Salutations And Farewells

1. The researcher in this experiment was psychologist, Stanley Milgram. The study took place at Yale University in the year 1963. The researcher’s hypothesis was that if there is a demanding authoritive figure, then the other person will obey that authoritive figure just because of their position, even if it violates their morality and their ethical beliefs. He based this of his theory that people who would never hurt someone purposely, would if told to do so by a figure of authority.

What differentiates American society from other societies is the rules and values that they follow. In sociology, these are called norms. Norms govern our lives by showing us how to behave in a certain ways. Codified norms turn into laws. One such norm is to shake hands when meeting someone. Another norm is when using public transportation, to give up his or her seat to someone who is elderly, disabled or pregnant. William Graham Sumner was one of the first American sociologists to distinguish between norms and folkways. Folkways stem from norms that most often are done unconsciously, and emerge from repetition. They are vital to society, are flexible, and do not provoke strong public responses if broken (Sumner, 1906, p. 1).

The objective of my experiment was to see how people reacted to a violation in the social norms of elevator etiquette. Generally in elevators, people are expected to fill in starting from the back, facing the elevator doors, rarely making verbal contact, with the possible exception of finding out which floor people are heading to. Unless the passengers of the elevator know each other, conversation is sparse and often limited to small-talk. As a result of this, my goal in the experiment was to introduce a foreign behavior to the elevator, something that nobody would expect while going about their day. Thus, I entered a situation where a certain set of expectations were in place, such as the informal rule that individuals should stand (rather than sit) in an elevator, and violated those unspoken rules without actually doing anything that would not be perfectly acceptable in another social setting.

Each of the two experiments carried out by Milgram and Zimbardo had questionable ethics in their procedure. Ethics is defined as “Moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2016). In psychology, ethics are moral guidelines when conducting social experiments such as these, so that the dignity of each participant is respected and preserved. This piece of work will evaluate the perceived ethics in Milgram’s experiment of human obedience to authority figures, and Zimbardo’s experiment of conformity to roles, and also provide an overall conclusion on whether or not these studies were ethical.

The following paper is an analysis of different societal conditions that impact the individual’s manners and the civility of the interaction between members of the society. The studies that were reviewed in the following paper cover many variables and scenarios that may affect the way a person interacts with another member of society.

Firstly, this essay will discuss the work by Stanley Milgram (1963) and his obedience studies which used technology to see how far people would obey an authority figure. I will follow this with the ethics argument that surrounded it, noting the issues raised by Diana Baumrind (1964). An updated version of Milgram’s (1963) experiment, carried out by Mel Slater and colleagues (2006) which used technology to replicate it. Moving on, friendship will be examined with the work of Brian Biegelow and John La Gaipa (1975), and other work by William Corsaro (2006).

The sociological Taboo (or imagination) is defined as a way of thinking that help us use external information and experience to form theories about the social pattern around us. We collect data and from that information, we make judgments and predictions. These require going beyond one’s point of view. People 's life and experiences are different. Therefore, it is important to take into consideration their reasoning and thoughts to be able to understand why they act the way they do. Hearing others stories and theories help us distant our self and creating a broader perspective. The saying “never criticizes someone until you have walked a mile in their shoes" is the best way to interpret sociological imagination. Its components include jobs, income, education, gender, race-ethnicity, and age.

Conversation is a ritual every person must encounter throughout their lives in order to function properly with one another in today’s society. However, every individual has a “different idea about what’s appropriate” when approaching someone in any sort of conversation; that is why we are referred to as individuals (Tannen 327). There are thousands of diverse languages to speak to one another with, in fact that means there are thousands of different ways to offend each other with our words. Within those languages there are several contrasting gestures that can offend any single person, such as the amount of times individuals apologize in one meeting, giving criticism too harshly, or thanking someone so often it does not seem genuine. In the article “What Do You Mean,” Deborah Tannen touches upon apologies, criticism, and thank yous in further detail to explain where individuals go wrong within conversation and how they can fix their actions. Individuals find it satisfying to please others by being polite because it is the ‘right’ thing to do, however like myself others need to stand up for themselves and get directly to the point now in order to avoid conflict later in life.

According to William Graham Sumner there are three categories of Norms; folkway, mores and laws. Norms are standards or guides for behavior that are expected in society. Mores are behaviors that have extreme punishments when broken and laws if broken have mild consequences. Folkways are a norm that is expected but not enforced and this is the kind of norm I have been tasked to break. For a sociology project is was expected of me to break a social norm to explain how sociology effects daily life.

Ironically, some memes such as as waving good-bye or saying hello have been a foundation of the laws of society that

“Expectancy violations exert significance on people’s interaction patterns, on their impressions of one another, and on the outcomes of their interactions” (Burgoon 1993:40). In other words, Judee Burgoon, founder of the expectancy violation theory, concluded from various experiments that people evaluate communication with others in a negative or positive regard, based on their expectation of the interaction and their opinion of the communicator. When people do not act in accordance with ones expectations, one resorts to evaluating their communication behavior, be it verbal or non verbal as well as how this behavior makes one feel. The following essay will further explore and explain the

This paper will explain the three known theoretical sociological perspectives in science today; it will explain in detail what they are about and what they stand for.

“The greatest gift you can give your family and the world is a healthy you.” ~ Joyce Meyer

Every day, people’s speech styles and patterns shifts through similar social encounters, whether there are mundane conversations between colleagues or a rare meeting between a citizen and the President. Consider an interaction between an employer and an employee? How about an interaction between colleagues and friends? The way we interact and communicate with either party differs; this intergroup interaction is what academics describe as the Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) (Gallois, Ogay, & Giles, 2005). More specifically, this theory explains the motivation commutators have to either converge with or diverge from each other during the communication phase (Gallois, et al., 2005). According to Gallois, et al. (2005), the social human connection is a series of convergences and divergences, one converging to bridge the gap that separates individuals to form a stronger bond. In stark contrast, they (2005) describe divergence as the rejection of one individual rejecting a certain or a series of verbal and nonverbal behaviors as a mean to maintain their individuality.

In elevator with broken norm, Asians showed dislike when they being stared or watched, but they still avoided facing others, and Americans showed two different reactions such as evading eye contact and looking straight with greets. In this result, I speculated people’s reaction in the norm of elevator is not only causing by the different cultures, but also the reaction depends on how people’s moods are each days.