Adre, de Luna, Foronda, Manzana, Pollisco

SA 21 K

Breaching Experiment

1.                We aimed to break the clothing norm by wearing a gas mask in a mall

2.              The entire group went to UP Town Center at 3 PM, where one of our groupmates, Augusto Adre, wore a gas mask. He also looked extremely suspicious because he was wearing a black jacket coupled with the black gas mask. Knowing that this could be hazardous to us, especially to our groupmate who was dressed up for the breaching because people might react violently (i.e., do self-defense out of fear, report us to the guards for suspicious behavior, etc), we first asked the guard at the entrance if we could do a breaching activity. We explained that we are students from the Ateneo de Manila who are doing a breaching experiment wherein we try to defy and break the norms. The group told the guard that one of us would be wearing a gas mask around the mall. However, the guard asserted that we should go to the administrative office to confirm. We did as she told, and soon, we got the approval of the administrative office. The personnel told us, however, that we could only roam around with Augusto wearing a gas mask until 4 PM.

3.              Restriction from Administration

Prior to conducting the experiment itself, the group asked permission from the administration of the establishment. The administration reluctantly gave us permission to conduct the experiment but with heavy guidelines and regulations such as: a. always have someone accompany the deviant, as to not scare off the malls patrons. b. Only conduct the experiment up to 4:00PM (roughly 1 hour).

Stares

Several people, both employees and patrons of the mall were staring and looking at our deviant as they pass by, or as they were standing by. Several people also did what we call a “double take” wherein they saw our deviant as they were passing by, and then turn their heads again to get a closer look.

Not permitted inside some establishments

There are some establishments, such as FamilyMart, that did not allow the entry of our deviant. Although no established reason was given, it was assumed that it was for security purposes.

Questions from security

In the establishments that we were able to get into, security personnel asked the group several questions about our deviant, asking if he has a disease, or why he is wearing the mask. Questions that again pertain to security measures.

Followed by security

Inside the establishments (Aeropostale), security personnel followed our deviant as he was roaming around the store.

Salesperson

The sales person still offered their merchandise to be offered to the deviant, without questioning anything about the mask.

Children

One small girl roaming around the store went back to her mom when she saw the deviant.

4.              It is important to note the circumstances of which we were allowed to partake in the social experiment. Management only allowed us to execute the experiment under 2 conditions. The first of which was that we could only conduct the experiment for a time period of around 1 hour, and the second is that we have to go as a group at all times. These were primarily reasoned out to be due to security. The latter condition must thus signify the security commonly associated with number.

This may be rooted in our tendency to believe in safety in numbers. This is commonly known as herd mentality and is responsible for our tendency to act similarly to the surrounding people. Although this is related to the norms, it is not exactly the same. Norms are directed and reinforced by the institution, and due to that, we had to ask permission to partake in the experiment.

Group behavior, however, is determined by the actions of the members. It seems that breaching a norm in the context of a herd partially normalizes the behavior. It makes it a bit more of an acceptable sight as shown by the sales people who were still willing to sell to the group, or how we were still allowed to buy and stay in establishments such as Jamba Juice.  

However, this does not mean all people eventually accepted our behavior. It seems that their perceived role in the public mall also affected their behavior. The sales people still sold us food and clothes even when breaching the norm because they are expected to sell their products. Since their occupation is not in relation to perceived safety, the breach in the norms did not drastically affect their behavior. Their reaction is based on their perceived function.

On that same note, the guard at FamilyMart did not let us in. This may be due to the guards’ function to protect the shop. Since safety is associated with the norms, a breach of the norms is associated with risk. This may also be in lieu of current events. With the rise in crime rates and bomb threats on public places in Quezon City, people are becoming more and more restless. Their sensitivity to breaches in the norms are an effort to detect and avoid perilous situations.

5.              Augusto: I felt reluctant because of the security threat I posed to be. I felt both fear and confusion in the reactions of bystanders.

6.              Seeing the way people reacted to the deviance done by our group makes you see how people have grown to associate certain appearances with certain situations. For our case, seeing a person in a gas mask would make one think that there is either some kind of poisonous fume in the air, or the person behind the mask is a terrorist of some sort. While the mask alone should not have any meaning aside from its original use, which is for protection, putting it in a setting wherein the norm is to dress casually can cause alarm in unsuspecting people. Deviating from a norm can cause a lot of discomfort in a crowd, depending on the intensity of the deviance.

For things such as cross-dressing, while it isn’t too uncommon nowadays, people still usually do a double take when they realize that that person in the dress is actually a boy, or that the cool guy with the undercut and shades is actually a girl. It causes some commotion, but not enough to raise any extreme reactions (most of the time).

However, when you take the deviance to a higher step, like the gas mask, which is usually seen worn in a battlefield, being worn to a mall, the commotion it causes is a lot more than cross-dressing. There was one man we saw who was pointing at Augusto and elbowing his companion, telling him to look. There was another who took a double take, and then a triple take, until such a point that he was walking forward but looking backward to stare at Augusto.

Norms remind us that what we see as our “free” world is not as free as we think it is. In order to keep a certain standard of composure, certain measures need to be followed to ensure that people will maintain orderly and undisturbed.

Hans Braga

Bianca Isaac

Keisha Lao

Gianna Llanes

Julianne Suazo           

SA 21 - K

Deviance Day Report

1. What norm did you violate?

            The norm that our group decided to violate was entering the correct gender bathrooms pertaining to your sex.

                This norm is so severe that it is illegal to breach it in some places. In Florida, Rep. Frank Artiles introduced a bill that criminalizes people who use the opposite bathroom, resulting in #1000 fine or up to one year in jail. It has also stirred debate in Arizona, Utah, Minnesota, and Kentucky, claiming that the safety of the “right sex” is violated when someone from the opposite sex enters the wrong bathroom (Kellaway, Reason.com.)

                  In one particular instance in Louisiana, Sen. C.B. Embry Jr. introduced something entitled, “The Kentucky Student Privacy Act,” forcing students to immediately report when a student enters the incorrect bathroom, even offering a reward up to $2500. The lawmaker believes that allowing opposite genders inside the bathroom “will create a significant potential for disruption of school activities and unsafe conditions” and “will create potential embarrassment, shame, and psychological injury to students” (qtd. in Ford, Think Progress.)

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

             The plan of the breaching experiment was to have the next user of the single-person bathroom enter and react to see someone of the opposite sex already using the facilities. In order to do this, the experimenter had to subtly enter the bathroom with nobody looking in order to not look conspicuous. This was also to avoid the people surrounding the area to let the next user know that somebody was already inside. The original plan was to do the experiment in Regis, using a multi-person bathroom. However, we found out that we needed a permit to do it there. Therefore, we decided to do it at Solana dormitory and McDonald’s Katipunan. The one at the dorm was a single-person bathroom, while McDonald’s bathrooms entertained more than one person.

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 re-affirm/reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?

                The people who experienced our experiment were surprised, stunned, weirded out, violated and confused.

                They reacted this way because this is not something we would usually encounter on a daily basis. It is already a known fact that girls are supposed to use the girl's bathroom and that the men are supposed to use the men's bathroom. Whenever something unusual would happen, reactions such as being confused and surprised are inevitable.Norms are shared expectations about what kinds of behavior are and are not acceptable. By breaking these norms, people will tend to feel uncomfortable because it is a breakout from what they think is "usual" or "normal." Normative behavior is what is "required" to maintain the cohesion of the society, which is why going against it will definitely create a certain effect or strong feeling against or for it.

                The deviant act did reaffirm the existing norms through the reactions that we got from the people who experienced it. Genderless bathrooms would work in the society but since existing norms say otherwise, it doesn't. This can create a space that is safe for everyone. In 2015, West Hollywood became the first city in California to require gender neutral bathrooms. Although this may be more rampant in other countries such as the United States, the conservative nature of the Filipinos will hinder them from accepting this. The fact that the people who experienced this gave negative reactions proves how this is not acceptable in the country.  

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.).

                Other than the norms of going to the respective bathrooms, which highly includes gender, there is an incorporation of social class as well, along with values and beliefs.

                In terms of gender, there is an implied level of respect by going to your respective bathroom. A large controversy with the topic pertains safety when it comes to sexual harassment and assault. When entering the wrong bathroom, especially in dark locations, it is easy for that to take place. Numerous students from Harvard investigated on that, finding that safety in gender-oriented bathrooms promotes dignity and safety (Chan, The Crimson.)

                Another component that determined reactions depended on the type of bathroom. Using a multi-person opposite gender bathroom can get varying reactions. Women usually get stares and unwanted attention, but men have it more severe, possibly immediately getting arrested. In a single-person opposite gender bathroom, the cases are different. Sometimes, women go to the men’s bathroom when there is a line for the women’s bathroom. There is no harm done considering that it is only for one person. However, it does get awkward with time spent there, or with what is done there. A quick number one will have the person in and out of the bathroom, the others not thinking about what was done there. However, a number two can have the opposite gender feel violated when it comes to their space (The International Center for Bathroom Etiquette.)

                Social class is incorporated into the experiment after seeing the reactions. Those from a lower social class immediately apologize after seeing someone from a higher class already in the incorrect bathroom, disregarding age. However, those from the same social class as the experimenter would respond with calmness, humor, and at times, even anger, which they did not fear to express. Their reactions were a bit slower, because of their higher level of confidence and assurance that they know what they’re doing. They also felt more a sense of entitlement to be able to use the bathroom, despite the opposite gender already there.

                The biggest debate with gender-affiliated bathrooms is associated with transgenders. Although the experiment clearly showed which gender the experimenter associates themselves with, the initial thought of the reactor does pertain to sexuality. One article by the human rights campaign explains the legalities associated with transgender employees and the restrooms they use, later saying that “Employees may use the restrooms that correspond with their full-time gender presentation,” further elaborating that other employees uncomfortable with this should be the ones to find another restroom (qtd. in Human Rights Campaign.) Another story features a transgender girl in Maine winning a $75,000 lawsuit settlement after forcing her to use the staff bathroom instead of the girls’ bathroom, showing that it is a very controversial yet common issue associated with our experiment (RT.)

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?

                Before completing the experiment, there was a feeling of both anxiousness and excitement. Truthfully, everybody has experienced the instance in which they accidentally entered the wrong bathroom, so doing it on purpose has turned into a thought that is hard to fathom. Therefore, when it came time to actually deviate for the norms, what was most humorous was that the reactors thought that it was being done accidentally immediately. It felt empowering to be able to deviate from the norms on purpose, but it was followed by embarrassment as well when people were so frazzled by the situation that when they saw the experimenter afterward, their weird stares continued.

                There was no hesitation before the experiment because we hyped ourselves up to think that it was solely for the grade, and for personal humour on the side. However, there was hesitation to do it alone, considering that the embarrassment, or the stereotype, was not wanted after the experiment. Doing it with a friend strayed away from the seriousness of the situation.

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

                We are constantly being governed by the norms that are present in the society today. They are basically unwritten rules. They may not be physically there but we all know that they exist. There is already an expected behavior from the people around us that we constantly try not to break. We unknowingly conform to what society deems to be acceptable. This is probably why while we were thinking of things to do for this experiment, we took the embarrassment factor into consideration. Because we know that we will be judged for what we will be doing, we had to be cautious and at the same time make sure that it wont just be safe. Defying the norms is not a very easy thing to do because we know that it is not going to be acceptable for the people around us. As a society, people like controlled environments. This is why we usually stick to what we are used to. We feel more comfortable when we know what to expect which is why it is difficult for people to accept something far from what is usual.

References:

Brown, Elizabeth N. "Florida Bill Would Make Using Opposite-Sex Bathroom a Crime." Web log post. Hit & Run. Reason Foundation, 6 Feb. 2015. Web. 20 Feb. 2015.

Chan, Marco. "Safe Bathrooms for All." The Crimson [Cambridge] 17 Feb. 2011: n. pag. Print.

Ford, Zack. "Lawmaker Wants To Pay Students $2,500 If They See A Transgender Person In The ‘Wrong’ Bathroom." Think Progress 15 Jan. 2015: n. pag. Print.

Kellaway, Mitch. "Florida Lawmaker: Fine or Jail Trans People for Using the 'Wrong' Bathroom." Advocate.com 16 Feb. 2015: n. pag. Print.

"Restroom Access for Transgender Employees." Human Rights Campaign. THE HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN, n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2015.

"Transgender Student Wins $75k in School Bathroom Discrimination Suit." RT Question More. TV-Novosti, 3 Dec. 2014. Web. 20 Feb. 2015.

Chang, Jason

Chong, Michelle

Obviar, Mariangela

Vasay, Nathaniel           

SA 21-G

Using Umbrellas Indoors

1. What norm did you violate?

Umbrellas are typically things people only ever use outdoors and even then, only on especially hot days or when it rains. In addition, there is a superstition that opening an umbrella in a closed space is brings bad luck. Given that it is such a specialized item, only used in specific situations, its use indoors during routine activities is a direct deviation from this norm.

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

The group members took turns in carrying an umbrella while doing common activities in a mall like ordering food, walking around, and window shopping. To increase the perceived “weirdness” from the bystanders, only one member was performing the breaching experiment at any given time while the others observed the reactions of the crowd. The experiment was conducted in two malls, specifically SM Megamall (which caters to the masses) and EDSA Shangri-La (a high-end mall) to determine if the different social groups in the mall react differently to the experiment. Furthermore, it was done in different sections of the building for a different set of audience. In total, the experiment had eight trials, four at each mall. After each trial, there was a short debriefing with random people for questions about their reactions to the deviance experiment.

In order to record information, phones were used to take down notes, and capture pictures and videos. Observers acted as if they were calling or texting someone to prevent from spoiling the experiment.

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 re-affirm/reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?

Shangri-La

The people in Shangri-La mall just stared at the researchers when they were conducting the experiment. The most common reaction they have observed was that people were staring at the group member, likely out of confusion. They would often point at the person, carrying an umbrella, and would share some thoughts to their companions. However, there were also times when people ignored the person with the umbrella outright. In the food court, no one seemed to bother staring at An-G while she was conducting the experiment. If so, they only glanced at her for a few seconds and resumed eating.

Nevertheless, the researchers found out why people reacted in this manner. A  reverend, when interviewed by the group, questioned the researchers about their awareness of the misfortune of using a blue umbrella during Chinese New Year inside a closed area. But during a follow up interview the next day, the reverend commented that the reason he just quickly glanced and not stare was because while he did think it was weird, he also thought that there was nothing else to it and that he was more concerned with watching over his children.

Megamall

The group received similar reactions among the people they interviewed. In the Cyberzone area, a sales clerk replied, “Parang siyang [Jason] timang.” He added that it was as if the group member wanted to prank on them. In the Mega Food Hall, when Neil was carrying an umbrella while buying his meal, people started glaring at him. A security guard kept an eye on him for a while and stall employees were caught laughing the most among the people present. During the debriefing, these employees  initially denied that they laughed, likely fearing that the researchers may disclose their personal information, but they eventually gave a response. One of them said, “Mukha siyang tanga kapag ‘di niya sinasadya”. In addition, Neil’s serious face made the scene funnier according to the same employee.

On the other hand, a couple of students who saw Neil and An-G commented that even though they thought the researchers were weird for using the umbrellas, they were sure that it was for some sort of project or dare. According to them, “kundi wala naman gagawa nun”.

In summary, the supposed reason for these reactions was the fact that it is neither practical nor common to open an umbrella indoors. This, coupled with the intended function of an umbrella, creates a norm that they should only ever be used outdoors and in appropriate weather conditions. Given the reactions of the people during this social experiment, we have re-affirmed this norm.

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]

One pattern that was observed during the experiment was that those who visibly laughed at the researchers holding the umbrella were those who worked in the mall and had co-workers with them at the time. This was observed on four separate occasions, twice in each mall. A possible explanation for this pattern is that those who work in the mall are the ones who are the most familiar with the environment, which makes them more aware and sensitive to the practiced norms than random bystanders. Thus, these people would likely also be the ones who would most easily recognize a deviant act and react accordingly.

On the other hand, some people did not react because they did not have companions to share the same insight about the experiment. Usually, people who reacted in the experiment  were those who have co-workers, friends, or family with them. In one instance, one of the researchers (Neil) made eye to eye contact with a bystander as another researcher (An-G) was using the umbrella. During this time, both Neil and the bystander laughed as An-G passed by them. Apparently, people who were alone were also observing other people’s responses before showing any reaction to it themselves. Another factor was that they were busy with other things and ended up ignoring the experiment. For instance, one salesperson was busy sales-talking people around her that she paid no mind to An-G as she passed by.

Another potential pattern that was observed was that people visibly laughed when men (Neil and Jason) were using the umbrellas, but no one was observed laughing when women (An-G and Michelle) were doing the same thing. This may involve the concept of gender norms and how it is more acceptable and more common for a woman than a man to use an umbrella in a public area. Given that women are seen using umbrellas more often than men, Neil and Jason were deviating not only from the norm of not using umbrellas indoors, but also the norm of men rarely using umbrellas in the first place. In comparison, An-G and Michelle only deviated from the first norm. But due to the impracticality of testing the same area more than once (as a second testing might make it obvious that it was being done on purpose), it is difficult to determine whether this is an actual defining factor or just a coincidence.

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?

The members felt somewhat nervous and embarrassed at the start while others were eager to perform the experiment, seeing it as fun and exciting. For example, Michelle did not want to do the experiment in the area where she often shops, because there might be people who could recognize her. Some members were hesitant because they did not know what kind of response the people would give them and that the people might react differently to what the researchers were expecting. One member was worried that security guards might approach the researchers and ask them to put the umbrella away because they could have suspected that the group hiding from the security cameras was a modus operandi for committing some crime. But during the experiment, these concerns were proved unfounded and the group observed that guards did not mind someone using an umbrella inside the mall.

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

It was interesting to note that wandering away from the society’s norms labels a person as weird, stupid, crazy, etc. While it is ridiculous or unusual to see people breaking this kind of norm, people do not take the deviated culture seriously unless it affects them directly. Security guards may have not asked the researchers to put down their umbrella because the latter, who were simply walking like normal shoppers, were not violating any laws or mores in the mall.

Note: There were limitations in documenting the experiment. Other group members were assigned to act as normal shoppers while taking videos and pictures. Because the members needed to follow the person with the umbrella, as well as observing people’s reaction, they only used their mobile phones for footage and note-taking. This is to prevent a phenomenon called the observer effect. Thus, the pictures below were blurry and unclear.

Castelo, Marque     

Chuang, Joyce        

Merritt, Kelsey

Serrano, Kaye

Tan, CJ

SA21 - K

Breaching Experiment

1. What norm did you violate?

The norms that we chose to violate are 1) Filipino Concept of ‘Hiya’ and 2) the Philippines being a ‘Conservative’ Country.

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

We all agreed that the best way to put both norms to the test is by doing a breaching experiment where we give out condoms along the streets of Katipunan to passers-by. We bought 2 packs of Durex Featherlite condoms from 7/11 Katipunan that had 12 pieces each, so we ended up having 24 condoms to give away. 24 is a good number because it would be a waste if we bought too much and no one would get.

The best way to maximize the experiment is by dividing the work by making the boys and the girls switch tasks once the boys finish the half of the condoms we had. This is important because people react differently depending on the gender. We wanted to catch the reactions of the people to see if there was a difference between when a male gives away a condom and when a female gives one away. While the boys were giving away the condoms, the girls were documenting it and vice versa.

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?

There were very different reactions. The high school students we approached were either very blank-faced and serious or surprised and amused-- sabay kuha ng condom. We can think of many reasons why they would be either. High school students are in the point in their life where they are trying to figure out themselves and how they associate with other people. Their reactions could be that of a pretentious seriousness, where they don’t want to seem young and vulnerable. The other could be the still childish humourous side that is evident in many high school students.

College students were somewhat different. They would smile a bit, act confused, or just flat out reject. Some would laugh, but it was usually just a quick one and they would go on their way. Most college students just shrug it off and walk on probably because they have better things to do.

Kuya Drivers and the like would usually have a quick laugh and say that they have no use for it. However, some give in after giving it some thought and grab a couple of condoms-- one even got four, which surprised us! We think these people took the time to take advantage of the free condoms, but were hesitant at first due to the tabooness of using contraceptives in the country.

Generally, the girls that we approached were either really hesitant or confused. All except for one rejected our offer, with a displeased look. However, some were amused by the spontaneity of the offer. The one and only girl who took our offer had to come back after walking ahead just to get one, maybe because she thought about it first.

None of the couples we approached took our offer. We think this is because it paints a bad light on the couple if they take it, making them seem promiscuous-- again, due to the taboo nature of condoms in this country.

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

The ones who took our offer the most were the older male adults of the poorer sect, such as trike drivers and janitors. Some high school students got as well, but very few college students did. Generally, though, many were hesitant, and this reaffirms the fact that free condom distribution, as well as openly showing that one uses a condom, isn’t exactly normal in the country.

We believe that due to the negative connotations that are connected to sex and use of condoms, due to the influence of the church, may have played a big role in the hesitations of people towards taking a free condom. However, due to the surprisingly more open reactions of the high school students, this norm may be changing in younger generations.

4. Aside from the norms, what social 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 compare reactions according to gender, social class, etc. That would be more interesting-- and might obtain a better grade!]

Roman Catholicism is the dominant religion in the country, and there are certain beliefs, customs, and mindsets that are tied to this religion. For one, any discussion that involves sexuality is considered taboo, and objects that are connected to this topic should not be presented in any public place. Conservatism is being practiced by Catholics with the help of the Church.

These beliefs are now then incorporated inside families, and members of families stretch it out to their peer groups, office/work mates, and the rest of society embed these beliefs.

Another social theme that was at play during the experiment was actually the function of gender. Most of those who got condom/s were male, and only one was female. One obvious reason for this result would be the fact that condoms are for the male genitalia, and not the female. Second, which is connected to the first social theme mentioned, is conservatism, especially for the female. With the image of the Mama Mary as the Virgin Mary, a woman who is holy and pure, the Church urges women to be the same, and to do this, conservatism must be observed. The group was even more surprised when a woman, a student from a Catholic college, got the last piece of condom. When the group approached her, she immediately declined and went off, but after a short while, she came back and eventually took the condom.

The reactions from the group could and are actually part of the experiment. When the first participant got a condom, the group was shocked and found it funny that a person would take a condom in broad daylight in a busy street. Again, this kind of reaction could be connected to the first social theme mentioned above. A lot of those who got condoms were actually high school boys, and this fact is another reason why the group reacted as such. Most of the society thinks that when people purchase condoms, it means that they are having sexual intercourse. Pre-marital sex is not supported by the Catholic Church, and the fact that these high school boys are studying in a Catholic school and they had the courage to get condoms from the group makes it all the more astonishing for the group.

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?

Upon starting the experiment, buying the condoms was the first challenge. Since the condom was bought in bulk, there was quick judgment by the cashier and the surrounding buyers of 7/11. The cashier immediately asked me regarding the purchase of numerous condoms, "Birthday mo sir?" I stood there laughing and seeing that also the people surrounding us were also listening to ur conversation. I found this experience very daunting due to the numerous people that were being judgmental with the said action. The norm of "hiya" has started to be violated here.

Before giving out the condoms along Katipunan Avenue, we were very hesitant to start the experiment. This was due to the "hiya" norm since we would be already breaking it. Since we were a group along Katipunan, there were already guards looking at us, giving us more pressure as we conduct the experiment.

It was a greater challenge to the girls rather than the guys since society dictates that ladies are more diffident than guys. Usually guys are the ones  being the noisier one than the ladies. The ladies were also a bit uneasy in doing the experiment because it may give out the wrong impression to them. For guys, it was a lot easier to give away the condoms because of the norm that society presents.

Towards the end of the experiment, it became quite fun and exciting seeing the reactions of different people and classes regarding the free condoms. It also became a lot easier since the shyness has already disappeared after getting various reactions.

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

The activity/experiment on deviance proved that there are really different reactions from different genders and social classes. The activity clearly shows how the upper bracket of society shows more social control rather than the lower brackets. The cause of this may be because the upper bracket of society would rather buy the condoms themselves rather than breaking the norm and accepting one from a total stranger. It was also noticeable that when the guys were giving the condoms, the more condoms were given away rather than the girls. Overall, the experiment was a success because it showcased how there really is social conflict when norms are broken and that everyone has a different response to the violation of the norm.