Editing Breaching experiment (section)

==Social psychology approach to breaching norms==
Later work in the field of [[social psychology]] adapted this approach, but often refers to the phenomena as social norm breaking. Two of the most well known studies of violation of social norms by a social psychologist were carried out by Stanley Milgram, well known for his infamous [[milgram experiment|obedience experiments]]. One was conducted on the [[New York City Subway]] in the 1970s, when experimenters boarded crowded trains and asked able-bodied but seated riders, with no explanation, to give up their seats.<ref name="onmaintaining" /> The other was conducted in the 1980s, and studied the reactions to graduate student experimenters cutting ahead in lines of people waiting to purchase railroad tickets.<ref name="response" /> These experiments build on the sociological work on breaching norms, but note that they are approached quantitatively by being structured so the experimenter can observe and count people's reactions.

==="On maintaining social norms: a field experiment in the subway"===
[[File:NYC subway riders with their newspapers.jpg|thumb|A busy New York City Subway train]]
Milgram defines "residual rules" as rules that fulfill two criteria: 
# People must substantially agree on them.
# People don't notice them until a violation occurs.

A residual rule of everyday interaction on the New York City Subway is that seats are on a [[first-come, first-served]] basis and individuals are not supposed to talk to one another in such close quarters.<ref name="onmaintaining" />

The experimenters violated this implicit rule by asking people to give up their seats.  They then measured the responses as the number of times individuals consented or refused to give up their seats, and also noted people's verbal and physical reactions to the request.  Experimenters approached individuals under three conditions:

# The experimenter approached the subject and said, "Excuse me. May I please have your seat?" No justification was offered.
# The second condition tested the hypothesis that subjects gave up their seats because they assumed the experimenter had some important reason for requesting it.  To rule out this assumption, experimenters were instructed to ask "Excuse me.  May I please have your seat?  I can't read my book standing up."
# The third condition was included because the experimenters believed that subjects might have been so startled by the request that they didn't have time to think about an adequate reply.  Therefore, in this condition, to alert the subject that a seat might be requested, two experimenters entered the subway car from different doors: one would say "Excuse me. Do you think it would be all right if I asked someone for a seat?" and the other "I don't know."

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; margin:1em auto 1em auto;"
|+ Results
|-
! Condition !! No justification !! Trivial justification !! Overheard condition
|-

! Subjects who gave up their seats
| 56% || 37.2%|| 26.8%
|-
! Subjects who slid over to make room for experimenters
| 12.3% || 4.7%|| 9.8%
|-
! Subjects who did not give up their seats
| 31.7% || 58.1%|| 63.4%
|}
The experimenters reasoned that subjects in the no justification condition engaged in normalization of the breach by attributing a meaning to the violation that would make it seem not to be a violation at all. An example of such a normalization would be "he is asking for a seat because he is sick." Since the second condition, the trivial justification, prevented the process of normalization, subjects could not as easily imagine an appropriate justification for the request, and therefore, a much lower number gave up their seats. In the third, overheard condition, the experimenters reasoned that the warning of the pending seat request allowed subjects to be better prepared to refuse the request.

An important aspect of the maintenance of social norms is also revealed in the emotional reactions felt by the experimenters.  Most of the experimenters reported great difficulty in carrying out the task. They reported that, when standing in front of the subject, they felt anxious, tense, and embarrassed. Many felt unable to verbalize the request for a seat and had to withdraw. They sometimes feared they were the center of attention in the car and were often unable to look directly at the subjects. Once they made a successful request for a seat, they felt pressure to act in a way that would actually justify the request, such as pretending to be ill. Milgram proposes that the experimenters were playing the [[role|social role]] of subway rider, and they felt an extreme emotional reaction as a result of breaking implicit rules for that role.  These extreme emotional reactions reflect how important it is to people to engage in routine, everyday activities.

==="Response to intrusion into waiting lines"===
[[File:PASSENGERS WAITING IN LINE TO BUY SUBWAY TOKENS AT THE 8TH AVENUE LINE OF THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY. IN... - NARA - 556682.jpg|thumb|A line to buy [[subway (rail)|subway]] tokens in [[New York City]], similar to the ones experimenters deliberately cut into to in order to record reactions in one experiment by [[Stanley Milgram]]]]
Another norm breaching study led by Milgram sought to examine the response of people waiting in [[Queue area|line]] to intruders, again violating ''first-come, first served''. This was done by having experimenters break into naturally formed lines around New York City and noting how people respond to them.  The experimenters encroached on a total of 129 waiting lines, formed at railroad ticket counters, betting parlors, and other New York City locations.

The lines had an average of six people waiting. The experimenter calmly approached a point between a 3rd and 4th person in line and said in a neutral tone "Excuse me, I’d like to get in here.”  Before anyone in the line could respond, the intruder cut in line and faced forward. If the experimental intruder was directly admonished to leave the line, he or she did so. Otherwise, the intruder stayed in the line for one minute before departing. Three female and two male graduate students acted as intruders, with an observer watching nearby to record physical, verbal, and nonverbal reactions to the intrusion. The experiment manipulated conditions by having either one or two intruders break into the line, as well as varying one or two buffers, or experimenters standing passively by in the line. This enabled the researchers to test whether the responsibility of addressing the intruder would extend from the person closest behind in line to the rest of those in line.

<div style=display:inline-grid>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
|+ Objection occurrence<ref name="response" />
|-
! Condition !! Frequency 
|-

! Two intruders and no buffers
| 91.3% 
|-
! One intruder and no buffer
| 54% 
|-
! One intruder and two buffers
| 5.0% 
|}
</div>
<div style=display:inline-grid>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
|+ Objection type<ref name="response" />
|-
! Condition !! Frequency 
|-
! Verbal interjections
| 21.7% 
|-
! Nonverbal objections
| 14.7% 
|-

! Physical action
| 10% 
|}
</div>
Broadly, results indicated that others in line objected most frequently when there were more intruders and fewer buffers. Nonverbal objections included dirty looks, hostile stares, and gestures. Verbal interjections included "No way!  The line's back there. We've all been waiting and have trains to catch".<ref name="response" />

As reported in Milgram's subway study, experimenters in this study also experienced a high level of [[negative emotion]] associated with the task of intrusion into lines. Experimenters described feeling nauseated, anxious, and struggling to get up the "nerve" to intrude in a line.  Milgram reasons that these feelings make up the "inhibitory anxiety that ordinarily prevents individuals from breaching social norms" and indicate that the internal restraints against intruding into lines play a significant role in assuring the integrity of the line.<ref name=response />