Helen Wiggins
Comm Theory
Spee 390
Dr. Almeida
EXPECTANCY VIOLATIONS THEORY
Judee K. Burgoon is an American academic. She is Professor of Communication and Professor of Family Studies and Human Development at the University of Arizona. She is also Director of Human Communication Research for the Center for the Management of Information and Site Director for Center for Identification Technology Research at the university, and currently holds an appointment as Distinguished Visiting Professor with the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma, and the Center for Applied Social Research at the University of Oklahoma. She has published over 240 articles and 7 books. Among the theories that she is most notably linked to are: Interpersonal Adaptation Theory, Expectancy Violations Theory, and Interpersonal Deception Theory. This paper will give insight about two journals that elaborate on Burgoon’s Expectancy Violations Theory. It will also compare the difference of the journals with Em Griffin’s approach about the theory and how I personally feel that the journals may be the same or different than the views of Griffin.
Journal 1:

“Nonverbal Expectancy Violations: Model Elaboration and Application to Immediacy Behaviors”
By: Judee Burgoon & Jerold Hale

The journal discusses that nonverbal expectancy violations theory holds that positive violations produce more favorable communication outcomes than conformity to expectations, while negative violations produce less favorable ones, and that reward characteristics of the communicator mediate the interpretation and evaluation of violations. It reviewed the factors affecting expectancies and the consequences of violating them and compared them to other models such as discrepancy-arousal, arousal-labeling, arousal-valance and sequential functional.
In the journal an experiment extending the model domain to immediacy violations and to interactions with familiar as well as unfamiliar others had a friend and stranger dyads engage in discussions during which one member of each pair significantly increased immediacy, significantly reduced it, or conformed to normal levels. Non-immediacy violations produced lower credibility ratings than high immediacy or conformity to expectations for both friends and strangers. Non-immediacy was interpreted as communicating detachment, non-intimacy, dissimilarity and more dominance than normal immediacy, while high immediacy expressed the most intimacy, similarity, involvement and dominance. The journal also discussed implications for the role of ambiguity in violations. (Comm Mon, 1988)
The journal states that the expectancy violations model was originally designed to explain terminal consequences of conversational distance changes during interpersonal interactions and that the model has been revised and extended to apply to a greater range of nonverbal behaviors and communication outcomes. Numerous tests of the model, along with empirical results from other research that can be reinterpreted within the expectancy framework, have yielded support for many of the model’s propositions. At the same time, inconsistent findings across studies suggest a need for further elaboration and/or revision of the theory. Especially important is to distinguish how the model differs from others designed to predict the communication consequences of changes in nonverbal behavior. The scope of the model also remains indeterminate, having been applied primarily to manipulations of single nonverbal cues in interactions with strangers, but theoretically having the potential to apply to a wide range of cues and cue patterns and to interactions with familiar others as well as strangers. (Comm Mon, 1988)

The journal also covers the elements of the nonverbal expectancy violations model as follows: * Expectancies – The theoretical framework begins with the assumption that in interpersonal encounters, interactants develop expectancies and preferences about the nonverbal behaviors of others, an assumption that is also relatively central in the expectancy-arousal, arousal-valence, and sequential functional models. The models differ in the extent to which they explain the origins of those expectancies and treat them as cognitive, affective, and/or behavioral. (Comm Mon, 1988) * Violations and Arousal - If, however, the communicator violates expectancies to a sufficient degree for the deviation to be recognized, the violation is posited to heighten the violatee’s arousal. The expectancy violations, arousal results in some cognitive-affective assessment of the situation and/or behavior. (Comm Mon, 1988) * Violation Valence – Positively evaluated behaviors, either because they originate from a positively valued communicator, are assigned positive interpretations, or have consensually assigned positive value within a speech community, should qualify as positive violations and produce favorable communications patterns and consequences. Negatively interpreted and evaluated deviations should qualify as negative violations and generate unfavorable interaction patterns and consequences. (Comm Mon, 1988)
The journal gives insight on the accumulated research evidence relevant to the expectancy violations theory and how it has produced support for the following conclusions: (Comm Mon, 1988) 1. Interactants develop expectations about the distancing and immediacy behavior of others. 2. Communicator behaviors and characteristics that contribute to interpersonal rewards mediate communication outcomes 3. For conversational distance, rewarding communicators frequently accrue the most favorable communication outcomes by violating rather than conforming to expectancies. 4. For conversational distance, non-rewarding communicators frequently accrue their optimal communication outcomes by conforming to distance expectancies rather than violating them 5. For eye gaze, rewarding communicators achieve greatest attraction, credibility and endorsement for hiring by engaging in nearly continuous gaze or normal gaze; gaze aversion produces negative consequences. 6. Violations are arousing and distracting.
The results from the experiment that is discussed in the journal sought to extend the domain of expectancy violations theory to multiple nonverbal behaviors and to familiar as well as unfamiliar relationships. The results suggest that the extension is appropriate and offer partial support for some of the predictions and explanatory framework.
Journal 2:
“Three Field Experiments on the Effects of Violations of Conversational Distance”
By: Judee Burgoon & Lynn Oho

In this journal Burgoon and Jones proposed a predictive model in the area of proxemics that was designed both to offer the beginnings of a theoretical framework for understanding personal spacing behavior and to link directly proxemics behavior to communication. The model, which has gone through several revisions, treats distances adopted in conversation as potential messages and makes some counterintuitive predictions about their relationship to other communication outcomes such as credibility of the initiator of the distance, attraction, persuasion, and recall. (Comm Mon, 1982) The experiments discussed in the journal were undertaken to test further the model’s predictions and to apply them to new communications outcomes. A second, overriding purpose was to look not at end results of interactions but at the communication process itself. Burgoon and Aho thought it important to clarify the relationship between distancing violations of an initiator and the resultant interaction patterns of the reactant so that the model could be more firmly enmeshed within the domain of communication. Additionally, we anticipated that a useful by-product of such an analysis would be the potential identification of other nonverbal message forms. The recipient of a distance violation usually responds with some indication of surprise, discomfort, pleasure, or other overt manifestation of arousal and affect. (Comm Mon, 1982) According to the journal, a problem that has been alluded to in prior experimental tests of proxemic violations is the possible distorting effects of the laboratory setting. It has been suggested that subjects may suspend their normal reactions to spatial invasions. They may expect unusual behavior or be sufficiently distracted by their own efforts to second guess the purpose of the study such that natural reactions may be suppressed or distorted. A final goal of this investigation was therefore to move the experiments to the field and determine how that altered behavior compared to the lab. (Comm Mon, 1982) All three experiments to be reported in the journal were conducted as class research projects over a period of one year. To achieve a comprehensive analysis of interaction behaviors yet give each group of students some latitude in selecting those variables of greatest interest, a search was first undertaken for potentially relevant interaction behaviors and outcomes that had been analyzed in past research and were amenable to study in a field context. Variables omitted from the first two experiments were arbitrarily included in the third. (Comm Mon, 1982)
Comparison
Em Griffin’s take on Expectancy Violations Theory, compared to the two journals presented in the paper, is much easier to understand. The journals use a lot of complex language and terminology were as Griffin’s terminology is very simple and can be comprehended easily.
The experiment that Griffin performed and the experiments performed in journal two regarding personal space is relatable though the approach of the experiments differs. I started out understanding the experiments in journal two but as they were furthered discussed I began to get a lost because of the way the experiments were worded. The language of the experiments in journal two starts out easy to understand but began to get more complex as I continued to read and I eventually lost interest. However, Griffin’s experiment appealed to me and kept my attention. The language remained simple and was easy to read.
The core concepts of expectancy violation theory (expectancy, violation valance, and communicator reward valence) that Griffin elaborates on are better explained and more simple than the way journal one explains them. For example, Griffin (Ch. 7) states that expectancy is what people will predict will happen, rather than what they desire and journal one (Comm Mon, 1988) states that expectancy may include cognitive, affective, and conative components and is primarily a function of (1) social norms and (2) known idiosyncrasies of the other. Griffin (Ch. 7) states that violation valence refers to the positive or negative value we place on a specific unexpected behavior, regardless of who does it and journal one (Comm Mon, 1988) states that the communicator violates expectancies to a sufficient degree for the deviation to be recognized, the violation is posited to heighten the violatee’s arousal. Griffin states that the reward valence of a communicator is the sum of the positive and negative attributes that the person brings to the encounter plus the potential he or she has to reward or punish in the future (Griffin, Ch. 7) whereas journal one (Comm Mon, 1988) says that the first factor to influence the valencing of a violation as positive or negative is the reward value of the violator. Just going by these definitions alone would make me more inclined to read Griffin’s take on expectancy violations theory.
Both of the journals did elaborate more on the theory and went into great detail about it but were very lengthy and a bore to read. I feel that Griffin did an excellent job in taking such a detailed theory and condensing it into a few pages that is readable. Griffin’s take is straight to the point.
In conclusion, Griffin’s approach to the theory was definitely easier to understand, used simple terminology and kept my attention; however, the journals would often get me lost not so much by the words they used, but how they used them in context. If I had read the journals before I read the version that Griffin presents, I would not have found the theory as appealing. I did however; find that both Griffin and the journals stated inconsistent findings across studies of expectancy violations theory suggesting a need for further elaboration and/or revision of the theory.

REFERENCES

Communication Monographs (Mar 1988). Nonverbal Expectancy Violations: Model Elaboration and Application to Immediacy Behaviors, Vol. 55, Pages 58-79
Communication Monographs (Jun 1982). Three Field Experiments on the Effects of Violations of Violations of Conversational Distance, Vol. 49, Pages 71-88
Griffin, Em (2009). A First Look at Communication Theory. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill. Ch.7