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

Sheanne Cabantac  

Ezekiel Lagmay

Marcail Ngochua

Ashley Policarpio
Soo Kyung Song
Mica Tandoc

The Breakfast Club

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

Breaching Experiment Discussions

1. What norm did you violate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reactions of the parties involved:

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

4. Aside from the norms, what sociological themes are at play for people to react in a certain way? Is it a function of gender (gender norms, roles), social class (norms of the rich & the poor), values/beliefs of institutions (religion, family, peer group, etc.). [You could design the experiment based on these sociological themes. For example, you could compare reactions according to gender, social class, etc. That would be more interesting - and might obtain a better grade! :)].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• A representative’s insights

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

• A representative's insights

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

• A representative’s insights

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

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

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