Introduction
Expectancy Violations Theory (EVT) is a communication theory that explores the human response to unexpected contraventions of social norms and expectations during an interaction. It explains the consequences of nonverbal behavior infringements on outcomes like credibility, persuasion, and attraction that occur during interpersonal interactions. Expectations are the main governing force in human interactions. However, if they are not respected, the other party gets aroused and triggered, and the situation can only be moderated by the violator. The theory was developed by Judee K. Burgoon in the 1970s, based on the study of proxemics. Initially, it was known as the “nonverbal expectancy violations theory.” Later on, its name changed to the current as other researchers incorporated violations of social behavior expectations into their studies. Burgoon mainly focuses on nonverbal communication. The theory’s components include expectancy, communicator reward valence, violation valence, arousal, and threat threshold. In addition to proxemics and people’s interpretations of social behavior violations, the theory also envisages how individuals react to specific expectation violations.
Communication Theory
As mentioned earlier, the expectancy violations theory is a communication theory that aims to predict and explain how people react to violations on interpersonal communication, especially with regard to unexpected behaviors. It is based on the concepts of the uncertainty reduction theory, which states that human interaction reduces the vagueness on people’s behaviors during communication (West & Turner, 2014). It emphasizes how individuals perceive interactions in certain situations and contexts. During communication, people create expectations regarding the other parties’ reactions. Whenever these expectations are violated, a positive or negative perception could ensue (West & Turner, 2014). The behavior of individuals is largely influenced by their cultural values, and this has a grandiose influence on their reactions.
Personal space is one of the factors that play an important role in the application of the theory. In that regard, it can be defined as the boundaries that people establish and maintain between themselves, and freedom is usually accorded to individuals who are in one’s inner circle (Floyd et al., 2017). Burgoon defines space as an imperceptible value of space around a person, which constitutes the preferred distance from other people (West & Turner, 2014). People want to stay close to others, even though at the same time, desiring some distance. In particular, the concept is highly important in the expectations that people have when interacting with those closest to them. According to the theory, people will always protect their personal space when they feel that their expectations of other people’s behavior have been violated (West & Turner, 2014). Expectancies can be perceived in two ways, namely predictive and prescriptive. On one hand, predictive expectancy involves the definition of interactions that take place within certain environments or contexts. On the other hand, prescriptive expectancy involves the display of appropriate communication or interaction behaviors within specific contexts.
There are three main factors that determine the degree or type of expectancy in people. These include interactant characteristics, interpersonal characteristics, and the environment. Each of these factors determines the direction of interpersonal communication, mainly based on how people react to each other. Interactant characteristics include factors like age, sex, and gender that create in a listener, an expectation of a certain behavior from the other party (West & Turner, 2014). Interpersonal characteristics involve the type of relationship that exists between two people who are interacting at a certain level. The environment encompasses the social situation and the impact of culture (West & Turner, 2014). The aforementioned factors create an expectation of behavior, which can be perceived as either positive or negative by the listener. For instance, an individual working out in a gym might expect the instructor to be loud, tough, and strict. However, the listener will be astounded if the behavior is characterized by gentleness, kindness, and calmness. The instructor’s unexpected behavior is the determining factors as to whether the interaction will continue or end. In many cases, if a listener perceives positivity in an interaction, they pursue the communication further (Floyd et al., 2017). On the contrary, if they identify any form of negativity, they stop the interaction.
Meaning
There are five main components that are critical to the development and application of the expectations violations theory. They include expectancies, communicator reward valence, violation valence, arousal, and threat threshold. These components have different meanings that are critical in the formulation of the theory.
Expectancy
Expectancy can be defined as an individual’s anticipation of the outcomes in a given situation, environment, or context involving communication. According to research, expectations mainly originate from the social norms and idiosyncrasies that the communicators are accustomed to (West & Turner, 2014). According to Burgoon et al (2016), people do not perceive others’ actions as acts of random cognitive occurrences. Rather, they hold certain beliefs as to how they are required to think and act. EVT suggests that expectancies are a result of the observation and interaction that takes place between people. As noted earlier, there are predictive and prescriptive expectancies (Burgoon et al., 2016). Therefore, people expect certain behaviors from others because that is what typically occurs in certain cultures and within specific contexts, relationships, and environments. For instance, a couple might have a morning routine in which they have breakfast together while talking about their expectations of the day ahead. However, if one of the two were to choose to have breakfast alone, this might be perceived as a predictive discrepancy because the norm has been violated. Prescriptive expectations encompass behaviors that are expected and needed in certain situations (West & Turner, 2014). For example, a person who seeks the assistance of a law enforcement officer expects that the officer will assist them, file a report, and conduct an investigation into the matter.
Burgoon and Jerold Hale grouped existing expectations into two classes, namely pre-interactional and interactional. These are based on the process of interaction that is followed by communicators. Pre-interactional expectations include the knowledge and skills that an individual possesses prior to initiating an interaction that influences how they communicate (Burgoon et al., 2016). For instance, a listener does not expect to get an aggressive response from another person if their previous interactions did not include a similar attitude. Interactional expectations are the attitudes that a communicator to observe during an ongoing interactions (West & Turner, 2014). For instance, they will expect to see a nod and eye contact as a sign of attentive listening. As mentioned earlier, interactant variables, the environment, and interpersonal characteristics are the main influencers of a person’s expectations (West & Turner, 2014). In later research, these factors morphed into communicator characteristics, context, and relational characteristics.
Communication features incorporate factors like the communication style of choice, ethnic background, sex, age, mode of personal presentation or appearance, and personality. These are critical, especially between male and female interactions, with regard to the valuation of the effect of nonverbal expressions of power and dominance impact behavior (Turner & West, 2019). Cues such as eye contact, body orientation, and conversational distance are used by both genders to either create closeness or distance between communicators (Burgoon et al., 2016). Relational characteristics encompass factors like status, relationship type, previous experiences between individuals, similarity, and liking (West & Turner, 2014). Context integrates interaction characteristics and environment. Behavioral expectations change, depending on the prevailing situation or environment. For example, interactions within the context of a religious environment will produce different expectations than within social settings (Burgoon et al., 2016). In that regard, the individual will have to alter the expected behavioral violations. In a similar manner, expectations are also influenced by culture. In certain countries, greetings are accompanied with three kisses on the cheeks while in others, kisses are not part of either formal or informal greetings.
Communicator Reward Valence
The communicator reward valence can be defined as an individual’s subjective evaluation of a person who commits a violation of expectancy during an interpersonal interaction. Em Griffin defines the concept as the amalgamation of the positive and negative attributes that animate an interactions, and the probability of receiving a reward or punishment as a result (West & Turner, 2014). According to the social exchange theory, people can either reward some individuals or avoid meting punishment on others. In an interaction, one of the individuals usually assesses the positive and negative aspects of the encounter that are brought by the other party. If the individual possesses the power to either reward or punish the other person, then he or she is described to have a positive reward valence (West & Turner, 2014). In this context, rewards describe a person’s capability to fulfill the other’s need. This can be embodied by several factors, including positive emotional support, a higher socioeconomic class, and knowledge. The concept is used in this context to denote the outcome of this assessment.
During an interaction, communication aspects such as nodding, strong eye contact, and active responses evoke feelings of encouragement. On the contrary, the avoidance of eye contact, lack of nonverbal cues, and yawning elicit feelings of expectancy violation, and imply a lack of interest. The deviation of expectations can produce either positive or negative outcomes, depending on the level of reward that a communicator holds (West & Turner, 2014). In that regard, an action that is perceived as a positive by a high-reward communicator might be viewed as negative by a lower-reward communicator. People develop expectations of behavior any time they examine the context, relationship, and correspondent’s features in specific situations (Floyd et al., 2017). In case any of the aforementioned variables is absent, the expectancy changes. For example, direct eye contact has diverse meanings in different cultures across the world.
Violation Valence
The violation of behavioral expectancies distracts individuals, thus compelling them to evaluate the qualities of the violators and the quality of their relationships. Violation valence is one of the important aspects of violation expectancy theory. It refers a receiver’s perception of a behavior violation by an interactant (West & Turner, 2014). A response to such a violation can be either positive or negative, and is determined by the individual’s interpretation of the action and the violator’s reward potential. The reward potential of an interactant is computed based on several factors that include power, associated relationship, physical appearance, and possession of resources (West & Turner, 2014). For example, violation valence of personal space by a wealthy person is positive while a similar violation by a poor person is negative. Similarly, it is negative if committed an unattractive or homeless individual. The relationship between a specific behavior and the valence of the perpetrator determines whether the action is evaluated positively or negatively (Floyd et al., 2017). Pre-interactional expectancies also play a role in the assessment of behaviors. In other cases, the value assigned to a certain behavior does not take into consideration the status of the violator. In that regard, the act of behavioral violation is emphasized, rather than the violator.
Arousal
During the development of the EVT, Burgoon postulated that whenever expectations are violated, the consequences that ensue have “arousal value.” This means that the contravention of a person’s expectation leads to the arousal of their attention, leading to the application of a particular behavioral modality to cope with the violation (West & Turner, 2014). Arousal causes an increase in a person’s attention to a particular deviation, thus diverting focus from the message to the perpetrator of the arousal. After further research, Burgoon called this response “mental alertness.” Arousal could be either cognitive or physical. Cognitive arousal involves the heightening of the intuitive senses as a response to a violation (West & Turner, 2014). On the other hand, physical arousal encompasses behaviors that are employed during an interaction to respond to a violation.
Several research studies have been conducted to investigate cognitive arousal. For instance, Beth LaPoire and Judee Burgoon conducted a study to examine physical arousal among college students while engaging in a practice medical interview. They found out that when cognitive arousal occurred, the students exhibited decreases in heart rate and increases in pulse volume (Floyd et al., 2017). After a while, the pulse volume decreased. Based on these findings, they concluded that people notice when their expectations are violated during interactions. Arousal is an important component of EVT, and it goes beyond the mere recognition of a violation during an interaction.
Threat Threshold
The occurrence of arousal could initiate the emergence of threats. Burgoon defines threat threshold as the distance at which an individual’s presence causes discomfort in another during an interaction (West & Turner, 2014). People have different levels of tolerance regarding distance violation. She maintains that when people use distance to define threat, short distances are viewed as having higher threat levels while longer distances perceived as possessing lower threat levels. Therefore, a communicator interprets closeness as a statement of threat, thus initiating a punish or reward mechanism (West & Turner, 2014). Burgoon made this conclusion after assessing information from studies conducted on liking and attraction. People who are attracted to each other or who have a liking for each other maintain short distances between themselves. They do not mind standing next to each other. In this case, their threat thresholds are exceptionally high. For people who become uncomfortable when others stand very close to them, their threat threshold is low. The size of the threshold is determined by one’s perception of the threat’s initiator (West & Turner, 2014). This phenomenon is referred as the communication reward valence. In later studies, Burgoon concluded that the threat threshold does not essentially apply to the other interactant. However, its study is critical as one tries to establish the connection between violation and communication reward valence in Expectations Violation Theory.
Invention
The Expectancy Violations Theory was developed by Judee Burgoon in 1978, primarily based on the findings of the study of proxemics. Originally, it was known as the Nonverbal Expectancy Violations Theory (West & Turner, 2014). However, the term “nonverbal” was dropped from the title after other aspects other than nonverbal communication were included in related studies. Since its development in the 1970s, the theory has been used widely by researchers and academicians to identify the impact of nonverbal communication on behavior (Burgoon et al., 2016). It is a theory that explores people’s responses to unexpected communication during interactions (West & Turner, 2014). In her earlier writings regarding the theory, Burgoon incorporated several aspects of nonverbal communication. These include personal space and expectations regarding conversational distance. In the earlier version of the theory, space was a key concept, and Burgoon explored how people use space during conversations, as well as how other people sue their space. The invention of the theory began with studies on how people interpret space violations.
Burgoon started developing the theory from the principle that affiliation and personal space are two of the main needs that humans have. The works of Edward Hall were monumental in the development of EVT. In his studies involving North Americans, Hall concluded that there are four proxemics zones, namely intimate, public, personal, and social, and each is used for a different motive (Burgoon et al., 2016). He defined ranges of spatial distance and linked them with specific behaviors that are deemed appropriate for specific zones. The distances are as follows: intimate distance ranges 0-18 inches, personal distance from 18 inches to 4 feet, social distance from 4-12 feet, and public distance from 12 feet and beyond (West & Turner, 2014). Burgoon developed the theory in an effort to resolve existing conflicts of the different views regarding proxemics as perceived in human interactions. Over the last four decades, the theory has evolved tremendously. For instance, several nonverbal behaviors have been incorporated into its theoretical framework (Floyd et al., 2017). The scope of its application has widened to include interviews, persuasive discourse, deception, and message comprehension.
Development
Expectancy Violations Theory is developed on the basis of key concepts and predictions. The presentation of messages during conversations, and the types of behaviors that people exhibit during discourses are critical aspects of the theory. Burgoon notes that the theory was developed because she wanted to reconcile the different understandings and perceptions of proxemics that existed at the time of its invention (West & Turner, 2014). The theory is governed by six main assumptions. These are: human interaction is based on expectancies, expectancies regarding human behavior are learned, violation of expectancies cause arousal and distraction, communicator reward valence determine behavior evaluation, and people have a propensity to predict nonverbal behavior (West & Turner, 2014). Moreover, reward valence governs the interpretation of vague communication. Therefore, violation valences are determined by a violation’s magnitude, behavior evaluation, and the value of the behavior in comparison with the expectation.
Theory Used in Studies
In studies, researchers use various concepts of EVT and their relationship to communication. Commonly used principles include expectancy violation, communicator reward valence, and violation valence. Several studies have been conducted regarding the application of EVT in communication. A study conducted by Burgoon et al (2016) evaluated the application of EVT to communication and judgements involving embodied agents, especially when making a decision. The study expanded the scope of EVT to evaluate how the various interfaces that are linked with behavior expectations impact factors such as the communication process, social judgements, and the accuracy of recall associated with human-to-embodied agents communication (HtEAC) (Burgoon et al., 2016). The findings of the study revealed that when an embodied agent (EA) strays from expectations, the impact on the HtEAC process and associated outcomes become more pronounced. EAs that are viewed as positive violations present more satisfactory effects on task attractiveness as compared to interaction partners (Burgoon et al., 2016). They concluded that EVT is an effective tool for examining communication effects of HtEAC and supports EAs that produce positive violations of expectancy.
Other studies have evaluated the effect of clothing as a means of communication on the perceptions of one’s credibility and attractiveness. A study conducted by Dunbar and Segrin (2012) aimed to evaluate how a teacher’s clothing affected their credibility, based on students’ judgments and the expectations they had regarding suitable attire. The theory is applied because of the concept of expectations. Students have certain expectations for appropriate and inappropriate clothing (Dunbar & Segrin, 2012). Two teachers wore appropriate and inappropriate attire based on the students’ expectations. In addition, their actions were either rewarding or less rewarding. The findings of the study revealed that a moderately formal clothing style is the most appropriate. Teachers who wore formal attire received high ratings of credibility, regardless of the reward valence (Dunbar & Segrin, 2012). Clothing is a less consequential determinant of students’ impression in cases where they are perceived to be highly valuable. With regard to attractiveness, teachers who dressed formally were described as more attractive.
Practical Application
The practical applications of EVT include interpersonal relationships, computer-mediated communication, and social media. In the course textbook, the authors give an example of the practical application of EVT. The story of Margie Russo and Alyssa Mueller demonstrates how the theory is applied in interpersonal interactions. Russo entered the conversation with expectations that caused trepidation and anxiety. The encroachment of personal space between them as the conversation progressed made her more uncomfortable (West & Turner, 2014). However, as the conversation shifted to her children, she became more comfortable and less anxious (West & Turner, 2014). Her expectations changed and she did not view Mueller’s closeness to her as a threat to her self-assurance. According to the EVT, changes in conversational distance are arousing, and interpreting the violation is dependent on how the violator is perceived (West & Turner, 2014). Leaning on the desk was an unexpected behavior that made Russo uncomfortable. However, this changed when they started to talk about her favorite movies. In that instance, Russo’s perception of Mueller became more positive.
People in friendships and romantic relationships have expectations about how their partners should behave. In the development of a romantic relationship, dating is a challenging phase that is characterized by expectations and different interpretations of communicative cues (Burgoon et al., 2016). With the increasing usage of social media, the challenges of relationship development have increased due to expectation violations and flawed interpretations of responses and complements (Turner & West, 2019). Research has shown that general and gender-specific expectations are violated, thus leading to conflicts and the breakdown of friendships and romantic relationships (Burgoon et al., 2016). In the dating world, women who violate expectations in a negative manner are evaluated negatively than those who violate them positively. In relationships, common expectation violations that occur include support or confirmation, relationship escalation or intensification, gestures of inclusion, relational transgressions, acts of devotion, and uncharacteristic relational behavior.
In social media, the theory also has several applications. Many Facebook users expect their requests to be accepted, and ties of virtual friendship to be easily created (Turner & West, 2019). However, the process of making friends and developing the friendships takes twists and turns. Many people view being unfriended on a social media platform as an expectancy violation. This behavior varies in valence, expectedness, and importance based on several factors. In studies, participants stated that losing a friend on Facebook was a negative, moderately expected and an important expectancy violation (Turner & West, 2019). The closeness of the “friends” was the major factor in determining the valence and the significance of the violation. The importance of the violation determines whether the individual who is unfriended contacts the other regarding the behavior.
Conclusion
Expectancy Violations Theory (EVT) is a theory of communication that explores the effects of nonverbal behavior in interpersonal interactions, particularly its impact on factors like credibility, persuasion, and attraction. It was invented by Judee Burgoon in 1978. Initially, it was known as the “nonverbal expectancy violations theory” but the name was later changed to “Expectancy Violations Theory.” It comprises several key components, namely expectancy, communicator reward valence, violation valence, arousal, and threat threshold. In studies, researchers usually apply various aspects of the theory, mainly expectancy and violation valence to evaluate their effects on communication. Common applications of EVT include friendships and romantic relationships and everyday discourses such as interviews.
References
Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Lowry, P. B., & Humphreys, S. L., Moody, G. D., Gaskin, J. E., & Giboney, J. S. (2016). Application of expectancy violations theory to communication with and judgements about embodied agents during a decision-making task. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 91(1), 24-36.
Burgoon, J. K., Guerrero, L. K., & Floyd, K. (2016). Nonverbal communication. Routledge.
Dunbar, N E., & Segrin, C. (2012). Clothing and teacher credibility: An application of Expectancy Violations Theory. International Scholarly Research Notices 2012, Article No. 140517, 1-12.
Floyd, K., Schrodt, P., Erbert, L. A., & Trethewey, A. (2017). Exploring communication theory: making sense of use. Routledge.
Turner, L. H., & West, R. (2019). Introduction to communication. Cambridge University Press.
West, R., & Turner, L. H. (2014). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application (6th ed.). McGraw Hill Education.