Wednesday, November 30, 2016

SA 21- B Africa, Chan, Garcia, Macatulad, Trinidad, Yu

1.      What norm did you violate?
-          Proper etiquette while eating in public (e.g., way of eating, way of sitting, behavior inside the restaurant)

2.      Describe the breaching experiment in detail? What was the activity? Where did you do it?
-          Where: Kenny Rogers (to focus on the reactions of people in the middle to upper classes), and Jollibee (to focus on the reactions of people in the lower to middle class)
-          Activity: Deviance to “proper” eating etiquette
-          Did not sit properly (1 chair - backwards, 1 chair - sideways)
-          Used our hands while eating
-          Did not use a spoon while eating ice cream and drank directly from the cup
-          Ordered food or asked for something in the counter while holding the whole plate and eating
-          Walked around the restaurant while holding the whole plate and eating

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?
-          Kenny Rogers
-          Reactions:
-          When I first turned my chair backwards, people beside me reacted differently. People stared at me, probably wondering why I did it.
-          While eating with my hands, the waitress in the cafe smiled and laughed at me.
-          When I walk around while eating, a waiter approached me. They thought that I was having problems with my dish.
-          Then, for the second time, another waiter approached me. He was collecting my plate.
-          Insights:
-          The staff and customers of Kenny Rogers probably reacted this way because they hold proper eating etiquette with high regard. This includes eating with utensils, sitting down properly, and etc.
-          They view this as a social norm, and people who sway from this are regarded as deviants and are judged appropriately.
-          Jollibee
-          Reactions:
-          Customers were indifferent when we ate using our hands and our chairs turned backwards.
-          The waiters even offered tissue.
-          Insights:
-          The staff and customers of Jollibee probably reacted this way because they were used to this kind of behavior.
-          Another reason could be that they honestly did not care.
-          They do not hold much importance to “proper” eating etiquette and do not regard them as a social norm.
-          The familial/kiddy vibe of Jollibee probably also contributed to the fact that our behavior came across as something they are used to (because kids are there all the time).

4.      Aside from the norms, what sociological themes are at play for people to react in a certain way? Is it a function of gender, social class, values/beliefs of institutions?
-          Other sociological themes at play were social class expectations.
-          We conducted the experiment in Kenny Rogers and Jollibee precisely to see the difference in social class expectations.
-          Kenny Rogers, being a more high-end restaurant than Jollibee, expects a sense of “class” from its customers.
-          Also, customers eating in Kenny Rogers expect to interact with people from the same social class with the same social graces and etiquette.
-          To do the simple act of turning one’s chair backwards in a more high-end restaurant definitely turns heads.
-          Furthermore, the staff in Kenny Rogers normally deal with middle to high class customers and have certain expectations on how they must act, hence the reaction of the waiters.
-          Jollibee, on the other hand, caters to low to middle class customers, which comprise the bulk of the population.
-          Customers expect few or no social eating etiquette, hence their indifference.
-          In turn, the Jollibee staff does not expect any form of eating etiquette from their customers.
-          In summary, the different social class expectations in the two restaurants drive people’s reactions towards social deviance.

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?
-          It was embarrassing since people were looking at you
-          It was also embarrassing to deviate from the norms because you know that people will judge you
-          Hesitant at first because the activity we’re going to do is not normal like you know that some people will look at you and judge you because that’s not the proper way of behaving in a restaurant
-          Even though people do not notice that you’re eating differently, you can’t help but be conscious about yourself because you don’t normally act that way, and that might be why we are embarrassed or hesitant to do the experiment even in establishments like Jollibee.

6.      Other observations and analysis that you may have on the activity and on deviance in general.
-          People become deviants as others define them that way.
-          Eating with one’s hands and not exercising “proper” eating etiquette may be classified as deviant from the perspective of Kenny Roger’s staff and clientele, yet are openly welcomed or not noticed at all in Jollibee. 


PHOTOS

  

SA21A Breaching Experiment (Dumadag, Go, Hatol, Racoma, Roxas, Silva)


  1. What norm did you violate?

People usually go to stores where they want to shop and not the other way around. In this breaching experiment, what we did was to approach people and try to sell them banana chips and chocolate cookies. One norm violated would be the clothing of the vendors found in the mall. Vendors would usually wear a polo shirt and jeans but in one part of the experiment, our group mate wore clothes usually worn at home (shorts, and slippers) while selling the chips and cookies.

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

In this breaching experiment, what our group did was to randomly approach people and try to sell them banana chips and chocolate cookies. The first thing a group mate of ours did was to dress up like an Atenean. He wore a polo shirt, pants, and boat shoes. After that, he roamed around Fairview Center Mall and tried to sell our products. First, he introduced himself and told them that he was from Ateneo. After doing this to 20 people, our group mate then changed his attire and wore pambahay clothes (slippers, shorts, and loose t-shirt). He did the same experiment but instead of saying that he was from Ateneo, he said that he was from San Andres National High School, a school that our group made up.

  1. What were the different reactions of the people observed? 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?

For the first part of the experiment where our group mate dressed as an Atenean, 11 out of 20 people bought from our group mate. We observed different reactions from different people. One of them asked our group mate, “Bakit kailangan mo pa magbenta? Mayayaman mga taga Ateneo diba?” Three of the people approached didn’t want to buy at first but after our group mate showed them his ID, they bought our products. However, we also got negative responses from people. An old lady around 40 years old didn’t acknowledge the presence of our group mate and looked away. Another man didn’t stop to listen to our group mate and walked as if he was in a hurry.

The next part of the experiment, our group mate dressed in pambahay clothes. Compared to the first part of the experiment, less people bought from him. Only 8 out of 20 people bought our products. 3 of those 8 bought only after our group mate said “Sige na po. Kahit isa lang po mura na po yan.” 5 of them actually straight up said no or walked as if no one was talking to them.

More people bought from us when our group mate dressed up like an Atenean and showed his ID maybe because people found it easier to trust people from known schools than schools they didn’t know. Out of the 20 people in the first part of the experiment, only one of them didn’t know where Ateneo was.

To summarize the results:
  • From Ateneo (Polo shirt, pants, boat shoes, Ateneo ID)
    • 11/20 bought
    • 3 bought after showing Ateneo ID
    • People generally listened to him
    • Only one person ignored our group mate completely
    • Group mate didn’t have to ask again for them to buy
    • One asked why our group mate had to sell as he is an Atenean and Ateneans are generally perceived as rich
    • People knew the school
  • From San Andres National High School (slippers, shorts, loose t-shirt)
    • 8/11 bought
    • 3 bought after asking again
    • 5 ignored our group mate completely
    • People generally didn’t listen when our group mate was talking
    • People knew nothing about the school


  1. Aside from the norms, what sociological themes are at play for people to react in a certain way? Is it a function of gender (gender norms, roles), or social class (norms of the rich & poor)?

In this experiment, the perception of people to students from two different schools, Ateneo and San Andres National High School, was observed. The two sociological themes that were observed in this experiment were social class and stereotypes.

Social Class
The social class of each school in the experiment was represented by the clothes the experimenter wore. To represent the Ateneo, the experimenter wore presentable and decent clothes (polo shirt, pants, and boat shoes). On the other hand, to represent a random school that no one knows about, the experimenter wore pambahay clothes (Shorts, slippers, and loose t-shirt). Our group wanted to know how people would treat other people based on where they studied. Based on our observations during the experiment, more people treated Ateneans better than someone from a random school. Generally, people were more willing to listen and to buy from an Ateneo student than from a student from San Andres National High School. This may be because of how much more people trust those from the upper class than those from the lower class.

Stereotypes
With regards to stereotypes, buyer preference seems to have been influenced by the school’s reputation. With that said, given Ateneo’s prestigious background, students from the University may have the attached connotation that the student’s there are more reliable, trustworthy and the like. However, as seen by the reactions of the other buyers, students from Ateneo may also be perceived as snobs and rich kids, as evidenced by their shocked expression once knowing we were from Ateneo and selling banana chips and cookies. Incidentally, regardless of the negative perception they have, it can still be surmised that given the total amount of banana chips and cookies sold by the Ateneo student, in contrast to the San Andres National High School student—the rich and poor stereotype, still remains a huge factor when it comes to how people perceive other people.

  1. 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?
Before doing the experiment proper, our group was very hesitant to do the activity because selling banana chips and cookies isn’t something that we would normally do. There were also a lot of reservations in our part due to the fact that doing this experiment would mean a violation to a specific norm. Our group mate said the he felt embarrassed when he was selling the delicacies because of the possibility of being rejected and getting rude responses from other people. Purposely deviating from a norm feels very frightening at first, but as the experiment goes on it is very interesting and important to know how things, as simple as school and appearance, could affect a person’s perception and treatment to others.

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

The activity was only limited to people who were at the Fairview Center Mall and Ever Gotesco Food Court on a holiday. Results could be different if we were able to do the experiment on a different location like SM North Edsa or Trinoma, which are obviously bigger and more crowded. However, these malls have rules that do not allow any forms of solicitation within the mall’s premises. These regulations and requirements could be seen as a formal control by malls to avoid deviance to their norms; such as selling in pambahay clothes. Also, bigger malls have a more diverse crowd in terms of their social class. Diversity could be a big factor in selling the products because there is a bigger chance of finding a buyer from the same social class. We believe that people would tend to buy from someone from the same social class than from someone from another social class.


SA21 B - "Is This Your Condom?" Breaching Experiment

Group Name: Nathan & Co.
Kyle Chua, Zoe De Ocampo, Cesca Lee, Jeanine Rojo, Nathan Sarcia, Danica Uy

  1. What norm did you violate?
The breaching experiment violated the norm of not talking about sex and matters related to it in public. To be specific, condoms are not something one usually encounters when walking around the mall because it is portrayed as, and must remain, personal and intimate, not at all public.

  1. Describe the Breaching experiment in detail. What was the activity? Where did you do it?
The breaching experiment was to go up to random strangers, hand them a condom and pretend that they had dropped it, while we tell them, “I think you’ve dropped this.” This was done one by one by each of the group members, so that it would not be too obvious that it was an experiment. The experiment was done in UP Town Center, and the group chose different kinds of people to be able to observe differences in their reactions. More specifically, the group compared their reactions through various gender permutations (e.g. Male member from the group would ask a female stranger, vice versa).

  1. What were the different reactions of the people? List all possible reactions you observed. Why do you think they reacted this way? What caused these reactions? Did the deviant act reaffirm or reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?
Most of the people were initially shocked upon seeing the condom and denied that it was theirs, but most had the quick instinct to take it before finding out what it was.

Below is a list of the reactions observed:
  • Two male friends: one checked his pockets (instinctive reaction to being asked if he dropped something) and denied; the other one said “no, that would be weird”
  • A middle-aged man: did not say anything, shook his head and then looked at the condom and then shook his head even more while smiling as if about to laugh
  • A group of girls: their eyes widened upon seeing the condom and denied
  • A group of friends: looked very bothered and denied
  • A couple: woman looked at the man, the man paused and denied, but kept staring as if to process what happened
  • A young Chinese couple: both stared at the condom without saying anything, denied after a while, but kept on staring
  • A couple with 2 male friends: the boyfriend denied, but one of the male friends said it was his and was handed the condom. After our group member walked away, he called the member back, saying it was a joke. The group member then proceeded to tell him that he wasn’t kidding which the male friend gave a look of sudden shock and disbelief and returned the condom
  • A touchy couple: they were rushing; when the condom was handed, the man stared at it while the woman stared at the man as if accusing him of something; the man denied and was very defensive

It is taboo to talk about sex and matters related to it publicly, so the expected reaction was for them to be shocked that something private was made public. It can also be assumed that there is a negative connotation to using or even just owning condoms in this society and it is not something that people are comfortable with talking about, especially to strangers. The deviant act reaffirmed this existing norm.

  1. Aside from the norms, what sociological themes are at play for people to react in a certain way? Is it a function of gender, social class, or values or beliefs of institutions?
For this experiment, the context of how we are in a Catholic country in which contraceptives is still a controversial matter, was also at play for people to have reacted in the way they did. The Catholic church stood against the passing of the Reproductive Health Bill, which would permit easier access to contraception and sex education in our country. Most Filipinos are Catholic, although this does not insist that Filipinos, even the devout, do not use contraceptives. This also plays a role in their being conservative, and how that translates to their treating of sex as a taboo subject.
Institutional-wise, contraceptives was made a social and moral issue rather than a health issue. This can be seen in the teachings of the Catholic Church and the lessons on, or lack of, sex education in schools. Viewing condoms or sex-related materials is therefore made uncommon in society, which can be supported by the initial reactions of all the subjects.  

  1. 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?
Doing the experiment was fun and amusing; however, it was not eye-opening because we already saw the reactions coming. The experiment therefore affirmed our assumptions. We were quite hesitant to do the activity for fear that we might get caught, or that people might think it was a joke and get mad at us. We cautiously picked out the people whom we did the experiment to; we did not approach older people and parents with children because we were afraid that they might be offended or would react very negatively.

  1. Other observations and analysis that you may have on the activity and on deviance in general.
With the couples’ reactions, we observed that they all assumed that it was the man who may have dropped the condom and not the woman. Even when the man knew he did not drop the condom, he looked guilty of it. We also observed that when we bought the condoms, the cashier looked at us as if judging us. When we were sitting at a bench, the man who sat beside us looked uncomfortable upon seeing that we were holding out and talking about the condoms casually. 
Doing something deviant can be very embarrassing, especially when it feels as if everyone is judging and ridiculing you. However, when you really think about the deviance and realize that there is technically nothing wrong with what you are doing, it in some way relieves you of the shame that you feel.

SA 21 C Breaching Experiment (Alcala, Aquino, Chua, Opena, Reyes)



  1. What norm did you violate?

The group violated the norm of personal space and privacy of people, specifically while they browsed their mobile phones.
  1. Describe the breaching experiment in detail. What was the activity? Where did you do it?
The group’s breaching experiment involved ‘invading’ the personal space and privacy of a person fixated on their mobile phones by shamelessly looking at it [their phones] despite being a stranger. A group member would peek or blatantly look at the device and would comment on whatever the person was invested in while making it seem that the group member was also interested in it. On some occasions, the group members chose to directly comment on the content that they’re seeing on the stranger’s device in hopes of getting reactions from the person. For example, a group member looked at the device of a stranger preoccupied with texting and noted “ang haba naman ng tinetext nito”. The group conducted the breaching experiment inside malls - specifically in UP Town Center and SM Marikina. The group mostly chose people who were sitting down or were casually standing/leaning while they focused on their devices. They also chose certain areas in the malls where they would conduct the breaching experiment, favoring places where there were relatively few people, an environment that was quite dim and unalive, and places where the halls were quite constricted so that not many people would see or witness the experiment as compared to open places where filming might be obvious.

  1. What were the different reactions of the people? List all possible reactions you observed. Why do you think they reacted this way? What caused these reactions? Did the deviant act reaffirm/reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?
From the observations of the group, the reactions of the people generally ranged from indifference, to surprise, to amusement and to outright “rage mode”. The first guy the group tried the breaching experiment with was actually nervous because apparently, he thought our group mate was someone he knew but didn’t remember. He didn’t shy away when our group mate looked at his phone, and after the breaching experiment, he was even open to conversations with her. Another Kuya Guy was also chill even though our group mate was practically peering over his shoulder; he was just surprised at first but eventually he looked amused and continued to watch on his phone. On one occasion, our group mate was even able to strike a conversation with a guy who was playing games on his phone; the guy didn’t feel weirded out at all and even entertained his questions while exhibiting the combo moves of the game he was playing. On the other hand, complete indifference was what our group mate received from the two policemen; they just looked at our group mate and continued on with their businesses in their phones. Similarly, most of the other people in SM Marikina followed the same trend of indifference when the group looked at their phones; some found it a bit weird but they didn’t make a big deal out of it despite feeling a bit awkward or bewildered at such actions. Probably the highlight of this breaching experiment was the two ladies in UP Town Center; they were obviously pissed when our group mate tried the breaching experiment on them. They even gave our group mate a ‘once over’ and their body postures were notably stiff and on-guard. Moreover their eyes were quite venomous so to say, and it was pretty nerve-wracking to see and experience it in person.

We believe they acted this way primarily because it feels immensely awkward to have someone looking over your phone. Having a close friend or a loved one look over you as you browse your phone is unsettling enough, what more if the person doing it is a complete stranger? Perhaps one of the factors that also contributed to their reactions was that aside from looking, we also remarked on the things they’re viewing - which portrays a feeling of familiarity although it’s completely unexpected and possibly, uncalled for. The deviants have certainly reinforced existing norms of privacy and personal space especially on the two ladies who reacted negatively. The same trend can be said for the other subjects given that some felt surprised or amused by the act. However, there remains the other reactions by which the other subjects didn’t really mind the supposed deviation from the norms of privacy and personal space.

  1. Aside from the norms, what sociological themes are at play for people to react in a certain way? Is it a function of gender, social class, values/beliefs of institutions?
Aside from the social norm of personal space and privacy, the group was also able to observe sociological themes relating to social class. UP Town Center is typically considered a middle class-upper class space and the group believes that given the circumstances, reactions of people were more “relaxed” given that there’s this feeling that the people going to UPTC are of the same social class/higher social class or status thereby denoting a feeling of “safety” in the midst of people who aren’t likely to possess or commit inappropriate or malicious thoughts and/or actions. However, the group was also able to observe the most heated reaction from this social space. The group felt that the two ladies who got pissed at us suddenly had their walls held high after we did the breaching experiment; as expressed earlier, they gave our group mate a once-over and the group thinks that this gesture attests to the fact that appearances matter in the reactions they gave especially since we were dressed simply compared to their extravagant outfits. On the other hand, SM Marikina would probably be considered a social space for the ‘middle-lower class’ people compared to the crowd that UPTC caters to. The group believes that the reactions gathered from the subjects from SM Marikina (mostly of indifference) stems from the fact that maybe fascination towards another person’s possessions was nothing new to them. Moreover, they were generally more welcoming even though there’s already the act of overstepping on their personal space, or rather, they don’t feel as if the act done by the group was an act that invaded their privacy and personal space which could have been because of the social class they belong to. Moreover, it could be said that the these people are more ‘exposed’ to public space as compared to the individuals commonly found in UPTC who typically live private lives (e.g. live in villages, have their own vehicles/drivers).

  1. 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 was extremely hesitant to do the activity. Since I myself feel uncomfortable if someone would invade my privacy, especially my phone (Pretty sure only I know my passcode, and the stuff here in my phone would probably be the reason why). During the three times I did the experiment, I had various reactions. During the first time, it was because they were policemen, so I was a bit scared. First-time jitters also got to me. The second one was very intimidating, considering the people I was about to approach. Upon looking at the girl’s screen, it was a phone conversation, which means I’m actually gonna have to make a statement that would look like I have every intention to break her privacy. Of all the three, this was the one I had the hardest time to do, and the one where I needed the most convincing. As for the last one, I felt really okay, since I was actually curious after seeing what he was playing. I could tell he wasn’t an average player, simply because he could execute a Hadoken (Yes, not everyone is aware that it’s ↓↘→ + P). Overall, it was an extremely fun experience that I will never do again. I don’t know how that last statement would make sense but it’s true. -Lan

Before we began the experiment, I had to mentally prepare myself to be embarrassed. Although I am not a shy and reserved person, it scared me half to death knowing that I would be violating social norms – even if it was intentional. When we found our first subject, I felt very hesitant to approach him. There were already different possible scenarios playing in my head – what if he got mad and reported me to security or made a scene which would embarrass me further? At the end of the day, I realized that despite knowing that I was not breaking any law in doing the experiment, I felt as if I were a social criminal. The social conditioning that I’ve gone through my entire life had made sure that I would police myself in moments when I felt like violating societal norms – intentionally or unintentionally. During and after the experiment, it felt as though it wasn’t their personal space we were testing, but myself and how I could go for the sake of accomplishing the project. It was an enriching experience, no doubt, however I’d be very hesitant to do a repeat of it because of the way I felt while performing the experiment. It was orchestrated but it didn’t feel any different from accidentally doing something embarrassing in public.

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

The guard in UPTC was particularly concerned when the group conducted the breaching experiment on the two ladies in UP Town Center who were quite luxurious in appearance. I honestly thought he was going to call our group out for doing ‘inappropriate actions’ on the two ladies who were quite vocal with us but fortunately, he didn’t. Nobody minded us when we did the breaching experiment on other people though.