Public Behavior, Recording of

Defining Public Behavior

Any recording of behavior in some ways violates the sense of privacy or secrecy of a person. However, not all “public” places are entitled to maintaining a sense of privacy. The problem with public behavior is that a private individual becomes entitled to a greater expectation of privacy than someone considered a celebrity or operating in the public sphere. For example, recordings of a politician giving a speech at a public event probably presents few issues in terms of ethics or challenge to the technique since the event is expected to be recorded for posterity. A political candidate at a dinner for campaign donors not open to the general public who makes a few remarks to the audience may move closer to the zone of semiprivate or private behavior.

Some places, like a bathroom, are considered private, and recording is difficult to justify as appropriate under almost any circumstance. The challenge of articulating and defining the spaces considered “public” remains difficult. The expectation of privacy in a more public space is reduced but not entirely eliminated. The recording of behavior for research, particularly if an expectation exists that the record of the behavior will be public (e.g., a video or audio recording), creates more tension unless clear steps are taken to gain permission from a person not considered to already be in the public eye.

Reasons to Record and Study Public Behavior

Public behavior involves a number of potentially useful avenues and options for examination. Public behavior involves the application of politeness rules and norms of civility in interactions both with strangers and with significant others in the presence of strangers.[Page 1352] Interactions between groups become capable of observation, particularly during times of distress or confrontation. The use of mobile devices to capture unanticipated interaction and behavior provides a window on interactions between groups (like the public and law enforcement) independent of fallible or biases in memory.

One popular consideration is the testing of what the public rules are for particular interactions. One technique is called “Garfinkeling”; in this case, some confederates violate some expectation about public behavior in order to evaluate the existence of a “rule” for behavior. For example, the rules for elevator behavior can be articulated and then tested by violating those rules in public and witnessing the responses. For example, the typical set of expectations for an elevator involves persons all standing facing the front and looking at the numbers of the floors on top of the door with minimal or quiet conversation. The Garfinkeling technique would involve the violation of those rules and examining the responses of others to that violation. Suppose the elevator doors open and there are three persons in the elevator and each one is standing next to the wall of the elevator and facing into that wall. The question is whether the person will get on the elevator or simply wait for another one. Determining how the person reacts becomes the dependent variable; a person demonstrating a lack of comfort, stress, and divergent behavior creates a basis for understanding the nature of the rule. Rule violations generally serve as the basis for discomfort, uncertainty, and avoidance.

...