. From the personal “gut feeling” that they are doing something out of the ordinary, to the external reinforcers of the norm like the simangot and the laughter as a reaction to the deviant behavior. It was made more apparent how we are actually enculturated in such a way that we internalize these behaviors. As a reflection point we pose the question: If put in the situation of the tricycle driver, would we have reacted in the same way given the circumstance? The most probable answer would be yes, and this is largely because of the same reasons as to why the drivers found the behavior ridiculous to begin with. Society has us believing that certain actions are not normal and should not be done, hence the probability of us giving the same reaction is very high since we also come from the same culture, following the same norms, as these drivers.