Essay on Breach of Social Norms: A Sociological Experiment on Personal Space Invasion in Supermarket Queues

Sociologists assume that in breaching experiments, people unconsciously follow social norms developed and taught by social institutions (Goode, 2016). Sociologists have always had an interest in understanding how social norms are created and why members of a given society obey them. Harold Garfinkel built on this concern by manufacturing an ethnomethodological approach that sociologists can use to collect primary data. Next, the social psychologist Stanley Milgram did two breaching experiments and recorded primary data that allowed him to analyze reactions to violation of specific social norms empirically.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The purpose of this paper is to explore how people react when a conventional social norm is violated. Violations of a conventional social norm occurred over a specific period to allow for observation and analysis. The target population was three people who did not know the norm violation was deliberate. I noticed that most people place items on the cashier's counter, and the person behind them in the queue must wait patiently for their turn to approach the cashier. I invaded customers' personal space in front of me in the queue by cramming their items together to make room for my items.

The primary data collected indicates that invading personal spaces leads to extreme irritation. I was admonished for being self-centered and impatient. Behavior inspired by selfish concerns and impatience is seen as deviant behavior. My deviant conduct invoked a hostile reaction because it went against conventional social norms of being patient and empathetic to other shoppers waiting to be served by the cashier. Hence, my social punishment was getting yelled at and judged as an immoral person.

Experiential Learning: Social Norm Violations

According to Goode (2016), the term "social norm" denotes the customary unwritten rules in a society that regulate interpersonal relationships. Social psychologists use a breaching experiment to evaluate individual responses to violations of conventional unwritten social rules (Scambler,2020). Breaching experiments, therefore, involve the deliberate public exhibitions of unexpected conduct that must violate social norms. As this violation is happening, the social psychologist observes social reactions to these violations to understand what the sources of social norms in a given society are.

In Behavior Publicly Places (1963) and Relations in Public: Micro-studies of the General Public Order (1971), Goffman spotlights how social norms are taken for granted until someone deliberately breaks them (Clark, 2018). To him, the principal social rule is conformity. (i.e., each member must fit in by obeying the social rules of a given culture). Hence, all other social regulations draw their legitimacy from recognizing and ensuring social conformity. Consequently, social rules have social penalties for breaking them and social rewards for compliance.

In Goffman's opinion, social gatherings have significant importance for organizing social life (Clark, 2018). He argues that each one of people in a social setting has some concern regarding the principles governing behavior. Infractions, or violations of an unstated rule, could also be "taken as a symbol that the offender cannot be trusted" to not cash in on things "even though the first infraction itself" may be innocuous(Goffman, 235). Individuals conclude that the rules for participating in gatherings are important to society's well-being because they are "natural, inviolable, and fundamentally right"(p.235).

In the view of Garfinkel, every member of a society relies on "background expectancies" that determine how they will behave in social settings(Garfinkel, 1991,p.36). However, most people do not deliberately place reliance on these expectancies. They do it in an automated way. Thus, a sociologist can use "breaching experiments" to reveal the sources and nature of background expectancies that regulate human conduct(p.36). However, Garfinkel warns that his approach is not a purely scientific experiment, but rather, it is the use of disorganized interaction to cast a light on how social structures create rules people obey in their daily interactions.

Garfinkel's approach was later used by the social psychologist Stanley Milgram in his infamous obedience experiments(Milgram and Sabini, 1978, 31–40). In one breaching experiment conducted on the New York City Subway system, experimenters boarded crowded trains. They asked able-bodied but seated riders, with no explanation, to offer up their seats. The natural reactions of the passengers were recorded.

Methodology

In most societies, respecting other people's privacy is an unwritten social norm. However, the degree of privacy a person is allowed varies from one culture to another(Roberts, & Gregor,2017). For example, American society values personal space, but Brazilians are very different. During my brief stay there, I was often irritated by how Brazilians' friendly nature made them invade my personal space. For this paper, violating the personal space of three shoppers as they waited to be served by a cashier in three different supermarkets.

The study locale was three supermarkets where I could encounter strangers and violate their personal space as they dealt with cashiers. I targeted three customers who were waiting to pay for their items in a queue. I noticed that most people place items on the cashier's counter, and the person behind them in the queue must wait patiently for their turn to approach the cashier. I invaded customers' personal space in front of me in the queue by cramming their items together to make room for my items.

Findings

During the first breaching experiment, I invaded the personal space of a young mother and her infant. When her items moved down the cashier's conveyor belt, I started pushing her items forward to create space for my items. The child inquired why I was "moving my mommy's things?" Her mother turned around and angrily confronted me for touching her items. The cashier admonished me for doing what I did because it made her job difficult. I felt embarrassed and stopped.

In the second breaching experiment, I went to another local supermarket. I engaged in the same disorganized interaction. I invaded the second shopper's space by cramming their things together to create space for my items. I invoked an angry confrontation that required the manager and mall security to be involved. The cashier blamed my deviant conduct for precipitating the crisis, and I was escorted off the premises by mall security. I felt ashamed and afraid because I realized my deviant behavior might result in a physical assault.

Consequently, for my third breaching experiment, I targeted an elderly shopper to avoid a physical confrontation. When she noticed what I was doing, she was not happy and complained to the cashier. After the physical confrontation that happened during the second experiment, I was not as nervous, but I still felt a tinge of shame.

The three times I crammed other shoppers' items to make space for my own violated the social norm of respecting other people's personal space. They reacted viscerally, and I was publicly shamed for being impatient and selfish. I also felt terrible after the three disruptive social interactions and was glad that my experiments were over.

Discussion

The primary data collected indicates that invading personal spaces leads to extreme irritation. I was admonished for being self-centered and impatient. Behavior inspired by selfish concerns and impatience is seen as deviant behavior (Goode, 2016). My deviant conduct invoked a hostile reaction because it went against the conventional social norms of being patient and empathetic to other shoppers waiting to be served by the cashier. My social punishment was getting yelled at and judged as an immoral person.

The findings from my three breaching experiments mirrored those arrived at by Milgram et al. (1986), who conducted a sociological study on how people in waiting lines respond to intruders violating the "first-come-first-served" rule. The experimenters jumped the line and collected primary data on how the people waiting in line reacted. Broadly, the results indicated that most people would object to individuals who violate the "first-come-first-served" rule. The experimenters noted that verbal protests were the most common form of objection and that public shaming made experimenters experience negative emotions.

Conclusion

Sociologists assume that in breaching experiments, people unconsciously follow social norms developed and taught by social institutions. Sociologists have always had an interest in understanding how social norms are created and why members of a given society obey them. Harold Garfinkel built on this concern by manufacturing an ethnomethodological approach that sociologists can use to collect primary data. Next, the social psychologist Stanley Milgram did two breaching experiments and recorded primary data that allowed him to empirically analyze reactions to violation of specific social norms.

I targeted three customers who were waiting to pay for their items in a queue. I noticed that most people place items on the cashier's counter, and the person behind them in the queue must wait patiently for their turn to approach the cashier. I invaded customers' personal space in front of me in the queue by cramming their items together to make room for my items. The three times I crammed other shoppers' items to make space for my own violated the social norm of respecting other people's personal space. They reacted viscerally, and I was publicly shamed for being impatient and selfish. I also felt terrible after the three disruptive social interactions and was glad that my experiments were over.

The primary data collected indicates that invading personal spaces leads to extreme irritation. I was admonished for being self-centered and impatient. Behavior inspired by selfish concerns and impatience is seen as deviant behavior. My deviant conduct invoked a hostile reaction because it went against conventional social norms of being patient and empathetic to other shoppers waiting to be served by the cashier. Hence, my social punishment was getting yelled at and judged as an immoral person. These findings from my three breaching experiments mirrored those arrived at by Milgram et al. (1986), who conducted a sociological study on how people in waiting lines respond to intruders violating the "first-come-first-served" rule.

References

Clark, J. L. (2018). People Watching: The Sociology of Erving Goffman. https://hcommons.org/deposits/objects/hc:17996/datastreams/CONTENT/content?download=true

Erving, G. (1963). Behavior in public places: notes on the social organization of gatherings. Free Press

Garfinkel, H (1991). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Polity Press.

Goode, E. (2016). Deviant Behavior. Routledge.

Milgram, S & Sabini, J.(1978). "Advances in environmental psychology 1, the urban environment". In Baum, A., Singer, J.E. and Valins, S. (eds.). On maintaining social norms: A field experiment in the subway. Erlbaum Associates.

Milgram., S, Liberty., H, Toledo., & R, Blacken., J.(1986). "Response to intrusion in waiting lines." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51 (4), 683–689. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.4.683

Paternoster, R., Jaynes, C. M., & Wilson, T. (2017). "Rational choice theory and interest in the fortune of others." Journal of research in crime and delinquency, 54(6), 847-868. https://ccjs.umd.edu/sites/ccjs.umd.edu/files/pubs/rational_choice_theory_and.pdf

Roberts, J. M., & Gregor, T. (2017). Privacy: A cultural view. In Privacy and Personality (pp. 199-225). Routledge....