Expectancy Violations Theory_Simplified

CHAPTER 5EXPECTANCY VI ALAilON'S T I] EO RY

Outline

L 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 fromothers,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 approach-

avoidance 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, lntimate distance: 0 to 1B inches.b, Personal distance: 1B inches to 4 feet.c. Socialdistance: 4 to 1O feet.d. Public distance: 1O feet to infinity.

3. He maintained that effective communicators adjust their nonverbal behavior toconform to the communicative rules of their partners.

C. Burgoon suggests that, under some circumstances, violating social norms andpersonal expectations is a superior strategy to conforrnity.

ll. 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.

lll, A convoluted model becomes an elegant theory.A. Burgoon dropped the concept ofthe 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, andinvolvement, but rather a side effect of a partner's deviation.

D, To demonstrate her interest in a broad range of variables, she has dropped thequa lifier "nonverba 1. "

63

lV. Core concepts of EVT (expectancy violations theory).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 based on context, relationship, and communicator characteristics.2. Burgoon believes that all cultures have a similar structure of expected

communication behavior, but that the context of those expectations differs.D. Violation valence,

1. The violation valence is the positive or negative value we place on theunexpected behavior, regardless of who does it.

2. lf the valence is negative, do less than expected.3. lf 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 equivocal,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 shehas to reward or punish in the future.

V. Critique: a work in progress.A. Burgoon concedes that we can't yet use EW to generate specific predictions

regarding touch outcomes and calls for further descriptive work before applying thetheory to any nonverbal behavior.

B. She is particularly troubled by two of EW's shortcomings.1, EVT does not fully account for the overwhelming prevalence of reciprocity that

has been found in interpersonal interactions.2. EVT does not indicate whether communicator valence or behavior valence

dominates when the two are incongruent.C. 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 BurgoonA theorist from the University of Arizona who developed expectancy violations theory.

Personal SpaceThe invisible, variable volume of space surrounding an individual that defines thatindividual's preferred distance from others.

Edward HallAn anthropologist from the lllinois lnstitute of Technology who coined the termproxemics.

ProxemicsThe study of people's use of space as a special elaboration of culture.

64

lntimate DistanceThe American proxemic zone of O to 1B inches.

Personal DistanceThe American proxemic zone of 1B inches to 4 feet.

SocialDistanceThe American proxemic zone of 4 to ten feet,

Public DistanceThe American proxemic zone of 10 feet to infinity.

Threat ThreshaldAn imaginary line that forms the boundary of the intimate distance. lnitially, Burgoonbelieved that crossing the threat threshold causes physical and psychologicaldiscomfort.

ExpectancyWhat people predict will happen, rather than nrhat they necessarily desire.

Viotation ValenceThe perceived positive or negative value of a breach of expectations, regardless of whothe violator is.

C o m m u n ic ato r Rewa rd V a lenceThe sum of the positive and negative attributes that the person brings to the encounterplus the potential he or she has to reward or punish in the future.

Paul MongeauA communication researcher from Miami University whose research on datingdemonstrates expectancy violations theory's increased pred ictive power,

Principal Changes

The changes to this chapter are modest. Griffin includes recent scholarshipdemonstrating the theory's improved predictive power, updates the Second Look section, andclarifres the concept of valence.

Suggestions for Discussion

Closely following coordinated management of meaning-which disdains efforts toisolate individual variables in the communication process-expectancy violations theoryprovides an excellent opportunity to compare the characteristics of traditional empiricism withthoroughgoing humanism. Whereas Burgoon's approach to communication is primarilystrategic, Pearce and Cronen view the process more broadly. emphasizing its power toconstitute or create social reality. Such comparison will give you a good chance to gauge yourstudents' understanding of Chapters 1 and 3. {Exercise #4 under Questrons to Sharpen Yaur

Focus constitutes a good vehicle for such discuss!on.)

Comparisons with symbolic interactionism (Cnapter 4) may also be fruitful. lt'simportant to emphasize that Mead and followers were more interested in the ways in whichcommunication shapes the human psyche {its ontological character) than its use to enhanceone's strategic position. Whereas for Burgoon communication seems primarily instrumental in

65