SA 21 E - Magic Mike

Breaching Experiment

Jardin, Dana

Lim, Chynna

Mendoza, Nikki

Regalado, Julia
Reyes, Danielle

Villa-real, Kat

Meet our friend Mike!

1) What norm did you violate?

For this experiment, we violated the expected roles of a young adult and the norm for someone to “act their age” which, for the young adult, is to act mature and to not play or talk to toys. The norm is greatly regulated at home. At some point, parents stop buying their children traditional toys like dolls or cars and expect them to play less often. Terms used to reinforce this norm could be calling the child a “big girl/boy,” “dalaga,” “binata,” etc. Even more advanced forms of toys like video games are looked down on because they are seen as wastes of time. The older the children are, the more they are expected to pay less attention to toys and more to school or chores.

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

The breaching experiment aimed to see the difference between how a customer and an employee would react to the subject deviating from the norm of “acting her age” and violating the expected roles for a young adult. We chose a cafe setting and a store setting because they are places many young adults spend their free time. We chose to perform the experiment in UPTown center because it is a common mall many students who study in Katipunan go to. We chose Starbucks for the cafe setting and CottonON for the store setting.

• Café setting: Starbucks
• The subject entered Starbucks with her doll and proceeded to line up and order with it. The subject sat down and shared her meal with the doll while also talking to it. The subject also tested the deviance even more by dropping the doll (which we chose to name Mike) by “accident” and saying, “Mike! Are you okay?” As the subject left, she said “bye” to the barista and told the doll to say “bye” as well.
• Store Setting: CottonON
• The subject entered the store and went to the men’s section first. She went on by looking at different clothes and asking the salesperson for Mike’s (the doll’s) size. The subject continued to walk around and talk to the doll. The subject also repeated her action in Starbucks in which she dropped Mike in front of a customer and panicked.

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?

• No one noticed the subject or the doll when she first entered Starbucks or CottonON.

• Baristas / Salespeople / Service People

• The Starbucks barista was smiling and accommodating all throughout. She entertained the subject and her doll, talking to it (the doll) as if it were a real person. The barista did not giggle or laugh at the subject, and she did not call the attention of her co-workers either as expected. She maintained this attitude even when the subject left for her seat.
• The Starbucks barista also said goodbye to the doll as the subject left.

• The Cotton On employees were very accommodating as well. They helped the subject without visible irritation, even if the subject asked him thrice for “Mike’s” size.
• One of the employees couldn’t hide his grin, and smiled even more when the subject left.
• Employees are taught to treat each customer with respect and they therefore cannot react in a rude or unappealing manner towards the subject.

• Customers
  
• The Starbucks customers laughed at the sight of the subject, even when she was still at the counter ordering. Two boys (who were seated on the table beside the subject) kept laughing, with little effort to hide their reactions. They laughed at the subject throughout the duration of the experiment. The other customers, though initially laughing as well, eventually ignored the subject and went about their own works. They were seemingly busy with their studies or work with their laptops and books. When the subject was exiting the establishment, the two boys stared and laughed at her even more.
• The CottonOn customers stared at the subject. All the customers had a confused look on their face - which for some, turned into smiles and slight giggles, but for others, turned to grimace and a judgemental look.
• When the subject dropped Mike and started to panic, one female customer kept staring at her.
• Customers did not feel the need to hide their reactions because they did not have anything to lose by laughing or staring at the subject.
  
  

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.)?

We concluded that the social context of the person as either an employee or a fellow customer greatly affects their reaction. The Starbucks baristas and CottonON employees are trained and paid to cater to every need of their customers, putting them first. As a result, their front stage persona forbids them from treating the subject differently like other customers did. Other shoppers have no repercussions for laughing/staring so were more free to do so.

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?

• Pre-experiment
• Some of us were pretty excited to conduct the experiment since it is not everyday that we get to deviate from the norms. There was a sense of thrill that we got from the thought of doing something new and quite unusual.
• Some of us also already felt too shy to be the subject of the experiment, already predicting that we would just be laughing half the time.

• During the experiment
• When it was time to actually perform the experiment, we chickened out for a bit because we did not want to get judged, and we really did not know what reactions to expect.
• As we pulled through with the experiment, the subject acted very well and kept her chill all throughout, despite the different reactions she was getting from the surrounding audiences that made her slightly uncomfortable.
• On the other hand, those of us behind the cameras were unable to hide our laughter with ease. We were also unable to document the experiment with ease, since we did not want the surrounding people to alter their reactions if ever they found out they were being filmed.

• After the experiment
• As we passed by the establishments again on our way out of the mall, some of us could not help but giggle due to the secondhand embarrassment we felt from again seeing the people that reacted to the subject’s performance earlier.
• At the end of it all, we felt relieved and happy that our experiment was successful.

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

Additionally, we observed a difference between the customers and the peer groups they are in. In Starbucks, the subject was seated between a pair of college-aged boys sitting together and another college-aged boy studying alone. It was clear that when she sat down, the two boys laughed together. The boy studying alone did notice the subject and looked at her doll for a while but afterwards, resumed studying. In CottonON, when Dana dropped the doll in front of a college-aged girl shopping alone, she was only stared at as well. This shows that it is more likely for a group of people to laugh at a deviant versus a single person. 
Human groups tend to develop a system of social control involving formal and informal means of social control. Since the subject violated the norm in front of the group of boys, she was labeled as a “deviant” and it resulted in her to receive negative sanctions such as being laughed at. Her deviance was not as sanctioned by individuals who noticed her breaking the norm because the social system of a group is not present.