Download expectancy violations theory

CHAPTER 6
EXPECTANCY VIOLATIONS THEORY
Outline
I.
Personal space expectations: conform or deviate?
A.
Judee Burgoon defines personal space as the invisible, variable volume of space
surrounding an individual that defines that individual’s preferred distance from
others.
1.
The size and shape of our personal space depends upon cultural norms
and individual preferences.
2.
Personal space is always a compromise between the conflicting approachavoidance needs that we as humans have for affiliation and privacy.
B.
Edward Hall coined the term proxemics to refer to the study of people’s use of
space as a special elaboration of culture.
1.
He believed that most spatial interpretation is outside our awareness.
2.
He believed that Americans have four proxemic zones.
a.
Intimate distance: 0 to 18 inches.
b.
Personal distance: 18 inches to 4 feet.
c.
Social distance: 4 to 10 feet.
d.
Public distance: 10 feet to infinity.
3.
He maintained that effective communicators adjust their nonverbal
behavior to conform to the communicative rules of their partners.
C.
Burgoon suggests that, under some circumstances, violating social norms and
personal expectations is a superior strategy to conformity.
II.
An applied test of the original model.
A. According to Burgoon’s early model, crossing over the “threat threshold” that
forms the boundary of the intimate distance causes physical and psychological
discomfort.
B. Noticeable deviations from what we expect cause a heightened state of arousal
and spur us to review the nature of our relationship with a person.
C. A person with “punishing” power should observe proxemic conventions or stand
slightly farther away than expected.
D. An attractive communicator benefits from a close approach.
E. Burgoon’s original theory was not supported by her research, but she has
continued to refine her approach to expectancy violations.
III.
A convoluted model becomes an elegant theory.
A. Burgoon dropped the concept of the threat threshold.
B. She has substituted “an orienting response” or a mental “alertness” for “arousal.”
C. Arousal is no longer a necessary link between expectancy violation and
communication outcomes such as attraction, credibility, persuasion, and
involvement, but rather a side effect of a partner’s deviation.
69 D.
She has dropped the qualifier “nonverbal” because she believes the principles of
expectancy violations theory (EVT) apply to verbal interaction as well.
IV.
Core concepts of EVT.
A. EVT offers a soft determinism rather than hard-core universal laws.
B. Burgoon does, however, hope to link surprising interpersonal behavior and
attraction, credibility, influence, and involvement.
C. Expectancy.
1. Expectancy is what is predicted to occur rather than what is desired.
2. Expectancy is based on context, relationship, and communicator
characteristics.
3. Burgoon believes that all cultures have a similar structure of expected
communication behavior, but that the content of those expectations differs
from culture to culture.
D. Violation valence.
1. The violation valence is the positive or negative value we place on the
unexpected behavior, regardless of who does it.
2. If the valence is negative, do less than expected.
3. If the valence is positive, do more than expected.
4. Although the meanings of most violations can be determined from context,
some nonverbal expectancy violations are truly ambiguous.
5. For equivocal violations, one must refer to the communicator reward
valence.
E. Communicator reward valence.
1. The communicator reward valence is the sum of the positive and negative
attributes that the person brings to the encounter plus the potential he or
she has to reward or punish in the future.
2. Puzzling violations force victims to search the social context for clues to
their meaning and that’s when communication reward valence comes into
play.
V.
Interpersonal Adaptation—Burgoon’s Next Frontier
A. EVT has been used to explain and predict attitudes and behaviors in a wide variety
of communication contexts.
B. Paul Mongeau studied men and women’s expectations for first dates and
compares those expectations with their actual experiences.
C. Burgoon has also re-assessed EVT’s single-sided view and now favors a dyadic
model of interpersonal adaptation.
1. Interpersonal adaptation theory is an extension and expansion of EVT
2. Interpersonal interaction position encompasses three factors:
a. Requirements: outcomes we all need to fulfill our basic needs to
survive, be safe, belong, and have sense of self-worth
b. Expectations: what we think really will happen
c.
Desire: what we personally would like to see happen.
D. Burgoon outlined two shortcomings of EVT.
1. EVT does not fully account for the overwhelming prevalence of reciprocity
that has been found in interpersonal interactions
70
2.
E.
VI.
It is silent on whether communication valence supersedes behavior
valence or vice versa when the two are incongruent.
Interpersonal adaptation theory is her attempt to address these problems.
Critique: a work in progress.
A. Burgoon concedes that we can’t yet use EVT to generate specific predictions
regarding touch outcomes and calls for further descriptive work before applying
the theory to any nonverbal behavior.
B. Despite these problems, Burgoon’s theory meets four of the five criteria for a good
scientific theory, and recent research suggests improvement in the fifth criterion,
prediction.
Key Names and Terms
Judee Burgoon
A theorist from the University of Arizona who developed expectancy violations theory.
Personal Space
The invisible, variable volume of space surrounding an individual that defines that
individual’s preferred distance from others.
Edward Hall
An anthropologist from the Illinois Institute of Technology who coined the term
proxemics.
Proxemics
The study of people’s use of space as a special elaboration of culture.
Intimate Distance
The American proxemic zone of 0 to 18 inches.
Personal Distance
The American proxemic zone of 18 inches to 4 feet.
Social Distance
The American proxemic zone of 4 to ten feet.
Public Distance
The American proxemic zone of 10 feet to infinity.
Threat Threshold
The hypothetical boundary that marks a person’s intimate distance. Initially, Burgoon
believed that crossing the threat threshold causes physical and psychological
discomfort.
Expectancy
What people predict will happen, rather than what they necessarily desire.
Violation Valence
The perceived positive or negative value of a breach of expectations, regardless of who
the violator is.
Communicator Reward Valence
The sum of the positive and negative attributes that the person brings to the encounter
plus the potential he or she has to reward or punish in the future.
71
Paul Mongeau
A communication researcher from Arizona State University whose research on dating
demonstrates expectancy violations theory’s increased predictive power.
Interactional Adaptation Theory
Theory developed by Burgoon, Lesa Stern, and Leesa Dillman that extends and expands
EVT.
Interactional Position
A person’s initial position in an interaction, based on three factors: requirements,
expectations, and desires.
Requirements
A term of interactional adaptation theory referring to outcomes that fulfill our basic
human needs.
Desires
A term of interactional adaptation theory referring to what is personally desired as a
situation’s possible outcome; what we’d like to see happen.
Principal Changes
Griffin has extended his treatment of expectancy violations to include Burgoon’s interaction
adaptation theory. In addition, the critique section has been amended and references in the
Second Look have been updated.
Suggestions for Discussion
Comparing with other theories
Closely following coordinated management of meaning—which disdains efforts to
isolate individual variables in the communication process—expectancy violations theory
provides an excellent opportunity to compare the characteristics of traditional empiricism with
thoroughgoing humanism. Whereas Burgoon’s approach to communication is primarily
strategic, Pearce and Cronen view the process more broadly, emphasizing its power to
constitute or create social reality. Such comparison will give you a good chance to gauge your
students’ understanding of Chapters 1 and 3. (Item #4 in the textbook under Questions to
Sharpen Your Focus constitutes a good vehicle for such discussion.)
Comparisons with symbolic interactionism (Chapter 4) may also be fruitful. It’s
important to emphasize that Mead and his followers were more interested in the ways in which
communication shapes the human psyche (its ontological character) than its use to enhance
one’s strategic position. Whereas for Burgoon communication seems primarily instrumental in
function, for symbolic interactionists it is fundamentally constitutive. (Integrative Essay
Question #30, below, addresses this issue.)
Other factors that impact an outcome
We find Griffin’s willingness to disclose his “stereotyped assessments” of his four
students (90-91) refreshingly honest. We are also pleased with the way in which he uses these
assessments to exemplify the importance of the communicator reward valence. Building on
this analysis, we have found it productive to speculate further on other factors that might
72
explain why he complied with Dawn’s and Andre’s requests while refusing Charlie’s and
Belinda’s. For example, the content of these requests could be viewed as the salient variable.
Griffin’s responses may have had less to do with his perception of the askers and more to do
with the desirability or appropriateness of what was asked of him. Andre desires a letter of
recommendation, which is a highly appropriate request for a student to make. These letters
are part of a typical day’s work for a professor, who understands their importance—a good
letter can make the difference between acceptance or rejection. Likewise, Dawn’s luncheon
invitation is appropriate, considering the close relationship that exists between students and
teachers at liberal arts colleges such as Wheaton. Besides, eating lunch is something you’ve
got to do over the course of the day, so it doesn’t require a major time commitment. Belinda’s
pitch for help on a term paper in a different class mandates extra work unrelated to Griffin’s
direct responsibilities. In addition, some professors believe that such assistance constitutes an
unfair advantage; thus, there’s a potential ethical dilemma here. A negative response to her is
therefore predictable. Charlie’s request that Griffin join in the splash means that our already
overworked professor must spend the evening away from his family and/or work, and he’ll
have nothing to show for the time he’s lost but the bumps and bruises he’s acquired in the
pool. Again, his refusal follows. We offer these counter-explanations not to refute Burgoon’s
approach, but simply to complicate matters. Clearly, there are many variables to examine in
any human interaction.
Confusing terms
For many students, the clarity and relative simplicity of Burgoon’s theory is a welcome
departure from the abstraction of CMM. There are a couple of sticking points that often trip
students and you might want to pay special attention to be sure they are clear on those areas.
The term violation generally has a negative connotation and thus, may be a source of
confusion. How can something that, in the end, is evaluated positively, be a violation? Remind
students that Burgoon’s use of violation involves the breaching of an expectation that may be
done in a positive manner or by a valued partner. In your discussion, you might want to solicit
examples of when a situation resulted in a pleasant, though unexpected outcome.
Griffin writes that Hall, who coined the term “proxemics,” believed “that most spatial
interpretation is outside our awareness” (84). If this is true, then a knowledge of EVT—which
teaches us that in some circumstances violating social norms and personal expectations is “a
superior strategy to conformity” (86)—gives a persuader a considerable advantage over an
audience unaware of its principles. This advantage is particularly significant when we consider
that in many contexts nonverbal cues seem to be more important than their verbal
counterparts. If, in effect, expectancy violations amount to interpersonal secret weapons, then
important questions about communication ethics spring to mind. Often, students can get
engaged in a lively discussion about the morality of using EVT’s principles to one’s own benefit.
In addition, it may be interesting to speculate about the relationship between expectancy
violations and sexual harassment. One man’s effort to create a state of mental alertness in the
woman with whom he’s talking may in her eyes constitute harassing behavior. In effect,
behavioral violations must be approached very carefully. (Essay Question #29, below,
considers this matter.)
73
Sample Application Log
Leanne
My freshman year of college I expected everyone to like me. On the second day of class I
walked into my suitemate’s room, gave her a warm greeting, sat close to her, smiled, browsed
through her room acknowledging our similar tastes in music and then left. My suitemate was
NOT expecting someone like myself to barge in. She had been sitting in her room in a
melancholy state which, she would admit, is her usual demeanor, when I entered into her life
with a bang. She admitted to me that her first impression of me was “snoopy.” Yet she will also
say that the valence was positive. She saw in me something that was positive that had high
reward potential—she called it my “spunk.” With positive valence, our friendship has grown
immensely. I violated her expectations for a suitemate and became her best friend.
Exercises and Activities
Proxemics
Classroom exercises can help to vivify features of proxemics and personal space. One
such activity begins by dividing the class into two groups. Give one group instructions to keep a
distance of no more than 18 inches from conversation partners. Instruct members of the other
group to maintain eye contact at all times with their conversation partners. Then tell all the
students to pair up with someone from the opposite group and discuss their respective plans
for the weekend. After a few minutes of conversation, reconvene the class and discuss how it
felt to be involved in a discussion under these nonverbal conditions and how students
adjusted—consciously or unconsciously—to the imposed closeness of the contact.
When Em Griffin teaches this chapter, he asks a male and female volunteer to choose a
topic they wish to discuss. Standing at opposite ends of the classroom, they discuss the topic
while they slowly approach each other and stop when they are at a comfortable distance. Once
they are stationary, the class discusses issues of proxemics, eye contact, and so forth. Next,
Griffin repeats the exercise, but this time both students move toward each other while facing
the class rather than each other, again stopping when they feel the distance is appropriate.
Griffin then has each of them pivot 90 degrees and face each other. There is usually a visible
reaction from the pair at how close they are. This leads to a discussion of how eye contact and
interpersonal distance interact.
Griffin also asks his students to describe a time when someone violated their
expectations. Was the communicator reward valence positive or negative? How did they know
when they were rewarding violations of expectations?
Proxemics in the imaginary elevator
One of our favorite exercises is to create an imaginary elevator at the front of the room
and gradually fill it—floor by floor—with student passengers. As each rider enters, note how he
or she chooses a spot so as to maximize personal space. After four or five passengers have
situated themselves, enter the elevator yourself and deliberately break the time-honored
pattern by standing inappropriately close to one of the riders. You’ll get a laugh from the class,
74
and the adjustment that takes place will be instructive. As the elevator continues to fill to
capacity, note how passengers adjust to the close proximity of bodies. Demonstrate that when
the packed elevator temporarily malfunctions and goes down instead of up, people who were
insulating themselves from the close contact of strange bodies suddenly begin talking or
joking, and broken eye contact is temporarily established. Then when the elevator corrects
itself and heads back up, the passengers grow insular again.
EVT beyond proxemics
While proxemic considerations are central to Burgoon’s original theory, it is important to
remind students of EVT’s more global considerations for interpersonal communication. This
point is clearly made using a hypothetical situation and asking students to give their
expectations for the encounter. For example, what do they “expect” when on a first date,
shopping for an apartment, or buying a new TV? Encourage them to think about nonverbal
expectations (i.e. spatial distance, touch, vocal tone, dress code) as well as verbal ones (i.e.
formality of word choice, directness, reciprocity).
Further Resources
Close relationships
§ For discussion of expectancy violations in the context of close relationships, see
o Jennifer Bevan, “Expectancy Violation Theory and Sexual Resistance in Close,
Cross-Sex Relationships,” Communication Monographs 70, 1 (2003): 68-82.
o Kory Floyd and Michael Voloudakis, “Affectionate Behavior in Adult Platonic
Friendship: Interpreting and Evaluating Expectancy Violations,” Human
Communication Research 25 (March 1999): 341-69.
o Walid Afifi and Sandra Metts, “Characteristics and Consequences of Expectation
Violations in Close Relationships,” Journal of Personal and Social Relationships
15, 3 (1998): 365-92.
EVT in applied situations
§ Burgoon’s theory has been applied to a wide variety of situations. The following
represent only a few of those projects, and only ones that center around EVT. See the
“Further Resources” section of IDT (Chapter 7) for projects that involve violations of
expectations in deceptive situations.
o Shelly Campo, Kenzie Cameron, Dominique Brossard, and Somjen Frazer,
“Social Norms and Expectancy Violation Theories: Assessing the Effectiveness of
Health Communication Campaigns,” Communication Monographs 71, 4 (2004):
448-71.
o Pamela Lannutti, Melanie Laliker, and Jerold Hale, “Violations of Expectations
and Social-Sexual Communication in Student/Professor Interactions,”
Communication Education 50, 1 (2001): 69-82.
o Paul Mongeau and Colleen Carey, “Who’s Wooing Whom II? An Experimental
Investigation of Date-Initiation and Expectancy Violation,” Western Journal of
Communication 60, 3 (1996): 195-204.
Interaction Adaptation Theory
75
§
§
§
For a comprehensive look at IAT, see Judee Burgoon, Lesa Stern, and Leesa Dillman,
Interpersonal Adaptation: Dyadic Interaction Patterns (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1995).
IAT is applied to verbal and nonverbal immediacy and comforting messages in Laura
Guerrero, Susanne Jones, and Judee Burgoon’s article, “Responses to Nonverbal
Intimacy Change in Romantic Dyads: Effects of Behavioral Valence and Degree of
Behavioral Change on Nonverbal and Verbal Reactions,” Communication Monographs
67, 4 (December 2000): 325-46.
Beth A. Le Poire and Stephen M. Yoshimura exemplify research on EVT and IAT in “The
Effects of Expectancies and Actual Communication on Nonverbal Adaptation and
Communication Outcomes: A Test of Interaction Adaptation Theory,” Communication
Monographs 66, 1 (March 1999): 1-30.
76 Sample Examination Questions
Sample Questions are not reproduced in the online version of the Instructor's Manual.
To receive a copy of the Test Bank contact your local McGraw-Hill sales representative or email
Leslie Oberhuber, Senior Marketing Manager at [email protected]
77
Sample Questions are not reproduced in the online version of the Instructor's Manual.
78
Sample Questions are not reproduced in the online version of the Instructor's Manual.
79
Sample Questions are not reproduced in the online version of the Instructor's Manual.
80