Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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