SA 21 Breaching Experiment

Paula Mikaela Sta Maria

Ira Galvadores

Camille Castro

Rohan Sugapong

1. What norm did you violate?

The norm with marriage proposals during the modern era is that it is usually done with someone you love, have known for years, and approved by your family. Marriages involve two people who mutually share a close bond. A person does not propose to a random shopper in a mall or a stranger in a street.  Our group deviated from this norm by proposing to unknown shoppers and workers in a mall.

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

Our breaching experiment which defied the norms of marriage proposals was held in the department store, a music store, an appliance shop, and some boutiques of SM North Edsa.  The prop needed for the test was a ring. A member of the group performed as the marriage proposer to the unaware subject or stranger while the cameraman recorded the experiment and the rest of the group acted as an audience. The proposer approached the subject by facing the subject or kneeling in front of the subject. The proposer showed the ring and then asked for the subject’s hand in marriage by saying, “Will you marry me?”

   

3. What were the different reactions of the people? List all possible reactions you observed. What caused this reactions?

Most of the reactions we received after proposing were questions about what we were doing and what was going on.  They usually responded with questions like “Ha?”, Bakit?”, and “Ano meron?”.

A male adult shopper in the department store laughed when he heard the marriage proposal and then continued to browse through some clothes while smiling. He asked what was going on and then politely said no after the proposal was repeated. One male teenager said very little. He only smiled and tried to avoid the female proposer. He only spoke when he agreed to post his video on the blog. An employee in a music store was confused when he was proposed to. “Ano ‘to?” he said. When his colleague suggested that it was probably a social experiment, he agreed and started playing along by accepting the proposer’s ring. He reached his hand out which signalled the proposer to place the ring on his finger. After explaining our project he even joked if he was going to be payed for his participation. His reaction could have been caused by the presence of his colleague. His colleague, as a third party, made the situation less awkward which lead to his playful response. The proposal to an employee at an electronics store was interesting; though the proposal was sudden and unexpected, a few seconds passed and every other employee in the store were cheering along with us, helping us pressure the guy into saying “yes”. It was clear that the people were looking for a change from the usual, and were game to participate in a cheesy moment like a proposal. The proposal to a young male adult was also interesting. He was walking with his friend in the department store when we approached him. When I asked him, “Kuya, will you marry me?”, his friend looked so fazed. But the one we proposed too was smiling and he seemed interested and amused. He asked, “Para saan ‘yan?”. We were cheering, “Say yes! Sige na kuya, say yes!” and he eventually said yes hesitantly. He then asked what is was for and we explained that it was for our Sociology project. One person, whom we thought of at first as a guy, was approached by a female proposer. The proposal was interesting because we didn’t know that the person was gay. He just said, “Ay teh,” which made us realize that he wasn’t a man. He didn’t stop walking so we weren’t able to explain what the reason behind the proposal was.

   

    For the case of our male member’s proposal, he was all rejected by all his “test subjects”. He proposed to five females and one male. The first female he proposed to was a person whose age is ranging from fifty to sixty. She didn’t take the experiment seriously and she handled the situation calmly and maturely as she rejected his proposal. His second target was a female of the same age group as his. She panicked as our sole male member of the group proposed to her, having a “twitterpated”(kinikilig/pakipot) reaction and facial expression as she rejected his proposal. She never said anything to him nor did she authorize the group to include her reaction video in the uploaded file. His next targets were an SM sales lady and three shoppers, two of which were female and one was male. The reactions of the sales lady and one of the female shoppers were questioning our male member, asking him why is he proposing to them, what is it for and what is going on. They even said to him that they do not know him so why should they marry him. The other female shopper anticipated through her intuition that we were doing a social experiment. The male person that our male member proposed to got scared when approached to but calmed down when we clarified to him that we were just doing as social experiment.

   

The deviant act reinforced the current norm of proposals in society. When they were faced with the marriage proposal, they tried to normalize the conversation by asking what was going on or ignoring the unknown proposer. The deviant act showed how strong the norm about marriage proposal is because no one believed or took the deviant proposer seriously.

4. Aside from the norms, what sociological themes are at play for people to react this way?

(compare reactions according to social class, gender, age)

The employees of the mall were more friendly and open to the experiment compared to the customers.

Females usually ignored and avoided the male  proposer at first. Only a few answered the proposal. Males interacted more with their female proposers. They were more straightforward with their questions regarding the situation and usually stayed in their original position even after the marriage proposal.

    The younger males or females were more understanding of the objectives of the social experiment. When we explained what the proposal was for, they were considerate and they said “yes” without any hesitation when asked if it was okay to post their reaction videos in the blog.

5. How did you feel when you did the experiment? How does it feel to deviate from the norm? Were you hesitant?

    During our first try, we were all hesitant to do the experiment because there were a lot of people and we were afraid of what the respondents’ reactions may be when we test the social experiment on them. We were nervous at first because the people might get mad or irritated when we propose to them, but as we went along with the experiment, we became more and more comfortable with proposing to random people. We kind of felt bad when people rejected us or if they did not want their reaction videos to be posted on the blog. But overall, it was a really good experience because we were able to overcome whatever fear or hesitance we had in the beginning. We also felt really happy and relieved when people engage themselves in the experiments, when they go along with the proposal and say “yes”.

6. Other observations and analysis on activity or deviance in general?

    There was nothing much really to observe more on deviance except that when someone really deviates, people in the society would normally get weirded out. During the deviance test, bystanders would also have various reactions. When we proposed to employees in the mall, their co-workers would usually silently or openly make fun of the situation, while shoppers completely got weirded out. For customers, bystanders would pass by and look at the situation and also get weirded out by it. Another thing is that once an act of deviance happens at a certain area, people would start talking about it that a lot of people would be aware of what’s happening before the situation would happen to them. This was observed when one of us was about to approach a man but he and his companion were looking at us already, as if they were anticipating what was going to happen.

Video of the experiment after the jump.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM5j2twBlOs&feature=youtu.be

Q:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202672046616465&set=pcb.302626479902468&type=1

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202672046936473&set=pcb.302626479902468&type=1 

"Picture taken"

by: Group Social EXperiment (Group S.E.X.)

1) The group violated the norm where people are normally not taken pictures of unexpectedly. People tend to get uncomfortable around cameras if they are not “camera ready”.

2)    The group decided to take pictures of random individuals around the Ateneo de Manila University campus to see how they would react to strangers unexpectedly taking pictures of them. The group made sure that the people involved saw the camera which was taking their picture so that the reactions of said people could be recorded. Also, the group tried to make the people whom they took the pictures of were of different employment and social class to see if there was any difference in the reactions. The group took pictures in MVP, Faura Hall, Colayco Pavilion, and Gonzaga Cafeteria. The group was able to get pictures from students we don't know, friends, and working personnel.

3)    Almost all of the participants in the experiment were confused as to why they were having their picture taken. Some of these said participants wondered why they were having their picture taken. Others found the person taking the picture weird and said that we should respect their personal space. One of these people even specifically mentioned to us that she did not want her picture uploaded when we asked her if we could. It was very rare that the participants of the experiment not mind the person taking the picture and there was never any positive response. The group also tried taking pictures of their friends to see if they would react differently. The responses were much more positive, some of the participants even posed when they had their picture taken. Even then however, some of the friends of the group were shy in from of the camera. Probably the people who reacted badly to having their picture taken were either simply not used to this happening to them, or suspicious as to why the group wanted to have their picture. As for the people whom reacted positively to having their picture taken, namely some of the friends of the group members, they probably reacted positively sine they trusted the photographers. These reactions served to reaffirm the norm of people not being used to having their pictures unexpectedly taken.

4)    The group definitely believes that the social class of the people who participated in the experiment played a role in their reactions. The group believes that the people who were in the lower social classes reacted worse than the ones who were in the higher social classes. This could be because the people in the higher social classes have much more confidence in themselves whereas the people in the lower social classes are much less confident about themselves and find it embarrassing to have them showcased. It could be that the people in the higher social classes are eager to show off their wealth and power and the people in lower social classes are ashamed of their position in society. Also the people in the lower classes might find the people in the higher classes, including the members of the group, less trustworthy than people in their own social class. This could explain why some of the friends of the group members, people in the social class of the members, felt comfortable having their picture taken. This could also explain why some of the other participants in the experiment were suspicious as to why the group wanted their picture, since they might not have exposure to pictures and cameras as often as the others did.

5)    The group was definitely excited to do the experiment because it was a chance for the group to do something new that they hadn't done before. Also, it was exciting to see the reactions of different people to the experiment. However there was also some apprehension to conducting the experiment because the group was afraid of some participants reacting badly and getting upset at the group members. This fear actually made the group have a hard time in choosing what experiment to do. The group continually thought of less and less extreme experiments until they arrived at this one because they were afraid of the negative reactions some people might have. That being said, the group did not really feel too negatively about violating the norm of unexpected picture taking since it was not such an important norm and it did not lead to any violent reactions.

6)    It is very interesting to see how the different students and staff reacted to this experiment. There is something very reassuring about people reacting the same way to a certain stimulus or deviation. It is reassuring because it affirms that all of these people, despite the many differences they might have, are human. They all react the same way to something strange and it shows that in times when things get a little weird people would stand united. It is an eye-opening experience for the group to see how these people would react and it also serves as a reflective experience for the group. It makes the members of the group think about themselves and the norms they have come to accept and whether these norms are positive or negative to them as human beings. It was also interesting to probe and think about the results of the experiment in such a way that we could explain it using things such as the social class and gender of the participants. This way of thinking also served as another eye-opener for the group, showing them that things usually go much deeper than the automatic reactions of the people involved.

Here are some shots we got, which feature the people who agreed to upload their shots in the blog.

 One of our friends. He's pushing away the camera when we're trying to close-up on him.

 A student in Faura. He had no reaction at all.

 Student in Faura. She even smiled for the close-up

 Student in Colayco Pavilion. She said it was weird for her to unexpectedly taking her picture

 The Guard in MVP. He was wondering why we're closing up on him, but he smiled anyway.

Student in MVP. He was pushing away the camera. 

This guy works in the Gonzaga Caf. Despite wondering why he was being taken a picture, he just smiled not looking at the camera.

#picture #candid

Group Members: Soriano, Pavia, Samaco, Santos, Dancel

Under the Umbrella with a Stranger - CGMSL's Breaching Experiment

1. What norm did you violate?

            The norm that our group violated is randomly interacting with a stranger, treating them like someone you know. People do not usually interact randomly with people they do not know because it is a norm not to talk, offer something, and whatnot to people you are not acquainted with.

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

            The breaching experiment that the experimenters conducted is randomly shading a pedestrian under an umbrella and saying random things or singing to him/her. The group is composed of five members, and a specific task was assigned to each member such as taking a video of the back and front angles of the breaching experiment, holding the umbrella, and explaining the purpose of the experiment at the end of it. The experimenters did it at different locations along Katipunan avenue, and a few in a state university.

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? 

Here are some of the reactions of the people who underwent the experiment:

a. “What are you doing?” – The person (guy) was annoyed. He reacted this way because he was bothered by the experimenter who randomly shaded him under an umbrella.

b. “Okay” – The girl did not have a violent reaction about it and just smiled, but the weirdness of the situation was very apparent in her reaction. He did not mind the experimenter until the purpose of the experiment was revealed. She was nice to the experimenter, maybe because the experimenter was also doing her a favor.

c. The person just talked to the experimenter. He smiled at the experimenter after and even thanked him for shading him under his umbrella. It seems like he was not bothered by the breaching experiment.

d. The person was trying to stay away from the experimenter, given the oddity of his behavior because of the breaching experiment. It was very obvious that she was avoiding the experimenter. Based on her reaction, we think that she wanted to stay away from the experimenter because she doesn’t know the experimenter and it was “weird” to do that act to a person you do not know.

e. The person did not react. She just continued walking normally as if no one was shading her under an umbrella. We think that this was her reaction (having no reaction is also a “reaction” per se) because she is used to an environment where people do whatever they want to do. (The experiment was done in a school with students who are known to be very liberated.)

            In general, most of the reactions re-affirmed the existing norm that the deviance activity violated. Randomly interacting with a stranger by shading him/her under an umbrella is still “odd” and “weird” for most people in the context of the Filipino society, considering that it is a norm not to randomly interact with a person you do not know.

4. Aside from the norms, what sociological themes are at play for people to react in a certain way? Is it a function of gender (gender norms, roles), social class (norms of the rich & the poor), values/beliefs of institutions (religion, family, peer group, etc.).

            The apparent sociological themes that were at play for people to react on the breaching experiment that we conducted are gender and social class (assumed based on the location of the experiment.) For the first person who underwent the experiment, he showed his being “bothered” by the situation, and thus he asked the experimenter what he is doing. His facial expression displayed that he was uncomfortable with what the experimenter was doing. He directly expressed his thoughts to the experimenter. He is a guy who can be said as a person of a high social class because of the way he spoke, dressed up, and acted.

            On the other hand, the female respondents, though having different ways of reacting on the situation, showed subtle reactions. The second, fourth, and fifth respondents did not show “violent” reactions but their actions depicted them seeing the situation as weird or odd.

            The way of reacting on a specific deviant act also varies with gender. The male respondent (first) directly expressed his discomfort with the situation. In fact, the experimenters were somehow alarmed by this because they thought that there will be problems with the aforementioned respondent. Even more interesting, the female respondents (second, fourth and fifth) stayed calm as much as possible and most of them were nice to the experimenter, although their discomfort with the situation can be seen. It can be concluded based on the experiment that males can be more direct when it comes to dealing with deviant acts than females, which gave subtle reactions in the experiment.

Another interesting angle to look at is the difference of the reactions of the first and fourth respondents and the fifth respondent. The first and fourth respondents are of “higher” social class, the first dressing up, talking, and acting as someone who is of a high social class, and the fourth being a student in Ateneo de Manila University. They both showed their discomfort with the situation right away, displaying their desire to avoid and to stop the experimenter from what he/she was doing. The fifth respondent, on the contrary, coming from a state university, did not mind the experimenter, and was even smiling during the experiment.

            With the stated observations, it can be said that there might be a difference on how a person of a “higher” social class reacts on a specific deviant act and how a person of a “lower” class reacts on it. Based on the breaching experiment, the people described as of “high” social class did not like what the experimenter did to them, that is, randomly shading them under an umbrella. Meanwhile, the person that is assumed to be of “lower” social class accepted the situation, and did not show any negative reactions. 

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?

Most of us were excited yet hesitant to do the activity. We were a bit nervous about how the people would respond to our experiment and whether these reactions will turn out to be good or bad. Deviating from the norms by sharing an umbrella with strangers brought a certain thrill to all of us, most especially to our two hands-on members. It was very interesting, however, to discover the different reactions the people created throughout our experiment. Another thing that interested us was how different a person's actual reaction is from how you expect it to be based on their physical appearance. For example, there was this guy who looked a bit angry while we were conducting the experiment, but he turned out to be just truly weirded out with what had just occurred. 

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

            The most significant thing we discovered is that if one does not act how a person would normally act, even if the person’s doing a good deed, he would be treated as a deviant or a threat.

Experiment by CGMSL (Cabug, Gutierrez, Malabanan, Santos, Llaneta)

Video by Ella Gutierrez

Will You Help Us Open a Condom?

SA21 Breaching Experiment

Arrobio, Anne
Longakit, Ernest John
Perez, Jairus
Remollo, Sef
Rondain, Stephen
Sy, Judy

Submitted to: Ms. Emily Roque

SA21 Section C

What norm did you violate?

Religion is a social institution that is very dominant and powerful in the Philippines. So as Christians, most people believe that it is "bad" to have sex before marriage. Priests teach their believers that sex is sacred and shouldn’t be done outside of matrimony. They also equate early sexual activity as a sin. Therefore, the topic of sex becomes very taboo in our society and is often perceived as a private topic. Privacy, in this context, means that this topic can be less controversial if the people talking about it are already close.  

Our group decided to deviate from this norm of sexuality being a private matter. A condom can be symbolical in such a way that it represents sex. A condom is a form of contraception and serves as a protection for sexually transmitted diseases. Therefore, when we talk about condoms, society somehow automatically associates sex with it. Therefore, in our experiment, we made use of a condom  in order to see the reactions of people when this private matter becomes something public.

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

A box of “Trust Condoms” was purchased by the group. Each member was tasked to randomly select a male and a female, show the box, and ask that person if they could help the group member to open the box of condoms. The experiment was initially done in Regis Center, outside of Ateneo. However due to a minor setback (to be mentioned later on), half the experiment was done inside Ateneo. After the participants responded, we immidiately informed them that this was for a project in out Sociology class.

Our group mate attempting to ask a stranger to open a condom inside Ateneo

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 the deviant act re-affirm/reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?

In our breaching experiment, there were a total 18 participants. Each and everyone of these participants had a unique and different reaction towards the experiment. However, one interesting thing we noticed was that there was one general reaction throughout the entire time: shock. Whether it be raising their eyebrows or widening their eyes, it was obvious through their different manifestations of this reaction that they weren’t expecting this at all.

A lot of our participants refused to help us open the pack of condoms. The first 2 male participants who were together in Regis immediately looked at each other out of disbelief and gave a very stern “no.” The next 2 female participants were speechless at first then tried to avoid us by saying that they had to go immediately. Another person seemed to be very angry after we asked her then said, “No, You can open it yourself.” Others just remained quiet and tried to avoid the very awkward situation altogether while another one was scared and even said out loud, “I’m scared, okay, I’m scared.”

However, not all of our subjects refused to open it. One subject’s jaw immediately dropped but after a few seconds, he decided to help us open the condom. Others were just shocked upon seeing the box, and seemed like they were judging us, but eventually helped out. One girl we asked was disgusted by it and seemed like she couldn’t touch it. However, after it sank in she tried her best to help by demonstrating to us using hand gestures without her touching it. Another person tried to normalize the situation by diverting the attention of the condom to other things by asking one of our members, “Hey, you’re from MIS right?”

In general, all of them were initially shocked upon seeing the box of condoms. Whether they tried avoid us or not, it was clear that they weren’t expecting like this. The ones who refused became quiet before they could say no, while the ones who helped had a state of disbelief before they were able to help us out.

This common reaction is a result to us violating the norm that was mentioned earlier. The fact is, anything blatantly sexual, such as condoms, should be kept private. Once someone exposes this private matter, the situation will usually be awkward. The fact that we’re complete strangers even adds to the awkwardness since people do not usually talk about something this private during their very first encounter. The reason why they had to take a moment first before actually helping us was that we violated this norm and whether they help us or not, the awkwards still prevails the entire conversation.

However, one of the most interesting reaction was from the guard in Regis. While we were doing our experiment in Regis Center, a guard constantly glanced at us. We initially didn’t mind it at first but after a few minutes, the guard approached us, asking us what we were doing. We just told them that we were doing an experiment for a class in school. He responded by saying “Bawal po ‘yan, kailangan niyo pong kausapin yung office kung gagawin niyo po ‘yan. (That’s not allowed, you have to talk to the office if you’ll do that).” Traumatized by this event, we fled the building immediately. The guard’s reaction was also a reflection of the reaction of society towards this deviance. It was possible that he thought that showing condoms was violated his norms, therefore, he asked us to stop.

All of our participants being shocked also can reaffirm our claim saying that our society keeps things that are sexual intimate and/or private. If people would have thought that it was acceptable for these things to be public, the subjects would have had no problem helping us.

Our group mate attempting to ask 2 guys to help him open a condom in Regis

Aside from the norms, what sociological themes are at play for people to react in a certain way? Is it a function of gender (gender norms, roles), social class (norms of the rich and the poor), values/beliefs of institutions (religion, family, peer group, etc.)

Before our experiment, we intended to observe how gender affects the reaction of each of the participants. We were able to do this by observing the possible pattern that might come out depending on the gender of the one who is asking and the one to be asked. The possible scenarios were: (1) A male asking a female, (2) A male asking a male, (3) A female asking a male, (4) A female asking a female.

Based on our experiments alone, our female group members had more people who helped them, whether they are asking a girl or a guy. Only one female group member was turned down, however only one person helped a male group member. Nevertheless, this is not enough to conclude that it is publicly accepted for females to talk about sexual topics out in the open. However, a few social norms can be seen with this result. One norm that was exercised here is overall respect for women. In our experiment, there were 2 occasions when a girl asked a boy to help her open the condom and both guys helped the girl. This could mean that these guys showed respect to the women by not asking any question and just helped them out. However, when a girl asked a fellow girl, one helped while the other one refused to. Maybe, the reason why one girl still helped the girl, even if the situation was awkward, was to show her respect towards her fellow gender.

However, another factor that could affect our results was the Ateneo Institution. The Ateneo can be considered as a subculture since it has somehow different beliefs and practices as compared to other people (e.g. the concept of magis). People we asked inside the school were likely to help us more, rather than the people outside. No one decided to help us in Regis, and was even kicked out by the guard. However, inside the school, even if some people decided to not help us, some still did. The guards of Ateneo even saw us but did not try to stop us from doing our experiment.

This is because of the fact that Ateneo is a subculture. The school has somehow a limited culture, meaning not everyone can be a part of it since only students, faculties and employees can be allowed inside. Because of this exclusiveness, people in this smaller culture, as compared to the larger culture outside Ateneo that includes everyone, tend to somehow trust the people within the same culture. They feel like the people in this community are people who abide by the norms of the subculture, making them more trustworthy (to a certain degree), as compared to people in Katipunan who do not have to follow the Ateneo culture.

When we asked people within the campus, our participants knew that we were part of the school’s culture, possibly trusting us enough to help us open the condom package. They knew that we were part of the the same culture they, themselves, were part of. Being part of the same smaller culture had somehow made us and our participants not complete strangers since we can both identify ourselves as Ateneans.  However, when we asked the ones outside of the school, they weren’t comfortable with helping complete strangers who they had no relation at all.

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?

Deviating from the norms was a significant experience for all of us. At first, some of us were already backing out because they weren’t comfortable even just by thinking about the task. The others, however, were confident and thought that we would have no problem in doing this experiment. When we were about to do the experiment proper, all of us hesitated to approach a stranger and ask them to open a condom for us. We were scared, terrified and embarrassed but with the thought that this is just an experiment, we managed to get enough respondents.

Generally, we were hesitant because we were concerned about our image. A condom could be a symbol of sexual acts which is something private. What we did was exposing this in public, specifically to strangers, which made us feel awkward and uneasy. We were scared that those people we approached would look at us as promiscuous teenagers. We really had to tell them immediately that this is just an experiment for SA21.

After the experiment, we felt relieved because it was all over. Thinking back after the experience, we decided we will never do anything like that again.

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

One very interesting experience we had was with the guard of Regis. This was both a learning and horrifying experience at once. The reaction of the guard was intriguing in a way that his reactions just magnified society’s way of thinking when it comes to anything sexual becoming blatant. His initial reaction was to tell us that we weren’t allowed to do that inside the building. It is possible that he just made this since there is no rule specifically saying that no one is allowed to show condoms to people in public. We were not harassing anyone since we immediately explained that we were doing an official study for a class. He probably just deduced that what we were doing was against the norm and concluded that it was automatically “not allowed”

The second thing he did was to tell us that we needed to speak to the office. That was his way of socially controlling us: through shame and fear. He used the term “office” in order to scare us (which we were) and to stop what were doing. He was basically ordering us to conform to society’s standardized norms. Unlike the other respondents, he showed that he was against this deviant act of ours by reprimanding us to conform

Overall, the breaching experiment was a very new experience. Specifically, what we did was extremely out of the ordinary and it was not something we see any of us actually doing anytime in the future. It could be said that the only reason we were able to push through was the fact that it was part of a school project. Other deviant acts may seem fun to do sometimes, but our experience was just something we wouldn’t consider doing again.

Escalator Daze (Chupa Chups)

Ching, Cuartero, Enriquez, Gabriel, Jose Group 6 Chupa Chups Breaching Experiment

Ms. Emily Roque SA 21 B

1) What norm did you violate?

The norms that we violated was norm in which people try to get to their destination using the escalator going the same direction as the person. As well as the norm of using the handle on your escalator as supposed to the handle of the opposite escalator.

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

First we went to the Regis Center, the establishment right across Ateneo which is connected to the campus via the Blue Bridge. We then proceed by first breaking the norm of using the escalator with the right direction.

One of our members goes up from the ground floor to the second floor while using the escalator that goes downward. It is evident that it caught a lot of attention since most of the people’s reactions were either disgust or they were puzzled why anyone would do such a thing, some people also saw it as a dare and thus disregarded the deviancy.

Secondly, we broke the norm of using the handles of the escalator you are riding. Another member rode the escalator, while sporting a straight face or a emotionless face (as if it was a normal day), held on to the handles on the opposite escalator. On the first try it went well, people were disgusted, and thus, it shows their negative attitude towards deviance. On the second try, two people on the other side were infuriated and kept on looking on the experimenter. They probably saw it as “angas” or “kupal(scumbag)” of us to use their handles. In the end, we managed to gather video of the reactions of most of the people which we used to conclude that deviancies are frowned upon by society.

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 reaffirm/reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?

In our first experiment (climbing the opposite direction of the escalator), we noticed that some people were laughing, but some people looked at us disapprovingly. We noticed that those who were laughing were college students and those who looked disapprovingly were those in uniforms (possibly teachers/professors/employees).

• We believe they reacted this way because it violates the norms. These reactions may be caused by “Innovation’ where the goal is acceptable (reaching the top floor) but the means is rejected (going up the opposite direction escalator). Differential Association may also have taken place because prior the experiment I (Joao) already did deviant acts (the poor-man-in-katipunan experiment), thus made my groupmates more comfortable in doing deviant acts. The deviant act did affirm the existing norm since there are those who reacted negatively.

In our second experiment (holding the escalator railing of the opposite escalator), one of them (female) looked as if she was going to cry when she reached the bottom, and the others (males) looked pissed/enraged when the hand of our experimenter hit theirs.

• We think that the people reacted this way because it is not the normal “deviance” you encounter each day. In our first experiment, the reaction was less severe since we see children run up the escalator going in the opposite direction everywhere, but is still against the norm. In our second, it’s rare or almost not existing in what we did. An added factor in the reactions are the gender of the people. The female reacted very differently from the boys (calm to aggressive). differential Association will be more reinforced now since more members of the group already did deviant acts. This is another form of innovation since the goal (to be comfortable by holding the railing) is acceptable but the means (holding the other escalator’s railing) is rejected. This act of deviance reaffirmed the norms strongly based on the more intense reactions from the people.

4)  Aside from the norms, what are the other sociological themes at play for people to react in a certain way? Is it a function of gender (gender, norms, roles) social class (norms of the rich and the poor), values/beliefs of institutions (religion, family, peer group, etc.)

Gender and age bracket played a huge factor with the reaction of the people. When the victim of our breaching experiment is female, she felt violated because of a male stranger touching her. When the victim is male on the other hand, he is enraged. Also, the difference of the reaction of the younger group (college students) is not as negative as the older group (professionals).

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?

Breaching experiments make you feel a tinge of excitement mainly because it’s something new and unexpected. People like to entertain and get the attention of others and this experiment made us laugh. It is thrilling to deviate in simple tasks like these because it is quite dangerous and we might get in trouble and people are caught by our attention. There is only little hesitance in the activity because we were excited to see the results of the experiment.

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

After learning about deviance in SA 21 and having experienced it first hand through the experiment, we now know why deviance is called deviance. Another way of putting it is that we now know why non-deviance or conformity is the norm. It is easier to conform to the norms than to go against it, because if you go against them you will have to put a conscious effort to, like in the experiment; when we conform sometimes we even do so unconsciously. We also tend to feel more secure when we conform because of the added reassurance from society that we aren't doing anything deviant and that we are being structurally functional members of society. While there is nothing "wrong" about breaking the norms, it is still more common to follow them and people are theoretically more likely to as well, that's why deviance is seen as deviance.

Breaching Experiment by F5

Breaching Experiment Video

What norm did you violate?

One norm we violated is ordering food that is not on the menu. Customers are always conscious of what they order since the menu is readily available for them to look at. Moreover, the purpose of the menu is that it serves as a guide for customers in ordering the food that is available in the restaurant.  So ordering something that is not in the menu is considered “weird” by the society.

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

Our breaching is experiment is about going to a certain fast food chains and ordering food that is definitely not on their menu or at least call the food something that sounds like a kind of food of their competitor. First, we went to McDonald's. One of us ordered foods that only Jollibee, their competitor, serves like Macaroni Soup, Burger Steak, Jolly hotdog. Then, we went to Jollibee. Like what we did in McDonald’s, we ordered in Jollibee the kinds of food that were only served by their competitor, McDonalds. We ordered McSpicy Burger, Big Mac and McFlurry for dessert. Then, we went to KFC and ordered random kinds of food that we know KFC doesn’t serve; to an extent we even ordered milktea in KFC.

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?

The first reaction we received made us feel more nervous. The cashier of McDonald’s ,where we first attempted this activity, seemed to be pissed off or unhappy, maybe it’s because it’s not her day. She did not react even after our explanation of the activity. Also, she just had a straight face. Our second attempt was in Jollibee. The cashier had a better reaction, saying it was okay and he was still smiling even after the explanation of our activity. He reacted this way maybe because it’s the policy of the company and, also, he is in the mood that day. The third attempt ,in KFC, even had a more positive reaction. The cashier was also smiling. Also, after the explanation, we asked her how she found her customer ,our groupmate. She responded that at first, she found it normal since the first ones our groupmate ordered was somehow similar to their menu, however, she found it funny that her customer ordered “milk tea.”

Aside from the norms, what sociological themes are at play for people to react in a certain way? Is it a function of gender (gender norms, roles), social class (norms of the rich & the poor), values/beliefs of institutions (religion, family, peer group, etc.).

One sociological theme is the function of gender. How men and women perceive things differently. In our experiment we noticed how some men took their work less seriously than women. The Jollibee employee just smiled and respectfully that they don’t serve that specific kind of food, when we ordered food that is not part of the fastfood restaurant. The Mcdo and KFC employee, on the other hand, responded differently. The Mcdo employee looked at us in a straight face but still answered respectfully,when we ordered food that is not part of the fastfood restaurant. The KFC employee didn’t gave us a straight face ,when did the breaching experiment, but she suggested alternative foods that are part of the KFC menu so that she place an order and serve us food. Another sociological theme is the stress level of the people. Since we did the breaching report in an fastfood restaurant, employees are expected to work fast and would result to them working under pressure and alot of stress. So in our breaching experiment we can see that the employee working at Mcdo, tend to be not that patient because we did our experiment around 12.30 where alot of people are going to restaurants to eat lunch. We did the breaching experiment on the Jollibee employee around 2.30, where most of the people are already at work or studying at school, thus resulting him having a pleasing attitude after we told him we did a breaching experiment on him.

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?

Before doing the breaching activity, all of us felt uneasy and nervous. We didn’t know how to start off with our experiment. So we stood in front of McDonald’s, our first stop, and kept asking ourselves the same questions over and over again; like kids arguing on the streets.  But finally after much deliberation, we had reached a point of agreement and made ourselves a “plan of action”. Then again, having a plan didn’t really make the situation less scary or nerve wrecking. We still had to go in front of the counter and order stuff that their chain obviously didn’t have, and so we did.

Our group did this 3 times in total. The first one which was held in Mcdonalds was terrifying. The girl on the counter was very “mataray” and seemed very serious with her work. This made us even more nervous going into our second attempt in the experiment. However, the guy on the counter was really jolly and pleasant, so we felt somewhat confident with the second try and had some fun doing it aswell. Lastly, on our visit to KFC, again we felt nervous. The place was packed and we were afraid that the ladies on the counter felt stressed and would give us an unpleasant reaction. But we assumed wrong, they were very accomodating and even suggested stuff in their menu.

To be honest, our group felt nervous and scared all throughout the experiment. We were good boys and we would never do stuff that would deviate from the norms. But then again, it also felt somewhat cool whenever we received good responses from the ates and kuyas in front of the counter.

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

Based on this activity, we have observed that people have different reactions to deviance. While some are accepting of it and welcome it with open arms, others close themselves off to things that in their eyes are not “right” or “normal”. We have also observed that people react to deviance depending on how it was done, some people find it insulting, others see it as a funny thing and but still try to direct the situation back to normal. Experiment made by F5 (Chan, Ong, Sy Lato, Turano, Yumang) Video by F5 Productions