User:Irina predescu/sandbox

Common expectancy violations in nonverbal communication

The Nonverbal Expectancy Violations Theory began to be developed in the late nineteen eighties by Judee K. Burgoon and her colleagues. The Nonverbal Expectancy Violations Theory "is based on five assumptions and contains five propositions". These assumptions hold true regardless the culture involved, however the level of intensity given to each gesture varies. What could be thought of as a positive gesture in one culture, may be thought of as a negative in a different culture.

The first assumption according to Burgoon is that “humans have a competing approach and avoidance needs.” This assumptions means that we have a need for people in our lives, whether it be people we already consider friends or those new ones that we invite into our circle of friends. On top of that, when our friends bring others into the picture we feel a need to make them accepted and welcome. However we do feel the competitive nature come into play to hackle them before allowing them into your friendship circle completely.

The second assumption in the Nonverbal Expectancy Violations Theory is that "communicators evaluate the reward potential of others" This means, what is in it for you personally? People who come from an individualistic culture will view this second assumption through a lens of self-benefit. Those who come from a collectivist culture will view these benefits from a group perspective. As a society we want to do what will benefit us most as a person. This assumption shows that with every relationship we form we balance out the potential benefits that each relationship can bring us, and decide if the relationship is worthwhile.

The third assumption in the Nonverbal Expectancy Violations Theory is that "communicators develop expectations about the nonverbal behaviors of others". Within each culture we have our own set of expectations that we tend to abide by. We can, more times than not, pick out how another person will react to any given situation, even without knowing them. This is based on the idea that each culture is brought up to recognize how people will react to different situations they may be faced with. Which in turn, also means that their expectation of behavior differ from culture to culture as well.

The fourth assumption in the Nonverbal Expectancy Violations Theory is "nonverbal behaviors have associated evaluations ranging from extremely positive to extremely negative". When we look at and evaluate the nonverbal messages and cues of others we do it in a way that can generate a number of feelings with different intensities. One behavior may be interpreted by one person completely differently then another person. The more positive the emotion we feel the more likely we are to engage in conversation further and more in depth. If it is more of a negative feeling we tend to shut down more and do not engage in conversation as much as we normally would.

The fifth assumption in the Nonverbal Expectancy Violations Theory posits that "nonverbal behaviors have socially recognized meaning". Within different cultures our nonverbal messages have universal meanings that everyone recognizes and interprets with relative similarity.

Criticism of the theory

One critique of Expectation Violations Theory lies in the scope of thought and research devoted to the theory. A large amount of attention has been narrow in scope and has shown violations to be highly consequential acts, negative in nature, and uncertainty increasing. As Afifi and Metts (1998) point out, literature and anecdotal evidence illustrate that 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.

Other critics of EVT believe most interaction between individuals is extremely complex and there are many contingency conditions to consider within the theory. This makes the prediction of behavioral outcomes of a particular situation virtually impossible.

Emory Griffin, the author of A first look at communication theory, has analysed the Expectancy Violations Theory of Judee Burgoon. His test consisted in analysing his interaction with four students who made various requests from him. The students' names have been changed to 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 behaviour: 3

Used references from official article

Gudykunst, W. and Kim, Y. (2003). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Burgoon, Judee (1992). Applying a comparative approach to nonverbal expectancy violations theory. Sage. pp. 53–69.

Miller, K. (2005). Communication Theories: Perspectives, Processes, and Contexts. NewYork: McGraw Hill.

Used references

Griffin, E. 2012. A first look at communication theory. 8th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

YouTube resources

1. Expectancy Violation Theory Cody Driver

Video can be found here

Expectancy: what we predict to happen, not always what we desire to happen

3 main factors which influence our expectations:

1. Context:

* refers to the social norms of everyday life
* what people are expected to do and what is considered socially acceptable

2. Relationship:

* refers to the overall liking and familiarity of the individuals
* may also depend on the social ranking

3. Communicator:

* includes the communicator's age, sex, personality, appearance, etc.

Violation - occurs any time a person acts in a way that is unexpected regardless of who they are. This unexpected action is in process by the person receiving the violation. They can perceive the violation positive or negative.

Proxemics - refers to an individual's personal space and what distance they prefer to interact with others.

There are 4 proxemics zones:

1. Intimate: 0 - 18in
2. Personal: 18in - 4ft
3. Social: 4ft - 10ft
4. Public: >10ft

Communicator Reward Valences

If an individual has a positive expectation towards another and he is pleased with the interaction, they reward that person with a positive or High Reward Valence.

The inverse is also true for Negative Reward Valence. If an individual has positive or negative expectations and is dissatisfied with the interaction, they will attach a Negative Reward Valence to that person.