Expectancy Violation Theory - Case Study Example

EXPECTANCY VIOLATION THEORY Introduction The expectancy violation theory (EVT) developed by Judee Burgoon in 1978 views communication as the exchange of communication that is quite high in the content and it may be used to violate the expectations of another that will viewed as either depending negatively or positively on the liking of two people (Burgoon & Jones, 1976). When people’s expectations are violated, they are bound to respond in certain ways. If an act is not expected and is given a favorable interpretation, then positively evaluated, it is also bound to produce results that are more favorable than the expected act with the same evaluation and interpretation. The purpose of this paper is to give a critical analysis of the expectancy violation theory by giving an example of a teacher who was approached by four students for favors from various distances. The paper will test the accuracy of the theory by citing examples from the teacher’s reaction for accepting or rejecting the student’s invitations. Ontological assumptions The theory assumes that human beings have certain quantity of free will. This is because the theory presumes that human beings can interpret and survey the connections and the relationships amongst themselves and the partner that their communication partner and then make a decision of not violating the expectations of the other individual depending on what the results they may prefer attaining (Gowen & Britt, 2006). Epistemological assumptions The theory assumes that there is only a single possibility of truth. This is the truth that there are norms for all activities of communication and if such norms are not followed, there will be certain results that are predictable (Burgoon & Jones, 1976). Axiological assumptions The theory also strives to be neutral in value since the study was conducted empirically and it also strives to define how humans can react when someone or something violates their expectations (Burgoon & Jones, 1976). Critique The theory is considered scientific since it presumes that only a single truth exists. It also presumes that reactions and norms to the violations are common to everyone (Burgoon & Jones, 1976). It also strives to predict the results that occur when there are violations. Ideas and implications The theory is quite useful and practical since it presumes that there are common reactions and norms to violations, which are universal. It also strives to predict the reactions to every norm violation that will exist. Explanation Data (Example) Taking the example of the teacher (narrator) who was approached by four students making their requests. He realized that in every case of his response to the student, the conversational distance might have influenced his decisions. He mentally pictures the four students making their requests. The first student, Andre, was literally on his face, less than a foot away. Belinda was approximately two feet away from him and invaded his personal space. Charlie was approximately seven feet away and Dawn gave her luncheon invitation from across the room. During that period, every conversation seemed pretty strange. Later he realized that each of the students had violated his expectation of a suitable inter-personal distance. Burgoon states that personal space is the surrounding space, which defines an individual’s preferred space from others. The teacher managed to allow only Andre and Dawn, but turned down Belinda and Charlie’s requests. The reasons for the teacher turning down their requests varied from invasion of inter-personal space to their close proximities. Prediction of future People always predict the future depending on the beliefs and schemas that they have created. Having made such predictions, they can expect their predictions to turn out to be true. When the truth fails to happen, then violation of expectancy is what occurs. What will happen next is that those who made the prediction will be surprised. This will draw them in getting their attention as they try to recognize what has occurred and perhaps rectify the schemes of coping with the new circumstance. Socially, people always have expectations about how other people ought to behave. People’s reaction to deviation of other people from expectancy depends on what people have to gain or lose (Burgoon, & Jones, 1976). The way that people react to violations often rely on the value of the reward, or what they expect to achieve from a relationship. Therefore, a man may react more positively to young woman who is closer than a larger man standing from a distance. The expectancy violation theory is capable of predicting the future events because it has a high probability of success. Whether knowingly or not, all the four students made a request that deviated from the teacher’s expectation. However, Burgoon’s initial model did not manage very well to predict the professor’s response to the four different violations. Andre’s case: According to the early model of Burgoon, Andre made a mistake by crossing the teacher’s invisible threshold by speaking to him at an intimate eyeball-to-eyeball distance (Burgoon, & Jones, 1976). The psychological and physical discomfort that the teacher would feel would hurt Andre’s cause. However, Burgoon’s model missed the prediction. Belinda’s case: Burgoon suggests that noticeable deviations from what people expect may cause them to experience a high state of arousal. Belinda was not necessarily referring to the heart-pounding, sweaty palm reaction that drives them to flight or fight. Instead, she pictured violations that stimulated them to mentally review the nature of their relationships with the individual who reacted in a curious way (Burgoon, & Jones, 1976). That would be good news for Belinda if the teacher thought of her as someone who is highly rewarding. Every comment that Belinda made in class seemed like a direct challenge. In the same way that Burgoon predicted, the two-foot distance that Belinda chose focused on their rocky relationship, thereby making the teacher declining her request for help in another course. Charlie’s case: Charlie was a nice guy who only cared about having a good time instead of studying. Charlie new that his teacher would play water polo in college, but he may not have known that his casual attitude toward class was a reminder that the teacher was not as good a teacher as he wanted to be (Burgoon, & Jones, 1976). In this case, Burgoon’s prediction was quite accurate. Dawn: According to the expectancy violation model, Dawn managed to blow it. Since she was a very attractive communicator, a close approach would have been a pleasant surprise (Burgoon, & Jones, 1976). Her decision of issuing an invitation from across the room would appear to guarantee a response that is poor. It is quite obvious that application of Buroon’s original model would not meet success with regards to the conversational distance between the teacher and the students. Relative simplicity The expectancy violation theory has become simple. Burgoon managed to drop the ideas that were major in the earlier versions, but he never panned out. For example, earlier on she dropped the idea of “threat threshold.” Even though hypothetical boundary made intuitive sense, continued experimentation did not confirm that it existed. Since Burgoon dropped arousal as a form of mechanism for explanation, the theory has been more gradual. Burgoon stated that people would feel psychologically aroused when their proxemics expectations were violated. Later, she made the idea softer to an “orienting response” that focused the attention on the violator (Bettencourt et al 1997). She now sees arousal as side effect of a partner’s deviation and does not consider it as an essential link between the violation of expectancy and communication results such as involvement, persuasion, credibility and attraction. When Burgoon eliminated extraneous features, she made the model simpler and more streamlined. By extending the scope of the theory, Burgoon managed to produce a complete theory (Burgoon, & Jones, 1976). Her original expectancy model was only concerned with spatial violations. In mid-1980s, Burgeon made a conclusion that proxemics behavior is part of the system of non-linguistic cues. It did not make sense in studying inter-personal distance. Therefore, she began applying the model to nonverbal variables. Burgoon continues to expand the theory. Expectancies always exert a considerable influence on the patterns of interaction among people and on the outcomes of their interactions. Violations in expectations may also distract or arouse their recipients, changing greater attention to the violator and the meaning of violation. People who can presume that they are well considered by their audience are always safe to engage in violations and are likely to do so than those who are poorly regarded. Hypothesis can be tested When examining the close reading of Burgoon’s summary, one can notice that the EVT gives a soft “determinism” instead of hardcore universal laws. The qualifying terms such as relatively, can be, more likely and may show her belief that several factors affect the communication to ever allow people discover simple relationship of cause-and-effect. Burgoon manages to show connection between involvement, influence, credibility, attraction and interpersonal behavior. These are the probable results of expectancy violation that Burgoon, together with her students, managed to explore. For people to appreciate the link, people ought to recognize three core concepts of EVT. These three core concepts include communicator reward valence, violation valence and expectancy. Expectancy: Burgoon suggest that the teacher processed the type of relationship, context and characteristics of others automatically in his mind so that he could gauge what they can do. The context starts with the cultural norms. In Germany or England, three feet is considered to be too close, but too far from being eliminated in Saudi Arabia, where no one can trust anybody who will not let you smell their breath (Gowen & Britt, 2006). The context includes the setting of the conversation. The environment in the classroom illustrates a bigger speaking distance than would be suitable for a private chat in the office. Factors of relationships include relative status, liking, familiarity and similarity. In a certain study, Burgoon found out that people of all stations and ages often anticipate that people of lower status will always keep their distance. Due to the age difference among the students and the teacher, he became more surprised at Belinda’s and Andre’s invasion on their personal space than was by Dawn’s and Charlie’s location. Characteristics of the communicator include all the demographics of place-of-birth, sex and age facts that are requested on applications, but also include personal features that can affect expectations more than style of communication, personality and appearance. The warm smile of Dawn was a counterpoint to Belinda’s caustic comments. Considering such a difference, the teacher would have assumed that Dawn would be the one to come close and Belinda the one to keep away. That is why the teacher was curious when every woman’s “transgression” was the opposite of what he predicted. Violation Valence: This is the negative or positive value that is often placed on unexpected behavior despite the person who does it. With Burgoon’s commitment to the scientific method, she may have borrowed the idea of valence from chemistry, where substance valence is symbolized by a positive or negative value. People often offer others room to deviate from what they consider as a standard procedure of operation. When someone deals with people who act outside the range of expected behavior, they switch into evaluation mode. According to Burgoon, people ought to begin by interpreting the meaning of violation. It is often quite easy to spot the meaning of violation. No person would agonize over how to interpret a poke in the eye with a stick. It is an act that is hostile and if it happened to anyone, they would be vivid. Most of the non-verbal behaviors are straightforward. Most people value eye contact, with the exception of riveting stare. Shifty eyes are not always welcome, while a level gaze is welcome. When a behavior has a meaning that is socially recognized, communication can often figure out whether to go past what other people might expect. Practical Utility Burgoons’ theory has practical utility in the case of the teacher and the four students. The teacher clearly states that Charlie was the classic goof-off, meaning that he rarely attends class and is never prepared. He states that he always tries to be evenhanded with all the students who attend the classes, but in the case of Charlie, he had to struggle to avoid taking his casual attitude toward the course of a personal snub. Dawn was a pretty woman with a warm smile. The teacher argues that he was pleased to hear Dawn say that he was her favorite teacher. The teacher’s notion on Dawn, Charlie, Belinda and Andre probably say more about the teacher than they do about the other four students. Burgoon believes that the power of expectancy violator to punish or reward is very important. This is true since puzzling violations often force victims to look for the social context for clues to their meaning (Burgoon & Hale, 1988). Therefore, an ambitious violation that is embedded in warm signals takes a positive cast. An equivocal violation from the punishing communicator will stiffen people’s resistance. Quantitative research With the core concepts of EVT, communicator reward valence, violation valence and expectancy being outlined, it becomes quite easy to understand what Burgoon’s theory offers. For those who are not certain that their outlandish behavior will offend them, they should always try to avoid it. Those who are unsure how other may interpret their far-out behavior, their overall attitude towards them must dictate their nonverbal and verbal actions. Therefore, if like Charlie or Belinda, they have a reason for suspecting strained relationship, and the meaning of violation may not be clear, they should try stifle their deviant tendencies and do their best to conform to such expectations. However, when any one know that they have developed a positive personal impression, a surprise move will both be safe and perhaps enhance a positive effect of the message. There is evidence of the EVT predictive power, which has been used to predict and explain behaviors and attitudes in a variety of communication contexts. Such include perceptions of students regarding their patient and instructor’s response to the providers of healthcare and actions of individuals in romantic relationships. For instance, professor Paul Mongeau of Arizona State University has studied the women and men’s expectations for dates and compared the expectations with the actual experiences. He found out that men are always surprised when a woman asks for the first date and they will always assume that the lady is interested more in sex than a relationship. However, there is more surprise for the men who think this way because it always turns out that they are lack enough physical intimacy. The teacher clearly states that he would not anticipate touching during the ordinary conversation. Burgoon is convinced that all cultures are the same in structure when it comes to the expected behavior in communication, but the content of such expectations may differ depending on one culture to another (Biernat, Vescio & Billings,1999). Touch is a fraught that has meaning in every society, but the how, where, when and who of the touching depend on the customs/ traditions of a particular culture. The teacher represented a male relationship, but it never occurred to him that the students would make physical contact while making their requests. If it occurred to him, then Dawn would have been the probable candidate. However, at her chosen distance of 25 feet, she had to be a bionic woman to reach the teacher. As it was, the teacher would have been shocked if Dawn had violated his expectation by hugging him. The teacher states that he would have been disgusted, distressed or disturbed. Conclusion Judee Burgoon’s expectancy violation theory managed to predict the teacher’s reaction to the student’s invitations on a 50/50 basis. At some instance, the theory was accurate, while on other instances it was completely inaccurate. On testing the theory on the teacher’s situation, it occurred that Burgoon’s theory was inaccurate for Andre’s and Dawn’s case, while it was accurate for Belinda and Charlie’s case; this is the reason for the fifty percent accuracy. Initially, Burgoon’s theory was quite complicated, but later on she made the theory simpler by dropping the idea of “threat threshold” and “arousal” as a form of mechanism for explanation. By eliminating the “extraneous features”, she made the theory simpler. Burgoon also manages to display the relationship between involvement, influence, credibility, attraction and interpersonal behavior in testing the hypothesis. For people to appreciate the connection, they must understand the main concepts of the theory, which include communicator reward valence, violation valance and expectancy. Expectancies always have a considerable influence on the interaction patterns amongst people and the results of their interactions. Violation in expectancy can arouse or distract the recipients by changing a greater attention to the meaning of violation and the violator. Those who can presume that the audience considers them are always safe to participate in violations and can do so more than those who are poorly regarded. Reference: Bettencourt, B. A., Dill, K. E., Greathouse, S. A., Charlton, K., & Mulholland, A. (1997). Evaluations of ingroup and outgroup members: The role of category- based expectancy violation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(3), 244-275. Biernat, M., Vescio, T. K., & Billings, L. S. (1999). Black sheep and expectancy violation: Integrating two models of social judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(4), 523-542. Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communications Monographs, 55(1), 58-79. Burgoon, J. K., & Jones, S. B. (1976). Toward a theory of personal space expectations and their violations. Human Communication Research, 2(2), 131-146. Gowen, C. W., & Britt, T. W. (2006). The Interactive Effects of Homosexual Speech and Sexual Orientation on the Stigmatization of Men Evidence for Expectancy Violation Theory. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25(4), 437- 456. Read More