SA21 A - Personal cyberSpace: A Breaching Experiment

Group Members: Francis Calabia, Juco Celeres, Jeremy Chny, Justine Garcia, Jasmin Inaldo, Cheska Picache, Yassy Tolcidas

Section: SA21 - A

What norm did you violate?

Social media has become a routinary and habitual fraction of most people’s lives, whether one is as young as a child or as old as a senior citizen. Although social media and the internet has allowed a more liberal and unrestricted landscape with regards to sharing one’s thoughts and connecting with people from around the globe, certain unwritten codes of conduct have intuitively and unconsciously been set in order to create a comfortable and safe cyber environment. One of which involves the use of video call.

  “Video call with your friends and family.” A variation of this statement is usually what is stated by most video call apps such as Skype, Viber and FB Video Chat. The question now is: What if the person you are video calling is not within your circle of close friends or immediate family members?

Using this concept, the group aims to test and violate one of the folkways that is obliviously being followed in the realm of the social media sites –   the notion of personal space in cyberspace. Specifically, these are the concepts that we aim to tackle and violate:  

•  video calling as a more intimate or formal means of conversation
  •  belief of not talking to strangers
•  meaning or symbolism associated with video calls



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

  Being virtual in nature, the experiment was done through the use of one of the most convenient, prominent and accessible forms of video calling, the Facebook Video Chat. Specifically, the experiment was conducted by initiating video calls with random people who are noted to be online at the particular time of observation. Additionally, this was done at night by all members of the group in order to reach a bigger circle of people who are actively using Facebook.

  The first step was to find an online random person in our friends’ list and initiate a video call with them. Then, observations would be made regarding the reaction of these people. The details that would be observed would then vary as the whether the person answered or not.

•  For those who answered, the video call will last for as long as the observed allows. The experimented will stay quiet and simply note particulars such as the first thing they said, the tone and the facial expression.
•  For those who didn’t answer, the experimenter may either wait if the participant will initiate a conversation or may also opt to initiate a conversation by asking why the participant did not answer the call. This was done in order to obtain more insight on their reactions.

The experiment involved a total of 37 participants, particularly teens or students, with 17 females and 20 males. During the attempt to video call, the members took screenshots of the process and reactions relayed through chat. If possible, the interactions were concluded by explaining the true intentions of the video call being a social experiment.



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?

   Over the course of the experiment, there were various observations mostly ranging from being confused, worried or simply apathetic. However, the consistent reaction of those who answered was being weirded out and confused, while most simply ignored the call without any succeeding reactions. Generally, there were 29 (80%) that did not even answer the call itself and resorted to either not accommodating the initiated conversation, or transferring the call or a less intimate means of chatting or using voice calls.

  Basically, there were four observed characteristics as exhibited through how they answered the call, their tone or the first things they said.
The Indifferent and Seenzoner
  These were people who were simply indifferent and nonchalant that they did not bother to ask the reason for the call, thus, resorting to merely “seen-zoning” the call or ignoring it. Some even replied by either stating that they were busy or that they assumed it was just pocket dialed or done in accident, both leading to no further conversation. This was done by 15 of the participants who were mostly composed of girls.
   Hypothetically, this would have been on the obvious reactions because it could be anticipated that, without close relations or rational reason for calling, people would generally ignore someone. Thus, people would merely assume a logical reason for the call such as it being an accident. Apart from this, there also exist a prevailing belief of not talking with strangers which may have also influenced most of the participants to ignore the call.
The Casual Conversation Starter 
These were people who were generally not close friends but are, in some forms, acquaintances or classmates. Being as such, they replied casually and would comprise mostly of those who answered the video call itself. In order to bright light to the conversation, these people practically tried to initiate and casual and friendly conversation in order to, probably, hide or mask the discomfort and strangeness of the scenario that they were in. Usually, the would reply in a casual tone saying phrases such as “wassup,” “whut@_@,” “LABOOO,” “Hi.” and other variations of casual conversation starters. These respondents were primarily male.
   A reason behind this could be due to the symbol that they have been associated with video calls. It could be possible that people would divert this call to a casual conversation in order to sustain and conform with the given symbol of video calls as being more friendly and intimate conversations. Thus, they acted friendlier and willing to converse.
The Concerned and Confused
   These people were generally those who showed incredible concern and confusion. These were respondents who sounded more formal in tone and in language wherein they did not use colloquial and casually used phrases. Rather, they expressed their anxiety and bewilderment by asking questions such as “whyyy?” “Natakot ako. Akala ko may problema ka,” or “[name]? bakit?”
This reaction could be associated as well with maintaining and conforming with the symbol and meaning that people associate with video calls. By expressing concern towards a person video calling, one tends to associate that a serious or urgent event has occurred. Thus, by assuming this, it retains the symbol of video calls as being somewhat formal and intimate in nature.

   Through these reactions, the deviant act re-affirmed the existence of varying treatments of people associated the concept of personal space. People would tend to not answer or foster an environment that is more rational in order to adjust with the violated norm of personal space within the cyberspace. In addition to that, the meaning and symbol given to video calls as being intimate, urgent and reserved in nature is also embodied in how these people reacted towards maintaining this meaning or symbol.

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)?

   Aside from the norm stated above, the concepts of gender roles and expectations, of proxemics, symbolic interaction, and social self with respect to Goffman’s dramaturgy could also be associated with why people reacted the way they did in the mentioned scenarios. The following are explanations for each sociological themes or concepts:

Gender roles
  As expected, the female gender role still tends to be associated with the concept of being reserved and cautious when it comes to talking with people whom they perceived as strangers. Often than not, females would not initiate conversations unless there is a logical reason for such or if they treat the person calling as someone who is of close relations to them. Thus, as observed, there is a disparity between genders when it comes to answering the video call. As stated, females tend to ignore or “seen-zone” the call. Males, on the other hand, tend to be more casual when it comes to interacting in the virtual landscape. Thus, as observed, males would, often than not, relay casual responses and would be more accommodating when it comes to conversing in social media sites.

Proxemics
   In the physical world, proxemics is observed to be prominent wherein a certain degree of closeness is associated with what space a person holds – intimate, personal, social or public. In social media sites, this concept of proxemics could also be reflected. However, rather than considering the actual corporeal distance, the degree of relationship could be connected with the space a person is in. For example, block mates and classmates would tend to occupy mostly the personal space which could explain as to why there were some small conversations that occurred. However, most of the participants, which include mere acquaintances, teachers, or even friends of friends, who would most likely occupy the social space, thus, resulted to minor or no conversations at all.

Symbolic Interaction
   Looking at this act in the concept of the symbolic interaction perspective, it could be seen that people associate symbols or meaning with video calls. Mostly, it would be associated with the concept of being reserved and urgent. Thus, people have the perception that the call was something they needed to be concerned with or was something that involved an accident or a critical event. Another perspective would be to see the video call as something that is more intimate or friendly, thus, people adjust their attitude and how they interact in order to maintain this perception or meaning.

Dramaturgy
   Goffman’s dramaturgy could also be associated with this scenario where in people tend to act in a certain way given a particular environment or occurrence. With this, people would tend to have impressions such as being formal/concerned or casual/friendly, depending on what they want to show to the audience, which in this retrospect was the group. Since the experiment we did was an act of deviance from a folkway, these cause disruptions in the daily routine and set of impressions one may have. Thus, people would tend to deviate from the actual call and revert to other means of conversation, such as chat or even ignoring it, so that there is no need for them to foster an impression (vocal language or facial expressions) that would accommodate the video call.



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?

  Generally, there were a lot of reservation and hesitant feelings towards conducting the breaching experiment. This was because the group have also assimilated within ourselves this notion of personal space in social media sites. Thus, deviating from the norm, being an unspoken and unwritten role or code of conduct, have caused feeling of shame and embarrassment for most of the group members. Having incorporated this folkway in the way we interact with people in social media sites, the group has already expected certain reactions and plausible responses from other people. Thus, it became troublesome knowing that our image could be disrupted and others may perceive us as weird or annoying.

These feelings were generally due to the social control, specifically self-control and informal control, wherein we ourselves understand the sanctions that may occur and also control ourselves due to the possible negative opinion people may have of us.

Because of these, some of the group’s members explained the nature of the experiment subsequently obtaining the participants’ responses.



Other observations and analysis.

Norms are generally written rules and guidelines that people have to follow. But as observed, there are multiple factors and situational causes that may affect the way people respond to certain deviant acts. It is in these situations that we not only become enlightened with the presence of these norms but also see the variations of how we interact with people. Thus, diversity in culture and its elements become evident wherein, although acts of deviance reinforce or affirm the norm, there are still different ways as to how people would go about reacting or setting sanctions for the act of deviance.

   The activity has also made us aware of the social structures that also exist in the virtual world or cyberspace, wherein sociological concepts could also be applied to the world outside the physical earth. Two of these evident sociological concept in cyberspace include personal space, wherein we still confine ourselves within the bubble of our social groups, even though the internet allows interaction with everyone possible, and dramaturgy wherein we still present ourselves in series of impressions as we relay ourselves in social media sites.

   Apart from these, the activity itself also allowed us to see our position as people that belong and is influenced by society, whether it be the physical or virtual society. This could be seen in how we somewhat became hesitance with defying one of society’s unseen obligations. Because of this, we became more aware of the concept of our social selves and our position as social beings. This is why deviance becomes something hard to do especially when one is aware and has already assimilated the norm.