BREAKING THE SOCIAL NORM OF ‘INSIDE VOICES‘ 1

Breaking the Social Norm of ‘Inside Voices’

Stephen Fitch, Anthony Palacios, William Bremer

Appalachian State University

With every society there develops a culture, or common ideals, practices,and beliefs. In

philosophy we learn that in one’s environment there tends to be a common behavioral rule,

1
 BREAKING THE SOCIAL NORM OF ‘INSIDE VOICES‘ 2

which becomes a norm, then a moral law, and then a political law. Therefore, most political

laws were once social norms, but not always, and not all social norms are law. For example, if a

culture avoids snakes because they are dangerous, eventually that group will have a stigmatized

social norm in which people are properly thought to avoid an encounter with a snake. Later on,

that social norm will develop into a moral law such as: it is wrong to touch a snake. Possibly,

that moral law will develop into a political law, punishing those who trespass that law. Social

norms are as inevitable as they are ubiquitous. Behaviors such as driving on the right side of the

road, wearing a seat belt, not speeding, and not drinking and driving were all social norms which

later became political laws. Common everyday norms are coughing into your arm, saying ‘hello’

and ‘bye’ to a friend, shaking hands, smiling, or even forming a single-file line.

One such norm, which we defied, is to speak in a quieter volume when inside. This norm

is also colloquially named as ‘inside voices’. One can observe this norm when going into a

movie theater, or coffee shop, verses a sports arena. While the movie theater sets a social prece-

dent of silence, even the coffee shop is an expected place of quiet conversation. This is drasti-

cally different than a bar, which commonly has loud bantering and music. Although one can yell

as loud as possible at a football, soccer, or basketball game, one must be quiet at a golf or tennis

match. This is the unique dichotomy of this social norm, whose opposite is ‘outside voices’, or

speaking loud in an outside environment.

In order to break our social norm, we had to choose a location that would provide the

necessary environment where we would stand out. To create more of a control variable we

brainstormed the perfect environment on campus that would provide little to no reaction to vio-

lating our social norm. The decision was made to conduct the control portion of violating our so-

cial norm in the Central dining hall. This decision seemed to be the best choice due to the loud

2
 BREAKING THE SOCIAL NORM OF ‘INSIDE VOICES‘ 3

conversations about meaningless banter that already took place in Central dining hall because of

the amount of already loud conversations that go on.

Finding an experimental location for violating our social norm was not as easy as finding

our control location. In order to properly choose the right environment, we had to brainstorm to

find a location that was quiet, and where there was good reason for this silence. It took us a few

minutes to decide where would be the perfect location, but then we realized the answer was obvi-

ous.

The Belk library was decided on to be the location of our social norm violation because

of simple reasons. Since the social norm we chose to violate is about the volume at which is ap-

propriate to speak at in public, the library was the perfect environment. Silence is a major norm

to follow there, and we were nervous about making those around us overly irritated to the point

of conflict. Given the that is late in the semester and everyone seems to have more work, we

opted out of going for the more extreme situation and violating our social norm on the third

floor. Instead we chose the second floor. The second floor of the library is quieter than the first,

but no rules about volume. People still wish to maintain a volume level where casual conversa-

tion is tolerated, but loud speech is not very welcomed.

To execute a proper experiment, we had to make sure that we were all in during the viola-

tion. There could be no break in character once we had started. A break in character such as

laughing or giving it away that genuine conversation was not taking place. If this were to occur

we our results would not be what we desired, and reactions would not be legitimate .

On the 26th of April we walked into Belk library to conduct the experiment portion of our

social norm violation. Once situated, conversation first was fabricated talking about Arizona

Green Tea, and then proceeded to talk about the Nickelodeon show “ Sponge Bob Square Pants”.

3
 BREAKING THE SOCIAL NORM OF ‘INSIDE VOICES‘ 4

These topics were chosen to provide an extra backing of annoyance, given that there are many

other suitable places to conduct a conversation about Sponge Bob or Tea.

Our group decided that we should speak enthusiastically about the subjects to make our

violation of the social norm seem believable to the surrounding subjects. In a room predomi-

nately silent, we clearly were obvious due to our relatively loud volume.

To make sure of the norm being violated, we progressively raised the volume at which

the conversation was conducted sentence by sentence. As we entered into our third or fourth

lines of dialogue we realized we were accomplishing what we set out to do. The whole second

floor seemed annoyed with our conversation and demonstrated this with mean glares that illus-

trated utter dissatisfaction.

On the way to the library, we were talking about our collective excitement we had to-

wards this experiment with great grins across our faces. Nevertheless, we were very nervous to

break the quiet library environment and enact a social taboo. Even though we knew we would

not be punished, for this is just a social norm and not a law, we were still very intimidated to en-

act this violation. This proved the potency of social norms and how ingrained they are into our

understanding of our actions, culture, and world.

Moreover, after we decided that we had put the floor through enough distractions and

frustration, we approached the bystanders and ask what they thought. What we learned was ex-

actly what we were looking for. The first person that we saw react to our conversation was a girl

sitting to the table next to ours. Sadly, the girl ended up being a classmate and knew that we in-

tended to violate a social norm, especially since we didn’t have any books at our table. We de-

cided to try again and this time came prepared. We talked about how much I loved ‘Spongebob’

and ‘Patrick’ and about the delicious iced tea that I was drinking. We figured that talking about

4
 BREAKING THE SOCIAL NORM OF ‘INSIDE VOICES‘ 5

such unusual and preposterous things would attract more attention to us, therefore resulting in

more reactions.

While going through with our loud and obnoxious conversation we noticed a guy behind

us that kept staring and looked rather frustrated with us. We approached him and he immediately

looked back down at his laptop and acted like he was working. After apologizing and explaining

our experiment to him, he told us his thought process. It turns out that he suffered from a well-

known disorder named Attention Deficit Disorder, or ADD. With this disorder it is nearly impos-

sible to concentrate when someone or something else is grabbing a hold of your attention. He

was trying to finish up a last minute paper before class and not to mention had a broken arm. We

felt so bad for the guy and apologized profusely.

Furthermore, the best reaction by far was from the two girls sitting two tables down from

where our conversation took place. As we went on with our discussion, I noticed one of the girls

look over at our table then whisper something to her friend who later turned to see what was go-

ing on. After our group talked for a while, we went over to ask the girls some questions. Once we

explained the experiment to them it all made sense to them and they started laughing hysteri-

cally. One of the girls asked the other if they should tell me what they did. I begged them to tell

me because it would help our research and they agreed. One of them confessed to me that she

tweeted about our conversation on the “overheard ASU” twitter page. Her tweet quoted our con-

versation, “you didn't tell me you liked spongebob" "oh I like spongebob. I like Patrick more

than you do”. She told us that was the first time she had tweeted on the site and that she just

couldn’t pass up the opportunity. They told us that it was good that we were talking about some-

thing so absurd because if it was serious they would have just gone about their own business.

5
 BREAKING THE SOCIAL NORM OF ‘INSIDE VOICES‘ 6

Throughout this experiment, we all noticed how ironic the social norm of peaking volume

and breaking it was. We were surprised at how something so simple as raising your voice while

talking can cause such a scene. It was almost as if we were breaking an unwritten law, yet all we

were doing was talking just like any other person in the library. That goes for every other norm

that our classmates dared to break. For example, if I decided to walk backwards around campus I

would get weird looks and people would think different of me all because of the direction I am

walking in. It’s amazing how simple things are disliked by society for no apparent reason.

Similarly, skipping others in a single-file line is another social norm which is prevalent in

our culture. In a 1986 study, some researchers intruded 129 lines, some of which had multiple

confederates and buffers (Milgram, Liberty, Toledo & Wackenhut, 1986). This research pro-

vided the insight that the defensive response of those in line was local rather than systemic,

meaning those nearby the intrusion were more likely to respond to the confederate than the line

as a whole. This is important, as it tells us that although social norms are embraced by individu-

als, responses to social norm violations, in this case, are by local individuals rather than in con-

cert. These researchers had anywhere from 91.3% to 5% depending on the amount of line mem-

bers, intruders and buffers.

In our research, we found a similar result: our reactions were not collective or centralized,

but individualized and different among all of our peers. Also, some peers seemed not to mind, or

even laugh at our violation, while others were annoyed or distracted from their work. Moreo-

ever, our results varied from the Belk Library to the Dining hall, just as differing environments

of line members, buffers and intruders changed the results of the other study.

We thoroughly enjoyed violating such an ingrained social norm. Being quite nervous be-

forehand, we learned that we are so accustomed to our social norms that we are frightened or in-

6
 BREAKING THE SOCIAL NORM OF ‘INSIDE VOICES‘ 7

timdated to violate them, no matter how neglible the consequence. This proved the significance

and power that social norms have in the activity of societies. The reactions from our bystanders

conveyed that the violating of a social norm is both surprising and annoying. In some cases, one

will want to laugh and publicize our violation on a social media cite, but for others the violation

is just an utter mockery and disrespect. Now, we are interested in violating more social norms,

knowing that although it may be awkward and unexpected, it may also be enjoyable and liberat-

ing.

References

Milgram, S., Liberty, H., Toledo, R., & Wackenhut, J. (1986). Response to intrusion into waiting

line. American Pyschological Association Inc., 51(4), 683-689.