I have conducted two experiments breaking a line in different settings: one was a line of strangers to buy tickets to a suburban train, the other a line of students to a library. The first experiment involved strangers hurrying to get on a train; the second was held in a familiar setting among friends. In the first experiment, people were highly disapproving: I was told not to skip a queue and called ‘a cheeky young man’. In the second one, friends did tell me there was a queue, but I managed to talk my way through.
In both experiments, I broke a commonly held social norm of queuing; however, the results were different. This may be explained by a group identity theory which states that people working towards a common goal tend to perceive themselves as one entity. Lovaglia (2003, 42) asserts that “groups become more cohesive and rigid when faced with competition from another group.” A group identity theory helps to explain two different outcomes of the experiments.
In the first experiment, I was seen as an intruder into a cohesive group of people already standing in the queue; that is why their reaction was distinctly negative. In the second experiment, I was seen as a part of a larger student group where all people knew each other; therefore, I was allowed to skip the queue.
Both these experiments were field experiments; this type of experiment cannot be conducted in lab settings as its outcome directly depends on the relationship between people involved in it. While lab experiments usually deal with entities where accurate measurements are possible, these field experiments were conducted in natural settings; therefore, their results may be broadened to the larger society.
Reference
Lovaglia, Michael. 2003. “From Summer Camps to Glass Ceilings: The Power of Experiments”. Contexts, 2 (4): 42-49.