From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Expectancy violations theory (EVT) is a theory of communication that analyzes how individuals respond to unanticipated violations of social norms and expectations. The theory was proposed by Judee K. Burgoon
in the late 1970s and continued through the 1980s and 1990s as
"nonverbal expectancy violations theory", based on Burgoon's research
studying proxemics.
Burgoon's work initially analyzed individuals' allowances and
expectations of personal distance and how responses to personal distance
violations were influenced by the level of liking and relationship to
the violators.
The theory was later changed to its current name when other researchers
began to focus on violations of social behavior expectations beyond
nonverbal communication.
This theory sees communication as an exchange of behaviors, where
one individual's behavior can be used to violate the expectations of
another. Participants in communication will perceive the exchange either
positively or negatively, depending upon an existing personal
relationship or how favorably the violation is perceived. Violations of expectancies cause arousal and compel the recipient to initiate a series of cognitive appraisals of the violation.
The theory predicts that expectancies influence the outcome of the
communication interaction as either positive or negative and predicts
that positive violations increase the attraction of the violator and
negative violations decrease the attraction of the violator.
Beyond proxemics and examining how people interpret violations in
many given communicative contexts, EVT also makes specific predictions
about individuals' reaction to given expectation violations: individuals
reciprocate or match someone's unexpected behavior, and they also
compensate or counteract by doing the opposite of the communicator's
behavior.
Components
The
EVT examines three main components in interpersonal communication
situations: Expectancies, communicator reward valence, and violation
valence.
Expectancy
Expectancy
refers to what an individual anticipates will happen in a given
situation. Expectancies are primarily based upon social norms and
specific characteristics and idiosyncrasies of the communicators.
Burgoon (1978) notes that people do not view others' behaviors as
random. Rather, they have various expectations of how others should
think and behave. EVT proposes that observation and interaction with
others leads to expectancies. The two types of expectancies noted are
predictive and prescriptive.
Predictive expectations are "behaviors we expect to see because they
are the most typical," (Houser, 2005) and vary across cultures.
They let people know what to expect based upon what typically occurs
within the context of a particular environment and relationship.
For example, a husband and wife may have an evening routine in which
the husband always washes the dishes. If he were to ignore the dirty
dishes one night, this might be seen as a predictive discrepancy.
Prescriptive expectations, on the other hand, are based upon "beliefs
about what behaviors should be performed" and "what is needed and
desired" (Houser, 2005).
If a person walks into a police department to report a crime, the
person will have an expectation that the police will file a report and
follow up with an investigation.
When the theory was first proposed, EVT identified three factors
which influence a person's expectations: Interactant variables,
environmental variables, and variables related to the nature of the
interaction.
Interactant variables are the traits of those persons involved in the
communication, such as sex, attractiveness, race, culture, status, and
age.
Environmental variables include the amount of space available and the
nature of the territory surrounding the interaction. Interaction
variables include social norms, purpose of the interaction, and formality of the situation.
These factors later evolved into communicator characteristics, relational characteristics, and context.
Communicator characteristics include personal features such as an
individual's appearance, personality and communication style. It also includes factors such as age, sex and ethnic background. Relational characteristics refer to factors such as similarity, familiarity, status and liking.
The type of relationship one individual shares within another (e.g.
romantic, business or platonic), the previous experiences shared between
the individuals, and how close they are with one another are also
relational characteristics that influence expectations. Context encompasses both environment and interaction characteristics.
Communicator characteristics lead to distinctions between males and
females in assessing the extent to which their nonverbal expressions of
power and dominance effect immediacy behaviors.
Immediacy cues such as conversational distance, lean, body
orientation, gaze, and touch may differ between the genders as they
create psychological closeness or distance between the interactants.
Behavioural
expectations may also shift depending on the environment one is
experiencing. For example, a visit to a church will produce different
expectations than a social function. The expected violations will
therefore be altered. Similarly, expectations differ based on culture.
In Europe, one may expect to be greeted with three kisses on alternating cheeks, but this is not the case in the United States.
Communicator reward valence
The
communicator reward valence is an evaluation one makes about the person
who committed a violation of expectancy. Em Griffin summarizes the
concept behind Communicator Reward Valence as "the sum of positive and
negative attributes brought to the encounter plus the potential to
reward or punish in the future". The social exchange theory explains that individuals seek to reward some and seek to avoid punishing others.
When one individual interacts with another, Burgoon believes he or she
will assess the "positive and negative attributes that person brings to
the encounter".
If the person has the ability to reward or punish the receiver in the
future, then the person has a positive reward valence. Rewards simply
refer to the person's ability to provide a want or need. The term
'communicator reward valence' is used to describe the results of this
assessment.
For example, people will feel encouraged during conversation when the
listener is nodding, making eye contact, and responding actively.
Conversely, if the listener is avoiding eye contact, yawning, and
texting, it is implied they have no interest in the interaction and the
speaker may feel violated.
When examining the context, relationship, and communicator's
characteristics in a given encounter, individuals will arrive at an
expectation for how that person should behave. Changing even one of
these expectancy variables may lead to a different expectation.
Violation valence
Behavior
violations arouse and distract, calling attention to the qualities of
the violator and the relationship between the interactants. A key component of EVT is the notion of violation valence, or the association the receiver places on the behavior violation.
A violatee's response to an expectancy violation can be positive or
negative, and is dependent on two conditions: positive or negative
interpretation of the behavior and the nature (rewardingness) of the
violator. Rewardingness of the violator is evaluated through many
categories – attractiveness, prestige, ability to provide resources, or
associated relationship. For instance, a violation of one's personal
distance might have more positive valence if committed by a wealthy,
powerful, physically appealing member of the opposite sex than a filthy,
poor, homeless person with foul breath. The evaluation of the violation
is based upon the relationship between the particular behavior and the
valence of the actor.
A person's preinteractional expectancies, especially personal
attributes, may cause a perceiver to evaluate the communication behavior
of a target differently in terms of assigning positive and negative
valenced expectancies.
Another perspective of violation valence is that the perceived
positive or negative value assigned to a breach of expectations is
inconsequential of who the violator is. This perspective places much greater weight on the act of the breach itself than the violator.
Arousal
Expectancy
violations refer to actions which are noticeably discrepant from an
expectancy and are classified as outside the range of expectancy. The
term 'arousal value' is used to describe the consequences of deviations
from expectations. When individuals' expectations are violated, their
interests or attentions are aroused.
When arousal
occurs, one's interest or attention to the deviation increases,
resulting in less attention paid to the message and more attention to
the source of the arousal.
There are two kinds of arousals. Cognitive arousal is an idea that
people will be mentally aware of the violation. Physical occurs when
people have body actions and behaviors in response to the deviations
from their expectations.
Threat threshold
The
occurrence of arousal is aligned with threats. Burgoon introduced the
term "threat threshold" to explain that people have different levels of
tolerance about distant violations. The threat threshold is high when
people feel good even if they keep a very close distance with the
violator, whereas people with low threat threshold will be sensitive and
uncomfortable about the closeness of distance with the violator.
Theoretical assumptions and viewpoints
Propositions
After
assessing expectancy, violation valence, and communicator reward
valence of a given situation, it becomes possible to make rather
specific predictions about whether the individual who perceived the
violation will reciprocate or compensate the behavior in question.
Guerrero (1996) and Burgoon (2000) noticed that predictable patterns
develop when considering reward valence and violation valence together.
Specifically, if the violation valence is perceived as positive and the
communicator reward valence is also perceived as positive, the theory
predicts individuals will reciprocate the positive behavior. Similarly,
if one perceives the violation valence as negative and the communicator
reward valence as negative, the theory again predicts that one will
reciprocate the negative behavior. Thus, if a disliked coworker is
grouchy and unpleasant, people will likely reciprocate and be unpleasant
in return.
Conversely, if one perceives a negative violation valence but
views the communicator reward valence as positive, it is likely that the
person will compensate for his or her partner's negative behavior. For
example, imagine a supervisor appears sullen and throws a stack of
papers in front of an employee. Rather than grunt back, EVT predicts
that the employee will compensate for the boss's negativity, perhaps by
asking if everything is OK (Guerrero & Burgoon, 1996). More
difficult to predict, however, is the situation in which a person who is
viewed unfavorably violates another with positive behavior. In this
situation, the receiver may reciprocate, giving the person the "benefit
of the doubt."
The assumptions discussed thus far can be summarized into six major propositions posited by EVT:
- People develop expectations about verbal and nonverbal communication behavior from other people.
- Violations of these expectations cause arousal and distraction,
further leading the receiver to shift his or her attention to the other,
the relationship, and the meaning of the violation.
- Communicator reward valence determines the interpretation of ambiguous communication.
- Communicator reward valence determines how the behavior is evaluated.
- Violation valences are determined by three factors: (1) The
evaluation of the behavior; (2) whether or not the behavior is more or
less favorable than the expectation; and (3) the magnitude of the
violation. A positive violation occurs when the behavior is more
favorable than the expectation. A negative violation occurs when the
behavior is less favorable.
- Positive violations produce more favorable outcomes than behavior
that matches expectations, and negative violations produce more
unfavorable outcomes than behavior that matches expectations.
Needs for personal space and affiliation
EVT builds upon a number of communication axioms. EVT assumes that humans have two competing needs: A need for personal space and a need for affiliation. Specifically, humans all need a certain amount of personal space, also referred to as distance or privacy. People also desire a certain amount of closeness with others, or affiliation.
EVT seeks to explain 'personal space', and the meanings that are formed
when expectations of appropriate personal space are infringed or
violated.
Another feature of personal space is territoriality.
Territoriality refers to behavior which "is characterized by
identification with a geographic area in a way that indicates ownership"
(Hall, 1966).
In humans, territoriality refers to an individual's sense of ownership
over physical items, space, objects or ideas, and defensive behavior in
response to territorial invasions. Territoriality involves three territory types: Primary territories, secondary territories and public territories. Primary territories are considered exclusive to an individual.
Secondary territories are objects, spaces or places which "can be
claimed temporarily" (Hall, 1966), but are neither central to the
individual's life nor are exclusively owned. Public territories are "available to almost anyone for temporary ownership". Territoriality is frequently accompanied by prevention and reaction.
When an individual perceives one of their needs has been compromised,
EVT predicts that they will react. For instance, when an offensive
violation occurs, the individual tends to react as though protecting
their territory.
Proxemics
EVT
offers an opportunity to study how individuals communicate through
personal space. This part of the theory explains the notion of "personal space" and our reactions to others who appear to "violate" our sense of personal space.
What we define as personal space, however, varies from culture to
culture and from person to person. The "success" or "failure" of
violations are linked to perceived attraction, credibility, influence
and involvement. The context and purpose of interaction are relevant, as
are the communicator characteristics of gender, relationships, status,
social class, ethnicity and culture.
When it comes to different interactions between people, what each
person expects out of the interaction will influence their individual
willingness to risk violation. If a person feels comfortable in a
situation, they are more likely to risk violation, and in turn will be
rewarded for it.
Introduced by Edward Hall in 1966, Proxemics deals with the amount of distance between people as they interact with one another. Spatial distance during an interaction can be an indication of what type of relationship exists between the people involved.
Personal Space Expectations diagram
There are 4 different personal zones defined by Hall. These zones include:
- Intimate Distance: (0-18 inches) - This distance is for close, intimate encounters. Normally core family, close friends, lovers, or pets. People will normally share a unique level of comfort with one another.
- Personal Distance: (18 inches – 4 feet) - Reserved for conversations with friends, extended family,
associates, and group discussions. The personal distance will give each
person more space compared with the intimate distance, but is still
close enough to involve touching one another.
- Social Distance: (4–10 feet) - This distance is
reserved for newly formed groups, and new acquaintances and colleagues
one may have just met. People generally do not engage physically with
one another within this section.
- Public Distance: (10 feet to infinity) - Reserved for a public setting with large audiences, strangers, speeches, and theaters.
Many different cultures are influenced by Proxemics
in different ways and respond differently to the same situation. In
some cultures, those who have not formed close relationships may greet
each other with kisses on the cheek, engaging one another well within
the intimate range of proxemics. In other cultures, a custom greeting
is a handshake which maintains a physical separation but is well within
personal distance. Across the Proxemic
Zones, actions can be interpreted differently among different cultures.
For example, Japanese people do not address others by their first names
unless they have been given permission. Calling someone by their first
name in Japan without permission is considered an insult. In the Japanese culture, they address people using their last name and 'san',
which is equivalent to 'Mr.','Mrs.' and 'Ms.' in the English language.
The way Japanese people address each other is an example of a verbal Proxemic
zone. A Japanese person allowing another to call them by their first
name is an example of intimate distance, because this is a privilege
extended only someone very close to them.
Applications
Interpersonal communication
It
is important to note that EVT can apply to both non-relational
interaction and close relationships. In 1998, more than twenty years
after the theory was first published, several studies were conducted to
catalog the types of expectancy violations commonly found in close
relationships.
Participants in friendships and romantic relationships were asked
to think about the last time their friend or partner did or said
something unexpected. It was emphasized that the unexpected event could
be either positive or negative. Participants reported events that had
occurred, on average, five days earlier, suggesting that unexpected
behaviors happen often in relationships. Some of the behaviors reported
were relatively mundane, and others were quite serious. The outcome of
the list was a list of nine general categories of expectation violations
that commonly occur in relationships.
- Support or confirmation is an act that provides social support in a particular time of need, such as sitting with a friend who is sick.
- Criticism or accusation
is critical of the receiver and accuse the individual of an offense.
These are violations because they are accusations not expected. An
example is a ball player telling a teammate he should have caught the
ball rather than supportively giving him or her a slap on the back and
offering words of encouragement.
- Relationship intensification or escalation intensifies the
commitment of the communicator. For instance, saying "I love you"
signifies a deepening of a romantic relationship.
- Relationship de-escalation signifies a decrease in commitment of the communicator. An example might be spending more time apart.
- Relational transgressions are violations of the perceived rules of the relationship. Examples include having an affair, deception, or being disloyal.
- Acts of devotion are unexpected overtures that imply
specialness in the relationship. Buying flowers for no particular
occasion falls into this category.
- Acts of disregard show that the partner is unimportant. This could be as simple as excluding a partner or a friend from a collective activity.
- Gestures of inclusion are actions that show an unexpected
interest in having the other included in special activities or life.
Examples include invitations to spend a special holiday with someone,
disclosure of personal information, or inviting the partner to meet
one's family.
- Uncharacteristic relational behavior is unexpected action
that is not consistent with the partner's perception of the
relationship. A common example is one member of an opposite-sex
friendship demanding a romantic relationship of the other.
In later review of the studies, the support or confirmation category was inserted into acts of devotion and included another category, uncharacteristic social behavior. These are acts that aren't relational but are unexpected, such as a quiet person raising his or her voice.
In terms of the response to expectancy violations, the
sensitivity of expectancy violations varies from genders. Research found
that women are less tolerant than men when their expectation are
violated by negative behaviors, regardless of the types of violations
such as dishonesty and immorality.
Friendship
Expectations
with friends formulate over time and are usually brought together by a
series of observations of behavior and predictions on how that friend
will act in the future. When these expectations are violated, it often
can be damaging and dangerous for a close friendship. It can cause an
end to the friendship and bring a strong negative experience in that
person's life. After time and experiences with that friend we might
suspect them to act consistently around me in the way they have always
acted, that is until a violation to this expectation takes place. For
example, when they begin “breaking promises or even acting in an
inauthentic manner to impress others, can have aversive consequences for
close relationships” (Cohen 2010). The fact is, we expect our friends
to act in a social manner where they are adhere to all of our personal
rules we set in our minds. That includes being nice, kind, considerate,
and refraining from any comment that puts another down. This is a part
of the personal rules we set within ourselves with a personal
friendship, that is until we are in a different setting with that
individual and they are around different people and the rules are
broken. While this might be an offense in one's eyes, it may not be
offensive in the others. Each negative experience can deteriorate the
relationship and allow more experiences where expectations are
continually violated until the relationship is dissolved. Cohen said
“the more that a friendship is voluntary, easily replaceable, and
disconnected from external pressures to continue, the more vulnerable it
is to expectancy violation damage” (Cohen, 2010). Someone will always
look for the better option if a negative experience has taken place. The
more invested someone is in a friendship, the stronger the effect will
have on the individual when expectations are violated. There is also an
interesting perspective of expectation violation when gender is
considered. Friendships with members of the same sex usually have a
completely different feel to the relationship than friendships with
members of the opposite sex. Women are generally less tolerant with
members of the opposite sex when violations have taken place.
Relationships over time, whether it be with the same sex or not, tend to
fail when the other will fall away from the behaviors and norms that
the other is used to. This can be shown with hostile attitudes, sharp
comments, distancing away from the other, etc. Both parties are also
capable of violating each other's expectations at the same time. It is
not just one person in the relationship that perceives behavior as
unusual. One can respond to a violation with another social violation,
leaving the friendship in confusion of direction it is going.
Family Relationships: Phubbing
Expectations in family relationships are prone to being violated via phubbing.
Phubbing is a term coined to describe when individuals are interacting
in physical proximity with one another, however they end up going on
their phone, and mentally remove themselves from the conversation and
physical reality. This violates expectations in family relationships
when a younger individual is around an older adult. Travis Kadylak's
article “An investigation of perceived family phubbing expectancy
violations and well-being among U.S older adults” reveals that “older
adults feel ignored and disrespected” in situations where a younger
family is phubbing. In this case, the younger individually unconsciously
violate the older adult's expectations—that stems from the adult's
perception of social etiquette. Kadylak then call for further research
in the future on how phubbing expectancy violations affect the
well-being of older adults.
Romantic relationships
Application in interpersonal relationships-romantic relationships
Expectancy violations happen frequently in romantic relationships.
In relationships there is an unspoken expectation when interacting and
that is the significant other will give their full undivided attention
when in the presence of their significant other. As the new generation
evolves we can see the face to face contact has changed. Unfortunately,
with the access use of phones and social media the attention of
individuals has shifted to their devices and continues to become worse.
With the access to many mobile devices there has been an increase of
lack of communication face to face. This has made it difficult for some
relationships to grow and or has created conflict because the
expectation of attention has been shifted. "Individuals expect
conversational partners to be moderately involved in an interaction
(Burgoon, Newton, Walther, & Baesler, 1989). Within existing
relationships, partners rely on one another to show interest and
immediacy in interactions (White, 2008). However, the presence of cell
phones and the expectation to be constantly available (Ling, 2012)
impacts partners' abilities to give full attention to one another"
(Miller-Ott, A., & Kelly, L. 2015).
Regardless of where the romantic relationship takes place, people
are likely to have negative valence about cell phone usage if their
demand of attention and intimacy are violated.
The negative behaviors include texting, viewing news and playing games.
In addition, large quantity of annoying cell phone usage during the
date has great impact on romantic partner's negative valence towards the
violated behaviors.
However, Miller-Ott and Kelly found that small amount of cell phone
usage during date is acceptable, such as responding to a text message
and quickly bringing attentiveness back to the date partner.
The same behavior in different occasions and contexts is viewed
differently in terms of the degree of valence. Research found that same
behavior is viewed as more negative in a restaurant than at home.
Since people are more likely to have higher expectations for undivided
attention during formal contexts, using cell phone in formal dates will
more negatively violate partner's expectations. Divided attention is
acceptable in casual contexts – therefore, the degree of expectancy
violations is low under a hanging out context.
After expectation are violated in the romantic relationships, one
may assume that an apology may fix expectations that were violated,
however that is not the case, in the article “ Apologies, Expectations,
and Violations: An Analysis of Confirmed and Disconfirmed Expectations
for Responses to Apologies” Benjamin W Chiles and Michael E. Roloff
found that “apology is positively evaluated by apologizers, this
relationship is moderated by their expectations of acceptance prior to
the actual response to the apology”.
In the article “Forgiveness and forgiving communication in dating
relationships: An expectancy-investment explanation” Laura K. Guerrero
and Guy F. Bachman found that high quality relationships tend to forgive
more than relationships with less investments, they tend to inflict
hurt intentionally.
Cell phone usage
Cell
phone usage behaviors that do not contradict intimate moment are viewed
as positive violations, including sharing interesting messages and
playing online games together. People have less negative valence on cell
phone usage if they gain more reward from the behaviors.
Research also found the most common response to the violated cell phone usage is to do nothing.
However, people have different reactions to the violations under
different stages of romantic relationships. In the early stage of dating,
people are more likely to respond by indirect messages and silence.
While there are direct verbal responses when expectations are violated
in established relationships.
Sexual resistance
Sexual
resistance is viewed as a typical expectancy violation in romantic
relationships. In 2003, Bevan used EVT to evaluate the impact of sexual
resistance on close relationships. The research focused on two
considerations: relational contexts and directness of the messages.
The research concluded that people who are resisted in a romantic
relationship perceived the violation of sexual resistance as more
negative and unexpected than those resisted in a regular cross-sex
friendship. The reason might because romantic partners believe that they
have clearer and deeper understanding of each other's expectations and
degree of acceptance and tolerance. When it comes to message directness
of sexual resistance, although the study did not find any significant
difference of levels of violation valence and expectedness between
direct and indirect messages, direct sexual resistance messages in close
relationships proved to be more relationally important than indirect
messages. Therefore, direct sexual resistance messages will be a harmful
factor that affects the continuity of a romantic relationship.
Expectancy Violation Theory in Romantic Relationships: Hurtful Events
The
degree of expectancy violations in romantic relationships quality
affect how partners react to hurtful events caused by their partner.
Partners who view their significant others as positively rewarding are
more keen to use constructive communication after experiencing a
negative hurtful event.
EVT analysis approach also show that if the negative valence happens
when partners find the other to be unrewarding, it results in
destructive communication, leading to breakups.
As
has previously been addressed, EVT has evolved tremendously over the
years, expanding beyond its original induction when it focused on FtF
communication and proxemics. The advancement of information and communications technology
has provided tools for expressing oneself and conveying messages beyond
just typing in text. As already discussed, arousal can divert one's
attention or interest from a message
to the source of the arousal. Virtual realities
created online through computer-mediated communication, especially those which evoke
strong visual presence through media, can increase arousal levels, such as those
with high violent or sexual content. Just
as people may use television viewing to increase or decrease arousal levels, people
may use media in online communication to increase or decrease arousal levels. People may interact with others online by assuming
the identities of avatars
which may take on completely different, alternate personalities.
The differences in perceived intimateness, co-presence, and
emotionally-based trust can very significantly between avatar
communication and other communication modalities such as text chat,
audio, and audio-visual. The media options available to users when communicating
with others online present a host of potential expectancy violations unique to CMC.
The introduction of social media networks such as Facebook and Twitter, as well as dating social networks such as Match.com and eHarmony,
has greatly contributed to the increased use of computer-mediated
communication (CMC) which now offers a context for studying
communication devoid of nonverbal information. Though these media are
relatively new, they have been in existence long enough for users to
have developed norms and expectations about appropriate behaviors in the
online world.
However, there has been a lag by researchers to study and understand
these new established norms, which makes CMC rich with heuristic
possibilities from a communications theory perspective.
Ramirez and Wang studied the occurrence and timing of modality switching, or shifts from online communication to FtF interaction, from the perspective of EVT.
Their research documented inconsistent findings which revealed in some
instances relationships were enhanced and in others they were dampened,
indicating the expectations, evaluations, and outcomes associated with
initial modality switches varied amongst individuals.
Additionally, studies have found that when individuals who meet online
meet face-to-face for the first time, the length of time spent
communicating online can determine whether individuals will rate
physical characteristics of each other positively or negatively.
Unlike FtF communication, CMC allows people to pretend to be connected
with a person who violates their expectancy by ignoring violations or
filtering news feed. Meanwhile, people can also cut the connection
completely with someone who is not important by deleting friendship
status when a serious violation occurs. A confrontation is much more
likely for close friends than for acquaintances, and compensation is
much more likely for acquaintances, a finding which contrasts typical
EVT predictions. Furthermore, EVT on the Internet environment is strongly related to online privacy issues.
Application in computer-mediated communication and social media-Facebook
In social media such as Facebook, people are connected online with
friends and sometimes strangers. Norm violations on Facebook may include
too many status updates, overly emotional status updates or Wall posts,
heated interactions, name calling through Facebook's public features,
and tags on posts or pictures that might reflect negatively on an
individual.
Research has also shown that the act of unfriending on Facebook is
perceived as a highly negative expectancy violation, with the duration
of the Facebook friendship and personal ties to the unfriending party
dictating how negatively the act is perceived. Moreover, the importance
of the violation was also found to dictate whether the unfriending
person informed the other individual of their actions.
In a study conducted by Fife, Nelson, and Bayles of focus groups
from a Southeastern liberal arts university, five themes were
ascertained regarding Facebook use and expectancy violations:
- ""Don't stalk' – and when you do, don't talk about it"
- Though an understanding exists among Facebook participants that
users will use the site to keep track of the behavior of others in a
number of ways, excessive monitoring is likely to be perceived as an
expectancy violation.
- "Don't embarrass me with bad pictures"
- Users may have the ability to control which pictures they post
on their own Facebook page, but they do not have the ability to control
what others post. Posting and "tagging" unflattering pictures of others
may create expectancy violations.
- "Don't mess up my profile"
- Several participants expressed annoyance of others who alter
their profiles knowing that their alterations could be perceived
negatively, though they did not mention changing their passwords or
protecting themselves in other ways.
- "Choose an appropriate forum for messages"
- Messages can be sent between Facebook participants through
'Facebook messages', which are not public, or 'wall postings', which can
be viewed by anyone specified in the user's privacy controls. Posting
messages which may be perceived as private, embarrassing, or
inappropriate to a wall posting can create expectancy violations.
- "Don't compete over number of friends"
- Facebook users maintain a running total of 'friends' on their
profile which is viewable to others. Engaging in comparisons with
others over this statistic can create expectancy violations.
In 2010, Stutzman and Kramer-Duffield examined college
undergraduates' motivations to have friends-only profiles on Facebook.
Having a friends-only profile is a practical method to enhance privacy
management on Facebook. The two authors made distinctions between
intended audience, to whom one hopes to disclose the Facebook profile,
and expected audience, a group of people by whom one thinks the Facebook
profile has been viewed.
The study indicated that "expectancy violations were identified as
instances where an expected audience was not jointly identified as an
intended audience".
Facebook networks were categorized into different levels: strong ties
of family and intimate friends, weak ties comprising "casual friends and
campus acquaintances", and outsiders such as "faculty or
administrators". According to the study, expectancy violations by weak
ties showed greater relevance to the establishment of a friends-only
profile among college undergraduates, compared to other Facebook network
ties.
Electronic mail
Email has become one of the most widely used methods of communication within organizations and workplaces. When discussing expectancy violations
with electronic e-mail, just as with other modes of communication, a distinction
must be made between inadvertent violations of norms and purposeful violations,
referred to as 'flaming'. Flaming
is defined as hostile and aggressive interactions via text-based CMC.
One form of expectancy violation in email is the length of time
between the sending of the initial email and the receiver's reply.
Communicator reward valence plays a large part in how expectancy
violations are handled in email communications. In computer-mediated
communication, people have expectations to others’ online behaviors
based on individual identity. In online contexts, violations are not
simply assessed as positive or negative. Some violations are ambiguous
such as e-mail response latency. In 2017, Nicholls and Rice stated that
“when deviation is ambiguous, the communicator’s reward value will
mediate the perceptions of the deviation.”
Chronemic
studies on email have shown that in organizations, responder status
played a large part in how individuals reacted to various lapses in
response to the previously sent email.
Long pauses between responses for high-status responders produced
positive expectancy violation valence and long pauses from low-status
responders produced a negative expectancy violation valence. However, in the case of job interviews,
long pauses between email for high-status candidates reflected
negatively on their reviews. Expectations for email recipients to
respond within a normative time limit illustrate the medium's capacity
for expectancy violations to occur.
Academic environment
Teacher anger
Application in academic environment
McPherson, Kearney, and Plax examined teacher anger in college classrooms through the lens of norm violations.
Naturally, teachers will become frustrated and angry with students in
classrooms from time to time. How teachers express themselves and
convey those
emotions will determine how students respond and interpret those
emotional demonstrations.
The students judged the appropriateness of teachers' anger in classrooms
in the modal expressions of distributive aggression, passive
aggression, integrative assertion, and nonassertive denial. Students rated the aggressive expressions as
highly intense, destructive, and inappropriate (or non-normative), including such behaviors as sarcasm or putdowns (most
frequently cited), verbal abuse, rude and condescending behaviors toward students, and acts intended to demoralize students. The students described assertive displays as appropriate and less intense. Although anger is often considered to be a negative emotion, teacher anger is not necessarily a violation of classroom norms. Based on the study, intense and aggressive displays of teacher anger are considered socially inappropriate by students. These perceived norm violations result in negative evaluations of the teacher and the course.
Because only integrative-assertive expressions of teacher anger were
positively related to students' perceptions of appropriateness, the
study concluded that teachers should avoid intense, aggressive anger
displays and should rather assertively and directly discuss the problem
with students.
Teacher dress
Clothing is considered a form of nonverbal communication. Dress communicates status, hierarchy, credibility, and attractiveness. Specific social codes dictate what forms of dress are appropriate in various cross-cultural contexts.
When individuals wear clothing that is deemed inappropriate for a given
situation, or when an individual's clothing does not seem to match
their perceived status or attractiveness, this can constitute an
expectancy violation. Studies on clothing and teacher perceptions have shown that when teachers wear formal
attire, students rate their credibility higher. However, for
high-reward teachers, clothing formality did not raise perceptions of
attractiveness.
Instructor credibility in college classroom
Generally,
students have expectations to their instructors in college classroom.
According to Sidelinger and Bolen, students might be dissatisfied about
instructors who talk a lot during class.
After they did the research about the compulsive communication and
communication satisfaction, they concluded that if an instructor is
evaluated as credible by the students, his credibility decreases
students’ dissatisfaction despite of his talkativeness. Particularly,
instructor's goodwill such as politeness
and care for students is the most effective characteristic to alleviate
students’ negative feelings towards a talkative instructor.
Course ratings
Most
American colleges and universities employ course rating surveys as a
method to gauge teacher effectiveness and the degree to which students
are satisfied with the pedagogy of their professors. Expectancy
violation and violation valence play a part in course ratings because a
wide range of expectancies exist for students while taking a course.
Common expectancies for students include stimulation and interest,
instructor behavior, relevance of the course, and the student's expected
and actual success in the course. A higher education study on EVT and
course ratings analyzed 228 students in seven introductory sociology
classes at a university of 25,000 students.
Since the courses were required for most students, were open to all
students, used the same textbook, and met for the same length of time
during the semester, expectancy violations in the classroom could be
reported more accurately.
Some factors used to report the data included instructor personality,
interestingness and informativeness of textbook materials, difficulty of
lectures, lecturer speaking ability, and the ability to answer
questions. At the end of the study, the only factor that affected course
ratings was relevance.
Expectancies had virtually no effect otherwise on course evaluations.
This reason could be attributed to the fact that students who found a
course highly relevant were already interested in the subject area and
were more motivated to do well.
Nontraditional college students
EVT has been used to study the experiences of non-traditional college and university students who begin an undergraduate education
over the age of 25. The study focused on the students' expectations of
their professors and how they should behave in the classroom. Since
nontraditional students often feel that they are different from their
academic peers, and since the traditional university setting focuses on
the 18-23-year-old demographic,
studying nontraditional student classroom experiences can help higher
education institutions instruct teachers on how to behave in the
classroom. Traditional and non-traditional students have been shown to expect
teachers to make use of examples, provide feedback, and adequately
prepare them for exams.
Both traditional and non-traditional students have been found to have
their expectations for instructor clarity negatively violated.
Surprisingly, non-traditional students differed from traditional
students by responding negatively to affinity-seeking behaviors and
believed that instructors should be less concerned with making class
more fun and enjoyable.
Student disclosures in college classroom
In
2013, Frisby and Sidelinger conducted a research about student
disclosures in college classroom, which discussed about what kinds of
student disclosures would violate peers’ expectations and their
perceptions about the disclosers.
According to the study, those who make inappropriate disclosures
violate others’ expectations most in a classroom environment.
Inappropriate disclosures are described as high frequent, negative,
offensive and irrelevant topics. Disclosers of inappropriate information
are more likely to be described as incompetent students, and they are
less likeable than students who disclose appropriate information that
are related to course materials.
EVT can also apply to everyday business interaction between long-term
partners, new partners, and even the consumers. Each time a business
interacts with another, both sides expect a positive gain in some
capacity, however in reality this is not the case, losses are
inevitable. In the article “The Role of Prior Expectancies and
Relational Satisfaction in Crisis” (2014), Sora Kim asserts that
"expectancy violations caused by a crisis tend to increase uncertainty
about an organization’s performance in the crisis-related area".
The author states that stakeholders, in the case of the BP Oil spill,
held high levels of uncertainty towards the organization due to the high
level of expectancy violations committed by BP. In the article "How
does Corporate Reputation Affect Customer Loyalty in Corporate Crisis",
Sabrina Helm and Julia Tolsdorf found that firms with greater reputation
and customer loyalty are set to high expectations by the public, and
tend to suffer more loss in profits in the event of a crisis, while
firms with low reputations suffer minor losses.
This shows that the public places its trust and loyalty in corporations
due to their reputation, thus resulting in favorable outcomes for
corporations. This reputation is also an Achilles heel
for the corporation in times of crisis because when an expectation
violation is committed by the corporations it produces negative outcomes
for the corporation and the public's trust in them. Sora Kim also
exposes similar findings in her study, specifically on how expectations
violations produces uncertainties in stakeholders and the public during
times of crisis. Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) is an expectation the public has set for major corporations and
businesses, Nick Lin-Hi and Igor Blumberg also found that not practicing
CSR negatively affect corporate reputation.
Application in profanity use
Profanity use
Swearing
is one example of observable instance of verbal expectancy violations.
Examples of swearing expectancy violations include U.S. Vice President
Dick Cheney telling Patrick Leahy, Senator of Vermont, to "go fuck
yourself", actor Christian Bale's lashing out toward a bystander who walked in front of the camera while he was filming,
and U.S. Vice President Joe Biden's remarks during a live broadcast of
his speech congratulating U.S. President Barack Obama on passage of the
health care reform bill, commenting that it was a "big fucking deal".
Expletives also vary among different cultures, so valence of expectancy
violations involving swearing may differ when used in different
contexts.
In workplaces
Swearing
is common among many workplaces. Swearing has been identified
functionally as one of several ways to express emotion in response to
workplace stress, to convey verbal aggression, or to engage in deviant
workplace behavior (Johnson, 2012). In formal work settings, people have
much stronger feelings that their expectations are violated by swearing
than in casual occasions. Expletives are more prevalent in unstructured
conversations than in more structured, task-oriented ones (Johnson,
2012). The use of profanity has been shown to influence the perceptions of speakers. It may also have emotional impact on the user and the audience. Research has shown that profanity users appear less trustworthy, less sociable, and less educated.
The more swearing messages one expresses that violate respondent's
expectations in workplaces, the more negative evaluations the respondent
will generate about the speaker's incompetency. These traits are likely to appear as fixed among profanity users.
Moreover, the content of the swearing messages also poses great impact
on the extent of expectancy violations in formal work settings. The
verbal messages include words related to sex, excretion
and profaneness. Research found that respondents experience highest
level of surprise about the swearing with sexual expressions. Thus their
expectations are more likely to be violated by sexual swearing than
excretory and profane words. A more productive approach than focusing on
whether a specific word is offensive may be to make sure that those
engaging in workplace swearing are aware of how they and their messages
might be perceived in multiple ways (Johnson, 2012).
Evaluation of media figures
Expectancy
violations are tightly related to the changes of people's evaluation on
their relationships with media figures. In 2010, Cohen made comparisons
between relationships with friends and media figures in order to find
similarities and differences of people's reactions when their
expectations are violated in these two relationships. Violations were
generally divided in three categories: social violations such as making
offensive comments, trust violations such as making up stories about
their life experience, and moral violations such as cheating in a
marital relationship or drunk driving.[36]
Research indicated that in both friendships and relationships
with media figures, social and trust violations are more offensive than
moral violations. Specifically, people are more intolerable about moral
violations from media figures than from their friends. According to the
study, the reason for the intolerance is because relationships with
media figures are relatively weak that people invest less on the
relationships with media figures than on friendships.[36]
The type of media figures is also an important factor to determine the
changes of closeness with media figures. People have different
expectations to various types of media figures. Research discussed that
moral violations negatively influence relationships with athletes,
damaging their positive and energetic appearance expected by the public.
Social violations reduce closeness with TV hosts, whom people expect as
amiable public figures.[36]
Health and self-improvement
Expectancy
violation theory has even been applied to encouraging healthy habits
and changing bad ones. In a study by Karolien van den Akker, Myrr van
den Broek, Remco C. Havermans, and Anita Jansen, expectancy violation
theory was tested to see if it was successful in changing ingrained
cravings for chocolate. Although researchers did not find that
expectancy violation mediated responses to chocolate cravings, they
believe more research is needed to determine whether this theory is
profitable for this kind of application to human behavior.
Metatheoretical assumptions
Ontological assumptions
EVT
assumes that humans have a certain degree of free will. This theory
assumes that humans can assess and interpret the relationship and liking
between themselves and their conversational partner, and then make a
decision whether or not to violate the expectations of the other person.
The theory holds that this decision depends on what outcome they would
like to achieve. This assumption is based on the interaction position.
The interaction position is based on a person's initial stance toward
an interaction as determined by a blend of personal Requirements,
Expectations, and Desires (RED). These RED factors meld into our interaction position of what's needed, anticipated, and preferred.
Epistemological assumptions
EVT
assumes that there are norms for all communication activities and if
these norms are violated, there will be specific, predictable outcomes. EVT does not fully account for the overwhelming prevalence of reciprocity
that has been found in interpersonal interactions. Secondly, it is
silent on whether communicator valence supersedes behavior valence or
vice versa when the two are incongruent, such as when a disliked partner
engages in a positive violation.
Axiological assumptions
This
theory seeks to be value-neutral as supporting studies have been
conducted empirically and sought to objectively describe how humans
react when their expectations are violated.
Critique
Predictability and testability
EVT
has undergone scrutiny for its attempt to provide a covering law for
certain aspects of interpersonal communication. Some critics of EVT
believe most interactions between individuals are extremely complex and
there are many contingencies to consider within the theory. This makes
the prediction of behavioral outcomes of a particular situation
virtually impossible to consistently predict.
Another critique of the theory is the assumption that expectancy
violations are mostly highly consequential acts, negative in nature, and
cause uncertainty to increase between communicators. In actuality,
research shows expectancy violations vary in frequency, seriousness, and
valence. While it is true that many expectancy violations carry a
negative valence,
numerous are positive and actually reduce uncertainty because they
provide additional information within the parameters of the particular
relationship, context, and communicators.
A First Look at Communication
Emory Griffin, the author of A First Look at Communication Theory, analyzed unpredictability in EVT.
His test consisted in analyzing his interaction with four students who
made various requests from him. The students were given the pseudonyms
Andre, Belinda, Charlie and Dawn. They start with the letters A, B, C
and D to represent the increasing distance between them and Griffin when
making their requests.
Adapted from Griffin's diagram in the book A first look at communication theory.
Andre needed the author's endorsement for a graduate scholarship, and
spoke to him from an intimate eyeball-to-eyeball distance. According to
Burgoon's early model, Andre made a mistake when he crossed Griffin's threat threshold;
the physical and psychological discomfort the lecturer might feel could
have hurt his cause. However, later that day Griffin wrote the letter
of recommendation.
Belinda needed help with a term paper for a class with another
professor, and asked for it from a 2-foot distance. Just as Burgoon
predicted, the narrow gap between Belinda and Griffin determined him to
focus his attention on their rocky relationship, and her request was
declined.
Charlie invited his lecturer to play water polo with other
students, and he made the invitation from the right distance of 7 feet,
just outside the range of interaction Griffin anticipated. However, his
invitation was declined.
Dawn launched an invitation to Griffin to eat lunch together the
next day, and she did this from across the room. According to the
nonverbal expectancy violations model, launching an invitation from
across the room would guarantee a poor response, but this time, the
invitation was successful.
Griffin's attempt to apply Burgoon's original model to
conversational distance between him and his students didn't meet with
much success. The theoretical scoreboard read:
- Nonverbal expectancy violations model: 1
- Unpredicted random behavior: 3
However, when Grifffin applied the revised EVT standards on his
responses to "the proxemic violations of Andre, Belinda, Charlie, and
Dawn," the scorecard "shows four hits and no misses."
Related theories
Because EVT is sociopsychological in nature and focuses on social codes in both intrapersonal and interpersonal communication, it is closely related to communication theories such as cognitive dissonance and uncertainty reduction theory.
Recently, this theory has undergone some reconstitution by Burgoon and
her colleagues and has resulted in a newly proposed theory known as interaction adaptation theory, which is a more comprehensive explanation of adaptation in interpersonal interaction.
As mentioned above, EVT has strong roots in uncertainty reduction theory.
The relationship between violation behavior and the level of
uncertainty is under study. Research indicates that violations differ
in their impact on uncertainty. To be more specific, incongruent
negative violations heightened uncertainty, whereas congruent violations
(both positive and negative) caused declines in uncertainty. The theory also borrows from social exchange theory in that people seek reward out of interaction with others.
Two other theories share similar outlooks to EVT – Discrepancy-Arousal Theory (DAT) and Patterson's social facilitation model
(SFM). Like EVT, DAT explains that a receiver becomes aroused when a
communicative behavior does not match the receiver's expectations. In
DAT, these differences are called discrepancies instead of expectancy
violations. Cognitive dissonance
and EVT both try to explain why and how people react to unexpected
information and adjust themselves during communication process.
The social facilitation model has a similar outlook and labels
these differences as unstable changes. A key difference between the
theories lies in the receiver's arousal level. Both DAT and SFM
maintain that the receiver experiences a physiological response whereas
EVT focuses on the attention shift of the receiver. EVT posits that
expectancy violations occur frequently and are not always as serious as
perceived through the lenses of other theories.
Anxiety/uncertainty management theory
is the uncertainty and anxiety people have towards each other, relating
to EVT this anxiety and uncertainty can differ between cultures.
Causing a violation for example violating someones personal distance or
communicating ineffectively can cause uncertainty and anxiety.
The popularity of computer-mediated communication (CMC) as means
of conducting task-oriented and socially oriented interactions is a part
of the social information processing
(SIP) theory. Coined by Joseph Walther, the theory explores CMC's
ability to fulfill many of the same functions as the more traditional
forms of interaction, especially face-to-face (FtF) interaction. SIP can be used in conjunction with EVT to examine interpersonal and hyperpersonal relationships established through CMC.
Further use and development of the theory
The concept of social norms marketing
follows expectancy violation in that it is based upon the notion that
messages containing facts that vary from perception of the norm will
create a positive expectancy violation. Advertising, strategic
communications, and public relations base social norms campaigns on this
position.
Interaction adaptation theory further explores expectancy violations. Developed by Burgoon
to take a more comprehensive look at social interaction, IAT posits
that people enter into interactions with requirements, expectations, and
desires. These factors influence both the initial behavior as well as
the response behavior. When faced with behavior that meets an
individual's needs, expectations, or desires, the response behavior will
be positive. When faced with behavior that does not meet an
individual's needs, expectations, or desires, he or she can respond
either positively or negatively depending on the degree of violation and
positive or negative valence of the relationship.
Expectancies exert significant influence on people's interaction
patterns, on their impressions of one another, and on the outcomes of
their interactions. People who can assume that they are well regarded by
their audience are safer engaging in violations and more likely to
profit from doing so than are those who are poorly regarded.
When the violation act is one that is likely to be ambiguous in its
meaning or to carry multiple interpretations that are not uniformly
positive or negative, then the reward valence of the communicator can be
especially significant in moderating interpretations, evaluations, and
subsequent outcomes.
EVT also applies to international experience in the workplace. “A
foreign newcomer who has the necessary education, work experience, and
international experience will be perceived as having the ability to make
valuable contribution to the group's task. Consequently, education,
work experience and international experience will influence a foreign
newcomer's initial task-based group acceptance (Joardar, 2011). It can
be argued that a person with significant international experience will
be perceived as having had the opportunity to learn how to build
valuable relationships in a cross-cultural setting. Hence, international
experience will have effects on initial relationship-based group
acceptance as well. Meaning, this will make for a more positive
expectancy violation, in the workplace especially. EVT is also used as a
framework to analyze the negative impact of mind reading expectations
on romantic relationships. In 2015, Wright and Roloff explain the idea
of mind reading expectations (MRE) that romantic partners should clearly
know about each other's feelings even though they are not being
informed. When relational partners have done something wrong without self-consciousness,
people's expectations are violated. Particularly those who hold high
value of MRE are more likely to become distressful once their relational
partners are unaware of their violations to expectations. The study
asserts that such kinds of violations related to MRE result in responses
such as combative attitude and silent treatment, which is harmful to
long-term romantic relationships.
