This paper presents a breaching experiment inspired by Harold Garfinkel's ethnomethodology, specifically his observation that social norms go unnoticed until violated. The experiment involved deliberately omitting "please" and "thank you" during interactions with shop assistants and restaurant servers, as well as in the presence of friends. Results revealed three categories of reaction among strangers: subtle hostility, being ignored, and open verbal scolding. Friends responded with confusion and discomfort but no hostility. The findings support Garfinkel's theory that deeply ingrained social norms — such as expressions of politeness — are only consciously recognized when breached, and that violating them produces measurable social consequences.
The paper demonstrates the use of a breaching experiment as a first-person empirical method. Rather than simply describing Garfinkel's theory, the writer tests it through direct behavioral intervention, then connects observed outcomes back to the theoretical claim. This theory-to-method-to-evidence loop is a foundational move in applied social science writing.
The paper follows a clear social science lab-report structure: introduction establishing theory, description of method, population identification, results reported by reaction type, interpretation linking findings to theory, and a conclusion with suggestions for future research. Each section is concise and purposeful, making the argument easy to follow from hypothesis through evidence to conclusion.
One of Harold Garfinkel's central observations is that social norms and rules are so commonly accepted and integrated into natural human interaction that they are only noticed consciously when they are violated. In order to observe the extent to which this is true, this experiment focuses on the use of "please" and "thank you." These expressions of desire and gratitude are so deeply ingrained in human consciousness that they appear thousands of times in daily interactions. As human beings, we say "please" and "thank you" to adhere to commonly held rules of politeness. It is one of the first things children learn when they begin to acquire speech. Observing how people react when they do not receive the expected phrases of request or thanks proves to be a revealing test of Garfinkel's claim.
Specifically, the experiment was conducted in a shopping mall and a restaurant. The approach was to request assistance without saying "please" and to withhold "thank you" after assistance was provided. During the experiment, one notable difficulty was that it was surprisingly hard not to follow a request with "please" or assistance with "thank you." This difficulty suggests that the social norm has become so thoroughly conditioned that it functions as an automatic habit requiring no conscious thought. Having been taught the rules of politeness from a very young age, breaking this habit required deliberate and sustained effort. It was necessary to consciously remind myself not to make polite utterances while interacting with shopkeepers and waiters.
The population for the experiment included personnel working in stores and restaurants — primarily shopping assistants and waiters. On each occasion, the shopping and dining was done in the company of a friend. To maintain variety in the population, a different friend accompanied each visit. The friends were not given any information about the experiment and therefore formed part of the observed population, providing an additional layer of naturally occurring data.
There were three common reactions among the retail and restaurant professionals to the norm breach. Most commonly, somewhat hostile stares were received. When asking a clothing shop assistant for help without saying "please," for example, she stared in confusion for a second or two, after which both her expression and attitude became noticeably hostile, though in a reserved way. She was also seen exchanging whispers with a colleague as the visit concluded. In a restaurant visited the same day, the waiter was not openly hostile, but he was far more distant than servers at that establishment typically are.
The second most common reaction was simply being ignored, with little or no observable change in behavior. One shopping assistant paused briefly after the request was made without "please," then continued to smile and assist in a friendly manner. In one restaurant, there was absolutely no observable change in the server's behavior — he simply continued his work without any perceptible reaction.
The least common reaction was open hostility in the form of verbal questioning or scolding, coupled with a refusal to assist. This occurred in only one shop. After a request for assistance without "please," the assistant stared for an extended moment, then asked why the behavior was so rude. When the request was simply repeated, she refused outright, stating that she would not assist someone who behaved so impolitely.
The reactions of the friends who accompanied each visit were also varied. All of them displayed some degree of confusion at the apparent rudeness. Two of the three friends kept quiet but were visibly unsettled, as the behavior was out of character. They expressed their discomfort nonverbally — by avoiding eye contact and clearing their throats each time a politeness norm was violated. During the restaurant visit, the third friend eventually asked, calmly and politely, whether the behavior could stop. None of the friends displayed overt hostility.
You’re 72% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.