SA21 A - Lee, Perez, Pitargue, Reyes, Torres

Violation of Norm: Escalator Etiquette and Personal Space

            In conducting the breaching experiment, the norms of escalator etiquette and personal space were violated. The experimenters observed that the norm on the escalator is either a combination of people using their phones, holding the handrails, talking to the person they came with, or simply standing still until they get to their destination floor. Normally, it is very unusual to interact with other people on the escalator unless one personally know them. Similarly, it is unexpected for people to be approached and talked to by strangers on the escalator. Since both the ascending and descending escalators used in the experiment were placed next to each other, the experiment was also able to deviate from the norm of personal space since it involved reaching over the opposite escalator to hold a stranger’s hand.

The Breaching Experiment Proper

            

The breaching experiment the group had performed dealt with the use of escalators and the concept of personal space. The group executed the breaching experiment at 2:30 pm on a Friday (3rd of March, 2017) in Regis Center Katipunan which is a high-traffic time and place where college students, high school students and adults use the escalators going from the first to the second floor and vice versa. The way the group had conducted the experiment was by having one of the experimenters ride one of two side-by-side escalators, of which he chose to ride the escalator going up for consistency and ease of access. Documentation of the targets’ reactions was made possible since the targets were going down the escalator, and the other experimenters were positioned at the ground floor, near where the targets would get off. The deviance of escalator etiquette was demonstrated on the escalator when the experimenter would reach out his hand towards another person who was riding the opposite escalator as they passed by each other. With the volume of people going through the escalators, the experimenters were able to record the participants’ reactions from different gender and age groups.

After conducting the breaching experiment, the experimenters were able to gather mostly similar reactions from they attempted the experiment on. The most common reaction that was received by the group was that of surprise and shock. Some of the subjects showed their surprise more subtly, by just looking at the experimenter with widened eyes or raised eyebrows, while some of them reacted more strongly, showing their surprise and even fear through interjections or by clutching their hands to their chest. A possible explanation to this reaction is that the norm for riding on elevators entails that people will be able to simply stand in peace without interaction from other people. However, the sudden reaching out of a stranger’s hand while one is standing on an elevator can become an alarming outside stimulus.

Aside from the initial shock, the sudden appearance of a stranger’s hand was able to prompt some different reactions from the subjects. A common reaction is that the people who saw the stranger’s hand tried to ignore or move away from it. When asked about what they felt during the experiment, most of them said that they shocked or “weirded out” by the sudden gesture. Most likely, their reactions were a manifestation of the deviance of the norm of personal space. The experiment, which involved reaching out a hand towards a stranger, may have made the subjects feel as if their personal space is being encroached upon. To remedy this fear, most of them instinctively reacted to move away from the experimenter’s hand.

One interesting reaction gathered from the experiment was that some people actually reached out and shook the experimenter’s hand despite him being a stranger. When the people were debriefed, most of them who returned the experimenter’s gesture explained that the reason they shook his hand was because they thought he was an acquaintance and they tried to recognize whether or not they knew him. Despite returning the gesture, they were still mostly shocked and confused about what was happening. From the reactions collected by the group, it can be inferred that deviant act conducted in the experiment was able to reinforce the norms of escalator etiquette and personal space.

Experiment Observations

The following is a consolidated list of reactions from those who participated in the breaching experiment.

	Men	Women
Teenagers/High school students	(No chance to observe)	·      Shocked ·      Started to return the gesture but thought twice and retracted hand
College Students	·      Mixed reactions ranging from “weirded out” to “pretty cool”	·      Surprised ·      Found it awkward and did not return the gesture
Adults	·      Shocked; felt privacy was invaded with no explanation ·      Shocked, but returned gesture because he thought the experimenter was an acquaintance ·      Returned the gesture, but stared at him to see if he can recognize him ·      Shocked at first but thought nothing of it after	·      Simply ignored experimenter by not looking at him ·      Shocked and ended up avoiding experimenter ·      Scared because she didn’t know him; also attempted to recognize him

Perhaps one of the clearer sociological themes observed was how gender affected the reactions of the people in the experiment. Women, as observed, were more shocked and avoided the experimenter more often than the men, who would return the gesture, with one even finding it “pretty cool”. It is possible that the women would get the impression that the male experimenter was doing said deviant behavior in order to flirt or “hit on” them. This would then support a gender-specific norm, where women would most often ignore, avoid or maybe even violently react to sudden advances by men. With this in mind, the group came to realize after the experiment that perhaps if gender roles were reversed (a woman suddenly reaching out to men and other women), there would possibly be different reactions.

In terms of age difference, the targets who belonged to the age bracket of college students found the gesture “pretty cool” compared to the adults who often let the action go. The reactions reinforced the existing norms where such odd gestures were more “acceptable” if done by a peer belonging to a similar age group. Furthermore, the bigger age gap with the older participants could have caused more awkwardness, where judgments can originate from the impression that the younger generation involves themselves in “crazy” and “impulsive” behavior.

Personal Reflection

The experience of violating the expected personal space varied from person to person. There was a general sense of hesitation regardless of the target, which stemmed from various sources. Personal space, in virtually all cultures, is an important matter, signaling where a person stands on the spectrum of unfriendliness and insensitivity. To violate another’s personal space by entering too far into it felt like trying to dominate and coerce another person, as they would most likely interpret the act as reducing their locus of control. There was also the fear of explicit resistance, whether through verbal or physical refusals (e.g. saying “Go away from me!”), as well as the fear of drawing undue attention to the self and being alienated, albeit briefly, from the small group of people present there. There was also the ever-present risk of formal punishment at the hands of the authorities (i.e. security guards). This would most likely take the form of a request to leave, which, although ultimately inconsequential, would further shame the experimenter.

            Among people of a similar age and background, such a breach could have been considered a misguided show of affection (i.e. the target assumes that the experimenter mistook them for somebody else). However, the breach could have been construed as a hostile display. For instance, a female, or even a male, could have perceived the act as a form of mild sexual aggression. The fear of being alienated and perceived as overly sexually driven, added to the relative closeness of such targets (making alienation from them all the more painful), caused the experimenter some anxiety.

            Paradoxically, among people of vastly different ages and backgrounds, the fear of alienation was equally strong, exacerbated by the distance between the experimenter and the target. Among older people, the breach could have been construed as an affront to their authority (Philippine society, in most areas, places high value on age as a sign of maturity and wisdom). The social distance between the experimenter and the subject meant that the subject was less likely to empathize or forgive the experimenter, thus magnifying any hostility they might have felt.

SA 21 A - Acol, Badion, Dulatre, Querubin, Rebolledo, Santos, Villanueva

You Can’t Sit With Us: A Breaching Experiment on the Norm of Personal Space

The experiment violated the norm of personal space in public places. When a person or a group of people go to mall, restaurant, park, or any public place, they usually claim a space as their own and strangers do not sit with them. Most of the time, when there is space, people prefer to sit as far away from a table that is taken. A table set for 5 people could be occupied by just one person, but no one would sit in the other chairs because it is assumed that the whole table is taken by that person even though he/she is alone. The concept of personal space is something that is embedded in people, especially in our country where the culture is quite conservative and individualistic. People prefer to have a certain distance between them and other strangers. The invasion of personal space, especially by a complete stranger, is usually seen as weird and unacceptable, which could lead some people to get mad.   

The experiment was set to be done in public crowded places such as restaurants or open spaces where people tend to find a spot and make it their personal space. For example, in a public place such as a fastfood chain, despite having several tables and several strangers all around, a table one would sit in would become his/her personal space. The researchers conducted the experiment in UP Town Center, specifically in Jollibee, McDonald’s, Pancake House, open garden near the new mall (phase one and two), and the event grounds. The venues were chosen at random. It was done last February 27, 2017 around 4 in the afternoon until 6 in the evening.

The objective of the experiment was to see the reactions of people when their personal spaces are invaded by other strangers. The researchers expected or hypothesized that the people whom the experiment was conducted on would feel nervous, wary, or even awkward once they are put in that situation. In order to “invade” the personal spaces on people for the experiment, what the researchers did was to go to public places wherein people could create personal spaces for themselves.

The experiment was done 6 times. Thrice to people alone, twice to pairs, and once to a group. The people were chosen at random by the researchers to rule out factors that may affect the experiment. There was no certain criteria in choosing who to conduct the experiment on. In addition, only one person or group of people in the certain area was chosen in order to remove the factor that the others in the same area may have been watching and know how the experiment goes, thus defeating its objective.

Since the objective of the experiment was to see the reactions of people when their personal spaces were invaded by strangers, the experiment involved the researchers sitting with a random stranger or strangers in either a table or open space. The researchers would first ask if they could sit with them, this is the act of invading personal space, and then try to make small talk or ask anything random in order to keep the conversation alive. This further “invades” the personal space of the person the researchers are conducting the experiment on. However, when the people are hesitant or starting to get uncomfortable, the researcher will automatically end the experiment and debrief the person or group about the social experiment. The people were debriefed by saying that they are part of an experiment, there are cameras recording what was happening, and were asked if it would be okay to use the footage.

The experiment was recorded through three different ways. The researchers used a GoPro camera and a DSLR camera. Two cameras were used to get two different perspectives of the experiment being done. Since the two cameras would not be capable of capturing the conversations of the people doing the experiment, a phone was brought by the researchers during the experiment to record the conversations that would occur.

Different people with varying genders and from a wide age range. Some of the approached people were alone and some were also with another person or a group of people. The experiment was conducted by researchers either alone or in pairs. After conducting each, observations were written down and among all the observations there were somewhat similar reactions and significantly extreme reactions as well.

The first observation was done inside Jollibee. The researcher approached a lady who was seated alone while she was going through some papers. The researcher asked the lady if she could share her table with him. Right when the researcher approached the lady, she bent backwards and moved all her stuff away from the researcher and put them on the other side of the table. The lady was surprised, but tried to act like she was normal that is why she just nodded and continued to check her papers. When the researcher tried to ask the lady a few questions like how her day went and what she was checking, the lady just kept nodding and continued to check her papers. The lady seemed scared and it seemed like the she thought that it was some kind of modus opperandi that is why she was very reluctant in starting a conversation.

The second time the experiment was conducted was on two seemingly queer men seated side by side in McDonald’s at UP Town Center. They were approached by one of the researchers. She started the conversation by asking, “Did you have the sundaes?”, since there were 2 sundaes on their table. One of them replied by saying, “Yes” without looking at the researcher, while the other one continued to write on a piece of paper. The researcher made a follow up question by asking if the sundaes were good, and one of the men replied “yes”, without looking at the researcher again. The researcher then asked, “can I sit here?”, which was a seat across the two men, and he instantly replied, “why?” in a seemingly annoyed manner. The researcher debriefed the two men about the social experiment, then gave a stern look. A few minutes after the experiment was done, one of them ran after the researchers and asked them about the experiment and why they were the researchers were recording them on video, despite being debriefed. The man was mad while talking to the researchers. He pointed his pencil at the researchers as he was talking, which caught the attention of the people around McDonald’s.

On the third time, while two researchers were approaching a group of teenagers, they made sure that they were able to hear what we were talking about. The researchers used the size of UPTC as a topic of conversation between them and used it as an icebreaker with the group of teenagers. The researchers then tried to keep the conversation alive by saying how tired they were, asking the only guy from the group who acknowledged the researchers where they came from. Although he would reply to the questions of the researchers, he would not make the effort to keep the conversation alive and he would turn his back on us after answering the questions. It was very one-sided. The group did not talk to the researchers and they just focused on what they were doing. The researchers then found out that they were rehearsing for something which could be a factor as to why they were not as responsive. After debriefing the guy, the other teenagers started to acknowledge the researchers.

After observing a set of teenagers, the group decided to approach an old lady sitting alone. The researcher noticed that the old lady saw that she was being approached, but she did not fuss nor moved away. When the researcher was near her she said, “Magandang hapon po, puwede po bang maki-upo rito?” and she just smiled and nodded. The researcher and the lady stayed quiet for over a few seconds, and she still did not show any sign of discomfort. The researcher eventually asked if she was waiting for anyone. She was just smiling and said that she was. “Anak niyo po?” the researcher asked, “no” she said quite calmly while looking towards the direction of what the researcher would assume was where her relative was coming from. She did not show any sign of discomfort. The researcher then debriefed her and explained that this was only part of the experiment for the Sociology and Anthropology class, and that she was being filmed. She was asked if it was okay for her to be featured on the video, she simply smiled, nodded and wished the group good luck.

The fifth time the experiment was conducted was on a young teenage girl sitting alone on one Kitkat bench in event grounds at the UP Town Center mall. She was approached casually by one researcher. The researcher asked if she could sit with her and she only nodded to say yes. The researcher proceeded to ask more questions like, “may hinihintay ka ba rito?”, and “anong ginagawa mo rito?” and the girl only answered using only one-word answers such as, “wala”, and “wifi”. She was starting to look nervous when the researcher started asking questions, and she was not looking up from her phone. She seemed like she was already feeling uncomfortable with the situation. When the researcher debriefed her about the experiment, she only nodded as a response again.

The experiment was last conducted on two men sitting outside one of Pancake House’s tables. Initially, they seemed busy and did not want to talk to anyone. Two researchers approached them and first asked if they could join them. Their first responses were just nods, though as the researchers asked questions, they were really calm and were into having small talk. The conversation was on restaurants and where it would be good to eat. One of the men even asked what the researchers were craving for and then suggested a list of restaurants that, according to him, were good places to eat. The other man was just agreeing and nodding while the other was doing all the talking. They were not awkward and were really nice to the researchers. After being debriefed, they just smiled at the researchers.

Some other factors to the way the different people reacted could be their age. The middle age/adults tend to be the most skeptical about the whole thing. At their age, they regard personal space as most sacred. In the case of the two seemingly queer men, they probably felt like they were being attacked or violated because one of them got mad and most likely did not understand the situation even though it was explained to them. The elderly and the young girl/group, on the other hand, took things more lightly. The elderly are usually very caring and so the response given by the old lady was very sweet and she even wished us good luck. Most elderly people tend to be more trusting of the youth, especially if they have children or grandchildren of their own. In the case of the younger people we performed our experiment on, most of them were not offended not were they completely welcoming either. With the teenage girl in the Kitkat bench, she just seemed very uninterested as seen in her single-worded answers. But after a while we started to sense that she was getting uncomfortable but did not do anything about it. Most teens do not know what to do when these things happen so the reaction was not as strong as those who are middle-aged or adults.

At first, the researchers felt hesitant in approaching the strangers and asking if they could join them in their tables. During the experiment, the researchers could not help but feel excited and nervous as they were waiting for the reactions of the strangers. It is considered a norm not to sit with people you do not know, therefore it felt very awkward to randomly sit with someone and ask them personal questions. It felt very nerve-racking to communicate with the strangers, because one would not know how they would react to you sitting with them and asking them personal questions. It was one thing to calmly approach them and ask if you could join them, but it was another to stay there and act normal.

The researchers all felt hesitant at first. They did not know who to approach, and how they would approach them. The researchers also had no idea on how to converse with the strangers because they were trying to gauge their reactions. Despite being hesitant to deviate this norm, the researchers still pushed through with it because it was interesting to see their reactions.

Several experiments were done and all of them yielded different results. There were instances when the strangers got angry but there were also some wherein the strangers made a conversation and seemed to enjoy the researcher’s company. The researchers noticed that the age, gender, and presence of peers affected how the strangers acted. When one of the researchers approached a female senior citizen, she gladly allowed one of the researchers to sit with her. The senior citizen seemed to have a very jolly mood and was happy to talk to people. Also, when two of the researchers approached a group of teenage kids hanging out in the mall, the people in the group talked to researchers without hesitation and fear. The group of teenage kids seemed to be more confident and safe to talk to the researchers because their friends were there to help them if anything bad would have happened. However, there was also an instance when the stranger got angry at the researcher. In McDonald’s, one of the researchers was not permitted by the strangers to sit with them. Moreover, the strangers went after the researchers because they saw cameras and voice recorders. Different people had different reactions towards our group and our actions. We would all have our own opinions as to how these strangers would react to us including them in our experiment but their reactions would always be different from what we expected it to be. This just shows how different people are from each other. We all have our own specific way of showing how we want other people to respect our personal space and this was evident in the experiment.

SA21 E: Aguas, Baltao, Lao, Luna, Martin, Pastor, Uy

1. What norm did you violate?

We violated the norm that people must use cubicle stalls in public restrooms alone. In this experiment, we compare the reactions of both men and women seeing two people enter a cubicle at the same time. Whereas it is not unheard of for women to share cubicle stalls at times, this is considered especially strange for men. Through this experiment, we aim to prove this notion.

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

We documented the reactions of both men and women seeing two people enter a cubicle stall together in their respective public restrooms. The male members of the group also shared a urinal together as this was more public and in theory would garner more reactions. We conducted the research strictly inside the Ateneo for safety purposes and for the privacy of those who will be the subjects of the experiment. The experiment was documented in multiple restrooms found inside the campus, particularly in high traffic places like the restrooms found beside Gonzaga, at the MVP basement, at Sec A, at Leong Hall and Leong Roofdeck. The experiment was mostly conducted within the 10-minute intervals of classes to get the maximum number of people in one restroom. The experiment was also conducted after a NSTP session held in Leong.

To provide contrast to the experiments conducted on campus and ensure a random sample, the group also conducted it at Regis Center along Katipunan avenue. This way, we can also compare the different crowds and how they react.

The group has been divided between the 5 female members and 2 male members. For the female members, two groups with three alternating members would document the experiment for the different women’s restrooms chosen by the group. For the 2 male members, the same process is undergone in male restrooms. However, because there was one male missing to conduct the experiment, we enlisted the help of another male outside of the group for documentation.

3. What were the different reactions of the people? List all the 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 females, there were not any disgusted or violent reactions. At most, they would just glance at what we were doing and then go back to their own business. There were some situations that stood out. One girl stared at us in a judging manner when we came out of the cubicle. Another girl looked confused as to why we were going into the same cubicle when there was one open cubicle right next to it. Aside from that, everyone else did not seem to care, proving that it is no big deal for females to see two females in one cubicle.

The judging girl most probably looked at us that way because it seemed strange or new to her for two people to share one cubicle. Some may see it as disgusting for people to share a cubicle. For most women, though, this does not come as something strange. This may come from the idea that women are very open to each other. Sharing a cubicle does not seem like such a big deal to them. Since the lines in women’s restrooms are longer, women sometimes share the same cubicle.

This is not so for male restrooms, however; for the males in the group. Initially, it took more than one attempt to get reactions from people as the two boys entered the cubicle together. In an attempt to make our experiment more public, we shifted to sharing a urinal as well while there were people in the bathroom. Even then, however, save for other bathroom patrons exhibiting signs of being uncomfortable (rigid body movement, etc.) we didn’t get any pronounced reactions immediately. It got to a point where we resorted to almost baiting people for reactions; in the video, the two male members of the group went as far as making fake comments about their genitals so people would hear. We surmised that this was because they knew we were attempting an experiment, as the same people later saw our friends manning the cameras. Eventually, though, after a few tries, we did capture footage of other restroom-goers making faces. One student next to me mouthed profanity to his friend who was washing his hands on the faucet across from us.

However, once we conducted the experiments off-campus at the Regis Center restrooms, we came to realize that the responses we get on campus were still very much tame, since there was still effort put into hiding their reactions. Because of the environment that Ateneo provided (with everyone of more or less the same age bracket), the general population was generally more accepting of behavior that would be considered deviant; a few of them probably sensed that were up to something as well. For both the male and female test groups, though, reactions we got outside of campus were much more pronounced. For the boys, we didn't have much trouble getting immediate reactions out of people compared to doing it in school. It came to a point where we had to tone down the level of our deviant actions as it was likely we would get caught by the center’s security personnel. Because of the nature of our experiment, we tried as much as possible to conduct the experiment in front of employees of the building and not service staff so as not to break any building rules.

In both cases though, the collective reactions we got led us to believe that the existing norm was indeed reaffirmed. Although none of the reactions were established and made explicit, the general consensus based on the looks we got was that the act of sharing cubicles is still largely one that most people would consider unusual at best and disgusting at worst.

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? *You could compare these reactions according to gender, social class*

Based on our findings, we believe that aside from deviating from the norms, the function of gender also comes into play to explain why the men and women reacted very differently and why they reacted in that certain manner during the experiment. From our documentation, it is evident that females seem to be more accepting of two girls sharing the same cubicle compared to men because of their comfortability around other women. Furthermore, men, unlike women, have issues with the “intimacy” of bodily functions, such as staring at someone else who is using a urinal and men sharing the same urinal or cubicle. This is likely because of the fragile male definition of what constitutes masculinity; men tend to be more reserved physically than girls and would rather do their business in restrooms privately.

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?

From the female perspective, the experiment did not feel embarrassing to do. We were not hesitant to do it because we have all experienced doing it before either with friends or siblings, or most of us being from high schools exclusive to girls. We also knew that other girls would not mind us going into a stall together. Though it was deviating from the norm, it did not create any violent reactions from other people so we were comfortable doing it.

From the male perspective, the experiment was a little bit discomforting and awkward because based from our personal experience, men do not usually share the same cubicle together. It is understood and established among men that usage of cubicles and urinals for men is strictly done alone, especially that their privacy is clearly made visible when in one cubicle and the divider in between urinals. At most, men are more open to changing clothes together openly in the bathroom but not sharing a private cubicle together. Furthermore, it was also in a way nerve-wracking because of our fear of being judged by other guys and the fear of being labeled with our deviant behavior because of the rarity of men sharing one cubicle or urinal.  Although there was a little awkwardness while conducting this experiment, we did not hesitate with pushing through with it because of the level of comfortability we have with each other, given we are friends. However, we would have been a little more hesitant if we only knew each other for our Sociology class.  

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

Through this activity, we can see that any form of deviance or behavior that is not conformed to the conventional norms established in and by society is bound to warrant a reaction if expressed openly and publicly. A degree of judgement will always tend to accompany this reaction depending on the relative distance of the act in question from the norm being perceived to be violated, although this entire process is wholly subjective.