SA21 A - Breaching Experiment

Name of Group: A$AP SA

Group Members: Johann Jacinto, Alyanna Jordan, Georgette Macaalay, Nichol Muñoz, Francis Dy Pico, Kyra Ramos, Nikka Reyes, Aubrey Unana, Adrian Wong

Section: SA21-A (Ma'am Emily Roque)

1. What norm did you violate?

We violated the norm of respecting the personal space of other people and the norm

of displaying a familiar gesture a close companion by randomly putting an arm

above a person’s shoulder while they were walking/standing.

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

We decided to conduct the breaching experiment in UP Town Center. Some

members from our group took part in the experiment by violating the norm of

respecting personal space by putting one’s arm above another person’s shoulder or

in Filipino, “pag-akbay.” The experiment was repeated several times in various areas

and was done to different people (gender, age-group, worker/passerby). Right after

the “akbay,” we would apologize right away and explain that it was an experiment

for a class and we would ask if it was okay for them if we show their video reactions

for our project.

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?

People had mixed reactions such as being shocked, confused, weirded or creeped

out, while a few others found the action quite amusing. The researchers believe that

they reacted that way since given more so, the local context, it’s unusual to

suddenly approach and put one’s arm above a stranger’s shoulder. Aside from the

changes in facial expression, the other nonverbal cues that we were able to notice

are the way how some people tried to distance themselves or jerk away from the

“akbay,” others were perhaps too perplexed with the gesture that they simply stared

at us, while some patiently waited for us to notice our “blunder,” believing that it was

just another case of “getting the wrong person.” It is quite interesting to note how

few people reacted verbally, except in a few cases such as that of Adrian’s when he

placed his arms above the shoulder of an old man, he immediately moved away with

a reprimanding tone saying, “Don’t touch me! You’re not my age.” Judging by this

wild reaction from the perspective of a senior aged Filipino, the old man perceived

the “akbay” as something intimate. To add to this, we can even recall some people

making side comments along the lines of, “Akala ko friend ko siya” or “Gulat ako!

Akala ko magka-close tayo.”

In general, the deviant act reinforced the existing norm of only limiting the “akbay” to

close family or friends. A possible explanation for this is how the Filipino culture can

be described to be more of “family-oriented,” meaning that, people find it much

more appropriate or have the tendency to display signs of familiarity and

affection/intimacy when they are with close companions. This is why the participants

were so surprised when a total stranger performed a relatively “personal” gesture

with them.  

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.)

In the Philippines, the values and beliefs that have the most impact on the common

Filipino would be that which comes from the family. As children, we were already

taught by our parents how to properly behave in the society. These lessons on

manners or casual interaction are otherwise classified as folkways where if violated,

other people will label you as “weird.” Aside from the simple instruction of not

talking to or accepting anything from strangers, we were taught whether directly or

indirectly, that we can only do the intimate gestures of hugging, kissing (or another

Filipino variant would be the act of “beso”), “akbay” etc. only as signs of familiarity

towards another close acquaintance or relative. It is the function of values or beliefs

which were dictated by institutions that we are able to practice the concept of social

control particularly, self-control. As we grow older, the basic lessons we received

when we were younger gradually becomes internalized into our own self-concepts

or personalities. This in effect, helps regulate the behaviors practiced in the society

whereas if a person does not know you and vice versa, it is very much “abnormal” or

strange to put one’s hand over that person’s shoulder.

Apart from this, the reaction of the participants may have something to do with their

(1) gender: same-sex interaction was seen to be more tolerable than opposite-sex

interaction since the female participants became more suspicious and possibly,

even scared of the action; (2) age: younger people seem to be much more

permissive and patient with our experiment than older people like senior citizens; (3)

social class: since UP Town Center is considered to be a high-end type of mall,

people don’t expect strangers to suddenly put their arms on their shoulders.

Perhaps, this idea can be attributed to the masses’ perception of the higher classes

who always exude images of exclusivity; and (4) social space: in doing personal

gestures towards strangers, the mall being a public place can deem this action as

inappropriate yet, it can be more acceptable in some more “intimate” places such as

bars or other social gatherings.

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?

At first some of us were a bit hesitant to do the activity because placing our arm in

the shoulders of random people isn’t something that we would normally do. It was

also awkward since some people from the shops were looking because we stayed in

one area for some time before moving to a different area in the mall. The reactions

that the group got were expected already since if we were put in the same situation,

we would react just the same.

Purposely behaving in a socially unacceptable way feels weird and is quite an

abnormal thing to do, but it’s really interesting to see people’s reactions when they

are put in awkward situations, even though most of them were indifferent.

Some of us generally found it uncomfortable because there was a certain norm in

terms of morality that prevents them from deviating from such a norm. It’s essentially

very much dependent on which group members’ morals are and how it would affect

the experiment.

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

Towards the latter part of the experiment, we informed the people we experimented

on that their reactions were caught on tape and asked them if it was alright if we

include their videos for the video compilation that we will be making. Most of them

willingly agreed to this and upon realizing that it was an experiment all along, some

felt neutral about it while others just laughed.

Deviating from the norms is not something that one would do on a regular basis, in

fact one would sometimes not dare to deviate because other people will judge them

based on their actions.

SA21 C Breaching Experiment (Atienza, Cabal, Chibueze, Roxas, Santiago, Tugonon)

   
1. What norm did you violate?

The norm we deviated from is the established “correct” use of escalators. Escalators are intended to help someone go up or down faster with less effort. With this, it establishes the perception that its correct use is for going up when the steps move upwards and going down when the steps move downward.

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

A member of our group walked on the opposite direction of the escalator to see the reactions of the people walking the proper direction of the escalator. This was done seriously as if this was truly what was intended to be done. This experiment was done in Regis Center Katipunan, Greenhills, and Shoppesville.

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?

Most people just stared and gave strange looks, stepping aside to make room, some people laughed, a few seemed annoyed, and a few called out the one doing the experiment during and after the experiment. These reactions are certainly caused by the fact that people really don’t use escalators the opposite way. Indeed, the deviant act reaffirm and reinforce the existing norms based on the reactions of the people when we did the experiment. 

Here are some lines that capture the reactions of the people:

Adolescent boy: “Anong ginagawa mo? What the fuck?”

Vendor: “Kuya bakit ka umakyat don? Pinapagod mo sarili mo.”

Lady “Ay. Bobo ba talaga mga negro ano ba ginagawa niya.”

4.    Aside from these 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.)?

Sociological themes at play include social roles and gender.

In Regis Center Katipunan, although it was the janitor who saw the wrong escalator was being used, he did not approach the one doing the experiment and instead told the guard and the guard was the one who approached the one doing the experiment. Similarly, in Greenhills, it was only the guard that called up the attention of the one doing the experiment. Most people who work in the establishments also laughed and it was only after the experiment when a transaction was made with one of the vendors in the establishment that the vendor asked why the wrong escalator was being used. Most of the people who just stared were composed of those who are shopping or just passing by.

With regards to gender, when it was a girl that did the experiment, the security guard didn’t call the attention of the one doing the experiment and merely stared.

Reactions from the two genders are also generally different. It was generally the guys found the experiment to be funny; some even made jokes and tried to copy the the experiment. In contrast, the girls witnessing the experiment seemed to be more more judgmental and annoyed with the activity. Boys continued using the escalators while some girls decide not to use it anymore.

Individuals also tended to stare and get annoyed; while groups of people tended to stare and share funny looks with their group.

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 shy, hesitant, and embarrassed initially because we expected people to be annoyed, judgmental, or mad. However, in the end it was a very satisfying, liberating and exciting experience to deviate from the norms and try something new. It was also interesting and fun to see the different reactions of the people.

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

The deviance in the experiment was a very simple violation of a folkway, which are just norms for routine and casual interaction developed through customary, normal, and habitual way of doing something. However it is interesting to note how strong our social control in terms of self-control (internalization and acceptance of norms and values) and informal control (self-restrain exercised because of what others will think) was whenever we began doing the experiment and how strong the feeling of satisfaction, liberation and excitement was when we finally went against the norm.

Link to videos

SA 21 Breaching Experiment - Barruela, Masamong, Nazario, Palileo, Samaniego

Link to the Video

1.   What norm did you violate?

The norm that the group violated was mistaking consumers to be employees in establishments.

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

In the breaching experiment the group went to U.P. Town Center and we went to various stores, mostly retail, to conduct the experiment. We first started in Topshop/Topman store, where we first tried to pick a person, someone who is alone and isolated in the store, that would be a possible target. When we have picked a target we alerted one of our members to quietly start videotaping, while the one who will ask goes close to the target and looks around to make it appear that he/she is also a normal consumer. When the person asking feels ready to ask, he/she asks the target a consumer question about a product of the store, for example asking about different sizes or different color options. After which we explain to the target that it was an experiment for our SA21 class so that they would understand. The group also went inside Uniqlo and Metro Department store as well to find targets for the breaching experiment. In Uniqlo and Metro, the guards asked us to stop recording, but we managed to two videos in each establishment.

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?

The reactions with our breaching experiment varied from each consumer. We saw reactions like embarrassment, mild irritation, and even helpfulness from the people that we performed the experiment too. For the person who felt a little embarrass or awkward with, the situation might have felt this because of a random stranger mistaking them for an employee even though they are also checking the store out. For irritation it might have been caused by them feeling insulted that they were confused to be employees even though they are also consumers, which might come from issues of social class. The reaction where the consumer actually helped the group when they asked questions might have been rooted to the nature of the person being that the person who acted this way was a mother. When asked she would even use her own son as an example to help the group and this is most likely due to her motherly nature. The deviant acts in one occasion reinforced the norms, by like the mother actually acting in a caring nature, while in most cases the norms were violated resulting to reaction of embarrassment or irritation.

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, values/beliefs of institutions.

The sociological theme that can be found in the project is the social hierarchy and differences in social classes which influenced the way people reacted. It has become a norm in stores to approach people wearing uniforms (salesclerks).  To ask fellow consumers, though there is nothing really wrong about it, is not normal. Asking fellow consumers the price of sales somewhat implies degradation of physical appearance which came from a social construct of discrimination against people of lower social class (janitor, salesclerks, etc.) People of higher position in the social hierarchy are the ones who actually shop while people who serve them are those in the other end of the social hierarchy (the lower class). To mistaken a consumer as an employee would give them an assumption of you judging him/her to come from a lower class than his current.

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

We spent most of our time in identifying a subject that we can approach for this activity. We were all hesitant to approach a stranger simply because we did not want to deviate the norm. We felt judged when we deviated from the norm since it was unusual to approach a stranger, more so ask a question supposedly for the clerks in uniforms. All of us felt alienated on our own individual turns. When we were eyeing subjects, other shoppers were already noticing us, and after deviating the norm, we were observed as we left the respective stores. Nonetheless, we thought that they were strangers and it was unlikely for our paths to cross once again.

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

The Breaching Experiment proves that there are norms present in our society. These norms are expectations that guide the way an individual acts in the society. Norms dictate what an individual is ought and ought not to do. Deviance, or violation of these norms elicit a certain sanction, as seen in our experiment when we were alienated or stared at in the establishment. Despite the acts to destroy these norms and accept everyone for their individuality in terms of behavior, appearance, or belief, norms play a great role in our society.

Stranger Asking For Food

1. What norm did you violate?

The researchers violated the social norm of not asking leftovers from other diners in restaurants and the norm that Ateneans asking for leftovers is considered to be unacceptable because of their assumed class in society.

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

The group entered into various lower, middle, and upper class restaurants inside a mall, in this case UPTC, and asked for the left overs from its diners.The breaching experiment was conducted by one of the members of the research team dressed in a casual attire wearing an Ateneo De Manila University ID, which is considered to connote an upper class individual; he entered the restaurants while other members of the group were filming secretly.  He then respectfully asked the diners if he could have their leftover food for his own personal consumption. The member spoke in English. If the person or the group agreed with the request, he then told them about the social experiment. If the person/group did not agree, the member tried to convince them. If he has tried more than a couple of times and the diner still refuses, he will tell them about the experiment.

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?

In Jollibee, the diner which was asked possessed a stoic, annoyed and irritated facial expression which can be clearly sensed from his voice, response and tone to the researcher’s respectful request. A similar trend was observed in Burger King with regard to the stoicness and utter annoyance at the presence and gall of the person asking for food. However, one of the differences which occurred was that the woman asked looked at the member’s ID, before responding. The next restaurant, however, was slightly different; instead of the usual irritated and annoyed facial expression, the male diner was happily surprised and did not give a snarky or mean comment or response to the researcher. In the fourth restaurant, the elderly female diner was also surprised, similar to the others, but was more obnoxious than the others. An important note to also take from this restaurant was not only the reactions and facial expressions of the diner asked, but the reactions of the waiter watching as well. The waiter was evidently clenching his fist, a clear-cut sign of anger and wanting to intervene while the researcher was conversing to the diner was seen, and the immediate rush to the diner’s side was observed after the researcher left the restaurant’s premises. On the last restaurant however, an unexpected trend took place; the couple which was asked by the researcher surprisingly agreed to the request and were both open and generous to the researcher’s request. The primary cause of the diner’s evident  irritability, in terms of reactions and facial expressions, is because asking for leftovers from a person eating is not generally acceptable and is socially frowned upon, and goes into the lines of unacceptability when inside a restaurant or mall, which is clearly seen here. The act reinforced the existing norms, because of the utter lack of attention and generosity which the diner’s showed.

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, values/beliefs of institutions.

    One of the sociological themes which were at play during the experiment are the social norms of the middle to upper class, especially since the experiment was conducted in upper class restaurants and in an upper class mall, UPTC. The social norms of the middle to upper class may be one of the reasons why the diners acted the way they did, for in middle to upper class societies people asking others for leftovers is an impossibility or incredibly improbable, especially if done in a public place, in this case a mall. But, if the experiment was done with a different class of people and different setting such as church and the like, an entirely different result may occur.

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

At first I was very hesitant to approach the people we involved in the experiment as I was unsure of how they would react. I was also shy at first because of the reactions the experiment garnered. I was especially humiliated from the reactions of the two women at Burger King as I felt that they had been annoyed by my presence and request. Deviating from the norm made me feel alienated because the people approached looked at me and talked to me as if I was an outcast who was not oriented with simple norms.

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

The waiter’s reaction and movements are worth noting, because it shows that even if you are not the one being asked for leftovers, the very act of seeing it occur instills into you a sense of concern or in this case anger, which is seen through the waiter. Another point which begs focus is when one of the diners looked at the Ateneo De Manila University ID of the researcher, which may have played a role or may be the very cause of her rejection to the researcher’s request for leftover food, for it is deemed unacceptable for a student of Ateneo De Manila University to ask for leftovers, because of their perceived class in society.

SA21 C - Breaking the Norm in Jeeps: Hindi Pag-aabot ng Bayad (Not Passing the Fare in Jeepneys)

Video Link: 
Breaking the Norm in Jeeps: Hindi Pag-aabot ng Bayad (Not Passing the Fare in Jeepneys)

Group Members:

ISIP, Pamela

QUEJADA, Nina

SANTOS, Pauline

TURGA, Amethyst

What norm did you violate?

 The passing on of change to the driver in the jeep was violated.

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

The group rode a jeepney from the  Miriam College jeepney stop in Katipunan Avenue to the jeep stop by the entrance of the University of the Philippines Diliman. Pam and Amethyst (the two experimenters) sat on the same side nearest to the driver while Nina sat on the opposite side near the entrance/ exit of the jeepney. It is expected of jeepney passengers to pass the fare from one another until it reaches the driver or the conductor. Pam and Amethyst only conversed with each other. They ignored other passengers even those who requested them to pass the fare and also the driver who requested them to pass it to him. Nina filmed the passengers' reactions discreetly with a cellphone.

What were the different reactions of the people? List all possible reactions you observed. Why do you think they reacted this way? What caused these reactions? Did the deviant act reaffirm or reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?

 

The different reactions varied from ignorance to the happenings to extremely violent verbal indignation. There were Mirriam students who were annoyed when their change was not passed on, however they remained quiet. The driver kept looking back through the mirror and displayed a face of irritation during the experiment. Most shockingly there was a woman who was extremely vocal about her thoughts and continuously spouted insults towards Pam and Amethyst for not passing the fare to the driver, insults included phrases such as but not limited to- “Ano kayo mga mayayaman?””Feeling niyo ang gaganda ninyo!”” Dapat sa inyo mga nagtataxi!” On the other hand, people who were near the entrance and saw the camera were amused however tried their best not to show it. It is important to note that they did not try to say this to the woman who was extremely annoyed.

 

These actions were most probably caused by the breaking of the norm, a violation that gave a negative tone to the event. Nevertheless the possibility of the violent woman just having a bad day and the breaching experiment made it worse, cannot be ruled out. The deviant act reinforces people to follow the norms, especially if it meant young people like us were to be subjected to insults bordering verbal abuse.

Aside from the norms, what sociological themes are at play for the people to react in a certain way?

In this breaching experiment, we considered how throughout our childhood we are told to not talk with strangers. This “talk” basically refers to have no interaction with strangers. Despite this idea being taught to us ever since, we are always breaking this every time we ride the jeep. We interact with everyone through the norm of passing the fare until it reaches the driver. Somehow, we can even consider it as a custom already because it has been there throughout the years and it is already embedded in our system. In breaking this norm, we have experienced being looked at as if breaking or disrespecting a law.

Sociological Themes

The dominant themes found in the experiment were the following: expectations, stereotypes, and intolerance. In terms of expectations, the woman had the expectation of femininity upon her. Women are generally not expected to be aggressive or impolite. The reaction of the woman in the jeepney thus came as a surprise not only to the group but also to the other passengers. Second, in terms of stereotypes, the woman's manner fulfilled the stereotype of someone from the lower class - crass, loud, and rude. It may be inferred that she is from the lower class not only from her manner but also from her attire, as well as the fact that the woman got off the jeepney in a lower-income neighborhood,  It is important to note why these stereotypes come to be. Stereotypes are a product of socialization, taken from a generalization of multiple interactions with the stereotyped group. Lastly, the woman's apparent resentment for the upper classes ("magtaxi na lang kayo" "akala niyo kung sinong mayayaman," etc.) is an implicit showing of class conflict, and by extension, intolerance. She showed intolerance because the group did not perform according to the norms of riding the jeepney, a space populated mostly by the working class.

All the passengers in the jeep were obviously annoyed. The driver has even showed signs of pleading -pleading for the two (Pam and Amethyst) to just pass the fare to dissolve the tension evidently present inside the jeep. One of the passengers, the mother who sat beside Amethyst, is observed to have felt annoyed but instead of voicing out her feelings she just made her way to reach for the driver’s hand. The other passengers did not voice out their annoyance or anger except for this one woman. It may be inferred that this is also brought out by the different social locations of the passengers as majority of those in the end were students and some were workers (as seen through their uniform).

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?

This experiment really tested the researchers’ patience and moral. Pam who indeed commutes and always rides the jeep because of the cheaper fare was really affected. In the video, her guilt is really seen as she really tries to act casual and as if only talking to Amethyst and not hearing any complain. Pam felt really guilty and bad. She saw her act as something really irresponsible and something that must not be done in a public transport. It somehow violates her own set of values. She did felt hesitant at some point and had a hard time stopping herself from actually passing the fare. In her own words, the experience was “scarring.” It is something that she will never actually do.

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

People lighten up immensely when it was revealed to the driver and the remaining passengers on the last stop. Laughter ensued after the intense and heavy atmosphere when the violent lady was yelling in the jeep.

It was noted that the woman with her child did not seem to laugh or rather there was no significant change of expression after the explanation that what happened was just an experiment. The last guy who went down at the last stop (UP Gate) was laughing. This guy was seated at the end of the jeep. He saw how the experiment has been caught on camera but seemingly he just enjoyed the ride.

Deviance is indeed something hard to do in general knowing that people will judge you or classify you as one type of person. Also, many do not openly speak out their irritation in public to certain actions of others, which include the breaking of norms. Just like what was seen in this experiment, out of all the people in the jeep, only one woman expressed her annoyance openly.