Link for video: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bHt4Ar0pht1A5FJ37QlfmeO7sgiedkmF/view?usp=sharing
Breaching Experiment Written Report
Abad, Ballelos, Diaz, Delos Santos, Fonacier, Muji, Tan
SA21 - P
___________________________________________________________________________
In this breaching experiment, the group aimed to challenge the folkway norm of expected restaurant etiquette. Folkway, meaning a custom belief or norm that is common to members within a society. They are more routine as they occur in casual interaction (LibreTexts 2019). Specifically, the norm of sitting in tables was violated by voluntarily opting to sit on the floor while eating at a fast food restaurant.
Background of the Experiment
The experiment took place in the Katipunan branch of McDonald’s, during the lunch window of 11:30 AM - 12:00 NN. Prior to conducting the experiment, the members regrouped in a nearby cafe to establish certain strategies, parameters and roles of each one for the activity. It was important to set boundaries and expectations in order to allow the experiment to flow as smoothly and naturally as possible, while being able to capture the entirety of its effects. The group dynamics were set up in the following manner: two videographers - on specifically focused on the activity occurrences, and the other on the people’s reaction to the activity; while the rest were participants of the deviant experiment itself.
The team headed out by 11:25 AM and each one situated themselves in their proper places within the restaurant accordingly. The experiment began like any normal group of friends eating lunch, by lining up and ordering food. At this point, video recording began as well. The members strategically chose to order separately, which in turn increased the amount of trays used. This was done to create a more obvious “scene” once sitting on the floor. In addition, the group also had varied orders. One chose to order a two piece chicken McDo rice meal, one ordered a chicken fillet rice meal, another one ordered a cheeseburger, and the rest bought regular fries. Once everyone had their orders, the group migrated to the tables area of McDonald’s, naturally looking for a place to eat. Eventually, the group found an empty space near the windows (and near the second set of entrance doors). Collectively, everyone sat down and began eating their lunch. The activity was conducted as normal and natural as possible. Members ate normally, without paying much attention to the surroundings. Natural conversations were held, like any other kainan with friends, from talking about LTs and homework, to laughing about the funniest kwentos shared. The 30-minute lunch was recorded, as well as the various reactions from other people - staff, other customers eating, people walking around, and people looking in from the windows. Videographers were relatively nearby (within 2 meters) taking these recordings. In the end, the actors still compiled their trays and trash neatly and directly handled them to McDonald employee.
Post-Experiment: Different People, Differing Reactions
A varied number of reactions were obtained from doing the experiment. The McDonalds staff and management were giving off questioning and annoyed looks and were also whispering to each other. It even came to a point where the male guard confronted the members in action, saying there were seats and tables available. The guard conversed with the group saying, “Usog po tayo dahil hinaharangan po natin ang daanan ng tao at may mga upuan pa naman ho tayo.” Although this did not directly reprimand the group from eating on the floor and just letting the group eat, the guard initially perceived that customers should be directly be accommodated in the available seats of the restaurant. Based on the guard’s reaction wherein he initially gave off a look of confusion, hence his response was also of the same manner. He would appear to be hesitant in approaching the group a few extra times, but he no longer said anything. As for the other customers who were eating at the restaurant, some were giggling but some looked confused as well. Furthermore, the customers who were walking around seemed disturbed because they did not know where to walk (since the path was blocked by the group actors). It is important to note that while some walked slower (as they were wondering why there were people eating on the floor), there were also who others walked faster. This may have been in an attempt to avoid the awkwardness of the deviance altogether. One of the videographers overheard a person in particular say, “Ang lakas ng trip neto ah.” This may mean that the breaching experiment was daring enough for others to get irritated or intimidated. Besides those mentioned, the group received the most reactions from those walking in and looking in through the windows. Almost everyone walking past the window notably slowed down to observe what was happening inside. Overall, however, the number of reactions the group received was much less than expected. There weren’t any extreme or hostile reactions or reprimanding as well. After several minutes and strange looks, the people at McDo eventually growing numb to the deviance and paid no more attention to it.
The group believes that the people reacted the way they did because the action was, first of all, unconventional. Some were perhaps annoyed because they thought that the members were trying to get attention from other people. It was clear that there were other seats and tables still available, so their actions of sitting on the floor were very much attention-garnering. Additionally, those who gave questionable looks reacted that way possibly because they were confused as to why a person would even eat on the floor of a fastfood restaurant (usually known to be one of the dirtiest part of the establishment since it is being stepped by all people entering the area).
In rationalizing the “growing numb” of people, this could reflect the larger trend of this generation. In this present day and age, almost everything is ‘deviating’ from the way things used to be - and people are, now, quicker to accept and accustom themselves to unconventionality. Customers eventually stopped responding with their questioning looks, and this may support the fact that deviances are quickly being accepted in society today.
Still, given the initial reactions of the people in the experimental area, the act of eating on the floors instead of free, available tables is definitely going against the norm. The way the guard in McDo did not reprimand the members and simply pointed out tables to them showed that the deviant act is believed to reaffirm the norms. The questionable and annoyed looks say that it is not part of most people’s norms to eat on the floor of a public establishment.
Other SA Themes At Play
On the surface, it appears that the activity was simply one that played with norms and deviances. But observing further and analyzing deeper, these were not the only two “SA 21 lessons” being represented, coming to effect, and generating the responses that were observed. Though the group was unaware of it at first, the functions of social class, age, and institutions, in particular, were intricately woven all throughout the experiment.
Social Class: A Comparison between ADMU students and the McDonald’s Guard
The guard may not have reprimanded the students by giving negative sanctions because eating on the floor may be part of his norms. Unlike the other customers who seemed annoyed, he was not disturbed or disgusted. Here, one sees how social class gets into play. People who are part of the upper class differ in norms with those who belong to the lower class. For instance, individuals of the upper class reacted in a confused, disturbed and disgusted way because they believe that eating on the table is the proper etiquette and that eating on the floor is very unsanitary, whereas individuals of the lower class may deem it as normal because they most likely behave in the same manner. High school and college students gave disgusted looks. They also explicitly and loudly converse with each other, judging the group’s actions. On the other hand, the management of the restaurant did not seem to know how to take action of the situation. Thus, they only exchanged looks to each other and gave brief gossip about the group’s actions, but they focused more on their tasks and jobs in the end. This may be because that the employees of the establishment had more urgent matters to accommodate, especially the time where the group performed the experiment is considered to be the most number of customers entering the fast food chain.
The effect of social class can also be applied in a different manner or perspective. Taking the example of the McDonald’s security guard again, and comparing him to fellow Ateneo peers, there is a stark contrast in social class. And it’s these social class-hierarchies that appear to trump even the social roles expected of each one. Considering that most Ateneo college students could only respond is by looking down on the group and judge them for their deviance, this is their ‘maximum’ entitled response. As they have no personal or direct effect on them, the students passing by only responded with confused and laughing looks. But the guard of McDo, given his social role as security and rule enforcer, was entitled to so much more (i.e. he could have easily kicked the group out, if the group hadn’t complied to huddle more closely).
The fellow Atenean peers, in a sense, reached their “maximum” socially-allowed response - by giving the group all their looks of questioning, annoyance, or even judgement. But the guard didn’t necessarily reach his. Though he did try and tell the group to eat on tables, he didn’t enforce it. He appeared very tentative and unsure of what to do - almost as if he wanted to tell the group off, but couldn’t, despite his clear social role as security guard. The guard didn’t even return for a second warning. Through these observations, it can be seen how strongly social classes were at work - overshadowing even the expected social roles of people.
Age: A Comparison between the Young Adults and a Senior Citizen
Most of the young adults in McDonalds that day were most likely ADMU students, observing by their lanyards. When they saw the deviance, almost all would glance once with a questioning or annoyed look, and then look away. Their stares did not linger and did not pay attention to the deviance anymore after that initial look. There was a senior citizen seated close to the group. As soon as he saw the group, his stare stayed with them until he sat down. Over the course of the breaching, he glanced back to the group seven (7) times.
Most of the young adults in McDonalds that day were most likely ADMU students, observing by their lanyards. When they saw the deviance, almost all would glance once with a questioning or annoyed look, and then look away. Their stares did not linger and did not pay attention to the deviance anymore after that initial look. There was a senior citizen seated close to the group. As soon as he saw the group, his stare stayed with them until he sat down. Over the course of the breaching, he glanced back to the group seven (7) times.
This difference between them is due to age. The young adults are millennials; they are part of the Generation Y. They use social media and have probably seen a couple of videos about breaching experiments, or even just memes or vines about the weird things people do in public. They are already saturated with such information, which is why this deviance would not be that unusual for them. Sure, there will be an initial shock after seeing it first-hand, but when that shock is over, it’s going to be one of the many things they’ve already seen on Facebook or YouTube. The senior citizen, however, doesn’t have the same saturation to such acts. For him, this breaching experiment is a deviance, one that he doesn’t normally see. This is seen in him glancing back at the group so many times.
Institution Dynamics: A Comparison between a Family and a Group of Friends
The groups in McDonalds consisted of different types of people in different types of people. There were those who came to eat as a couple, or as a family or simply with some of their friends. One observation that was made was when a family (a mother & two children) entered, they seemed to not care. Though it was inevitable that this group looked at what was happening, they continued to carry on with what they were doing without interacting with the group. It was evident that the two children were young girls. This reaction was probably due to the fact that they must have been alright with it. These two girls seemed as if they were around the ages of 4-6. This would mean that they are still in kindergarten. This would mean that they would be sitting on the floor in their school which is possibly why it seemed “normal to them.” However it may also be said that this reaction was generated because it was not the mother’s children that were the ones sitting on the floor with their food. If it had possibly been them, the mother may have given some informal sanction such as reprimanding their behavior. Only an informal sanction would have been given as it is an unofficial punishment that is most associated with shame and guilt that is given by family, friends or significant others (Illinois State University). There was no rule stating specifically that sitting on the floor is allowed, it is only violating the norm of proper etiquette. Therefore, since it was not her children performing the act, she should not have to worry about it because it does not concern her or her children.
The group of friends on the other hand, reacted differently. For instance, it was observed that one big group that passed by to leave McDonalds. However, their reaction seemed as if they wanted to get the attention of the group members as they were leaving. In one of the videos, one of the girls kept saying sorry for being in the shot even if one of the members said it was alright. This is probably because these people seemed to be around the ages of 20-22 which would be close to the ages of the people in this group. Thus, explaining for interaction between these people.
Personal Reflections
Before the breaching experiment, all four actors were willing to do the deviant act without any hesitation since it was not that of a big deal for us. The group was also curious to see the different reactions of the people. However, it may be noted that some had the concern of the McDo staff remembering them due to repeated visits there, making them not want to do it in a McDo that they visit regularly. This may be related to the labelling theory because if ever some of the staff would label us in a way as being weird, there is still that very small part of us that does not want to be associated or remembered as the weird group of customers in McDo who sat on the floor rather than on the other free tables.
During the breaching, the actors all felt that they were being watched and judged by the people around them. Some were looking at the group in a weird manner, and some were also whispering to their friends while looking. Furthermore, one of the actors had difficulty in eating his meal. He had a difficult time to show the surroundings that the group is still well-mannered in eating while they were sitting on the floor. When the security guard approached, the group felt a bit nervous about the possibility of us getting kicked out of the restaurant. However, the guard simply requested us to move a bit or sit on the tables since of the we were blocking the way. After the group refused to sit on a table and simply moved out of the way, the guard did not mind and just went away. In addition, the videographers felt nervous and scared as well because it was entirely possible to get kicked out of McDonalds or even be banned. This would be difficult for the members in the group because eating in McDonalds would not be a choice if this were to occur.
Overall, performing the deviant act made the group question whether or not people were starting to “normalize” the weird behaviors of college students. At first, people were giving us questioning looks, but after awhile they simply did not mind. The members also expected more reactions from the other people present in the restaurant. Expectations included being reprimanded more than once by the guard and other staff members. However, the actors were only reprimanded once and were simply stared at by the people.
Extra Note
As mentioned before, the deviant act that was performed made the group wonder whether or not there is some type of normalization when it comes to weird or strange behaviors of college students. This came to the question about whether these same reactions would still be generated from another McDonald’s. At the time that the experiment was performed, it was lunchtime and the place was filled mostly with other college students. Therefore it can be said that other college students are used to this type of behavior of being drained with all the requirements, thus leading to behavior such as sitting on the floor because of the lack of care. It would be interesting to study if these reactions would still occur in a McDonald’s that have a crowd of older people, as they may have a different view on what norms are.
Group Work Task Report
Member
|
Task Assigned
|
Tasks Accomplished
|
ABAD, Alyssa
|
|
|
BALLELOS, Patricia
|
|
Expounded on answers 4, 5 and 6
Cited sources using APA format
Participated as an actor for the breaching experiment proper
|
DE LOS SANTOS, Madie
|
|
Answer and expound on numbers 3 and 4
|
DIAZ, Althea
|
|
Answered personal reflection part (number 5)
Proofread paper
Participated as an actor for the breaching experiment proper
|
FONACIER, Gabbie
|
|
|
MUJI, Tanya
|
|
Video of people’s reactions
Editing video of the breaching
Writing difference of people’s reaction due to age
|
TAN, Justin
|
- ordered a chicken and rice meal to explicitly present the deviance in eating on the floor as a norm
- give contribution to the breaching experiment report in the perspective as the deviant participant
- noted down observations of the surroundings throughout the experiment
|
|
References
Illinois State University. (n.d.). Informal vs. Formal Sanction: Shame and Humiliation. Retrieved from: http://my.ilstu.edu/~jawalsh/Sp13/CJS_201/ch4_choice/Chapter46.html
LibreTexts. (2019, April 28). Folkways and Mores. Retrieved from: https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/Book%3A_Sociology_(Boundless)/3%3A_Culture/3.2%3A_The_Symbolic_Nature_of_Culture/3.2J%3A_Folkways_and_Mores
No comments:
Post a Comment