Expectancy+Violations+Theory

=Summary= toc

Expectancy Violations Theory is a theory that attempts to explain the influence of nonverbal communication on behavior. Judee Burgoon, the developer of the theory, discusses the intersection of nonverbal communication and message production when she states that “nonverbal cues are an inherent and essential part of message creation (production) and interpretation (processing).” The theory suggests that people hold expectations about the nonverbal behavior of their peers. It also identifies the various meanings that people attribute to the violation of their personal space, arguing that unexpected changes in conversational distance between communicators are arousing and frequently ambiguous. Interpreting the meaning behind an expectancy violation depends on how favorably the “violator” is perceived.

Expectancy Violations Theory integrates specific instances of nonverbal communication; namely personal space and people’s expectations of conversational distance. Proxemics is the study of a person’s use of space. Spatial use can influence meaning and message. Burgoon states that humans have needs of affiliation and personal space; we simultaneously desire to stay in close proximity to others but also desire some distance. Anthropologist Edward Hall claims that four proxemics zones exist – intimate, personal, social, and public.



An additional feature of personal space is territoriality, or a person's ownership of an area or object. Frequently, we lay claim to various spatial areas that we want to protect or defend. We have primary, secondary, and public territories. An example of ones primary territory may be their computer, while an example of a secondary territory could be their campus library. Public territories signal no personal affiliation and include those area that are open to all people like beaches or parks.

There are three assumptions that guide Expectations Violations Theory:
 * Expectancies drive human interaction
 * Expectancies for human behavior are learned
 * People make predictions about nonverbal behavior

The first assumption states that people carry expectancies in their interactions with others, which are determined by three factors of expectancies. These factors are as follows: Individual communicator factors (Gender, personality, age, apperance); relational factors (prior history, status difference, level of attraction); context factors (formality, social function, environmental restricitons, cultural normalities). Burgoon and other EVT writers argue that people enter interactions with a number of expectations about how a message should be delivered and how the messenger should deliver it. Burgoon and Jerold Hale believe that two types of expectations exist: pre-interactional and interactional. Pre-interactional expectations include the types of interactional knowledge and skills the communicator possesses before he or she enters a conversation. Interactional expectations are an individual’s ability to carry out the interaction itself.

The second assumption of Expectations Violations Theory is that people learn their expectations from both the culture at large and the individuals in that culture. Expectancies of human behavior are learned, for example, from teachers, parents, society, television, and online media.

The third assumption pertains to the predictions people make about nonverbal communication (eye contact, touch, body language, etc.).

Burgoon believed that deviations, or violations from expectations have what is called “arousal value”. By this she means that when a person’s expectations are violated, the person’s interest or attention is aroused, and he or she uses a particular mechanism to cope with the violation. When arousal occurs, one’s interest or attention to the deviation increases and one pays less attention to the message and more attention to the source of the arousal. A person may be both cognitively and physically aroused. Cognitive arousal is an alertness or an orientation to a violation in which our intuitive senses become heightened. Physical arousal includes those behaviors that a communicator employs during an interaction. Once arousal exists, threats may occur.

Burgoon defines threat threshold, a second key concept associated with Expectancy Violation Theory, as the “distance at which an interactant experiences physical and physiological discomfort by the presence of another.” The lower the threat threshold for a person, the more they become very uncomfortable around those who stand too close- Introverted. People of high threat thresholds are referred to extroverted. When expectations are violated between people, people evaluate the violation on a valence. Violation valence is the positive or negative assessment of an unexpected behavior. We are more likely to reward someone if we see them as of use to us, if we “need” them for something.

Expectancy Violations Theory offers us a better understanding of our need for both other people and personal space. It is one of the few theories specifically focused on what people expect- and their reactions to others- in conversations. Expectancy Violations Theory provides a way to link behavior and cognitions.

Works Cited: West, Richard L., and Lynn H. Turner. Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2007. Print.

=Key Terms and Definitions=


 * 1) **Proxemics** - the study of a person's use of space
 * 2) **Personal space** - individual's variable use of space and distance
 * 3) **Threat threshold** - tolerance for distance violations
 * 4) **Territoriality** - a person's owenership of an area or object
 * 5) **Expectancies** - thoughts and behaviors anticipated in conversations
 * 6) **Arousal** - increased interest or attention when deviations form expectancies occur
 * 7) **Threat threshold** - tolerance for distance violations
 * 8) **Violation valence** - perceived negative or positive assessment of an unexpected behavior

=Outside Research=

“ Relational quality and communicative responses following hurtful events in dating relationships: An expectancy violations analysis ”

This study was done to examine the impact and variability of hurtful events in serious dating relationships through the Expectancy Violations Theory. Participants in the study were voluntary. They were given a questionnaire about a hurtful event in their dating life with a serious partner: the restrictions were an event that occurred at most 14 months ago and the relationship was a committed one lasting over two months. A hurtful event could be anything a person says or does that is hurtful to the other person in the relationship. The event described by each participant was separately rated by two different trained coders. The events were put into one of ten different categories of hurtful events and were coded based on a number of independent and dependent variables: hurtfulness, rewardingness, negative valence, uncertainty, and partner intent; relationship survival, relational quality, and communicative responses.

Out of 263 participants, 142 maintained their relationship. Of the 121 who broke up, 81 reported it was because of the hurtful event. Sexual infidelity was “the most negatively valence, uncertainty-provoking, and emotionally hurtful of the 10 events.” Whereas events like forgetting plans or violating confidences were lowest in these areas. With partner rewardingness, the study found couples were more likely to stay together if the person who was hurt viewed their partner as rewarding before the event. The study found some people to find their partner more rewarding after the hurtful event as a way to convince themselves they were right in staying with them. People also reported more constructive communication after the event if the hurt person rated their partner as rewarding. Those who had a high negative valence (about the event) and high uncertainty experienced more destructive communication and relationship deterioration. The study also found that perceived intent in a hurtful event by the partner was more likely to lead to “deescalation, distributive communication, and revenge.” A surprising find in the study was the positive relationship between perceived hurtfulness and relational quality: the deeper the person was hurt, the higher the relational quality they reported. They were also less likely to break up. They explain this by stating it may be affected by the time after the hurtful event (average of 3 ½ months) and the interdependence of serious relationships. A person could be more hurt by another who was closer to them and would stay in the relationship because of that closeness they had created. The study also admitted some limitations such as the current feelings of the hurt person to the partner, the causality (as the study could only show associations), the range of communicative responses, and the type of relationship studied. The study only focused on serious dating relationships and explained that their findings are probably particular to that type of relationship.

=Additional Material=

This one is for all the other Seinfeld lovers. A perfect example of expectancy violations and proxemics.

media type="custom" key="23976896"