Stratton 1

Emma Stratton
Professor Kate Oswald Wilkins, Ph.D.
COMM341
October 9 2018
Expectancy Violations Theory

The Expectancy Violations Theory, proposed by Judee Burgoon, is an objective

nonverbal communication theory. Expectancy violations occur when an individual violates
established norms and expectations in a relationship (Miller-Ott and Kelly 255). This theory is
defined as “soft determinism” due to the fact that all relationships are different, but undergo
similar patterns. In order to understand this idea, we must comprehend the main concepts of the
violation theory: expectancy, violation valence, and communicator reward valence. This essay
will offer a deeper comprehension of Expectancy Violation Theory through explanation and
practical application. I will outline the Expectancy Violation Theory, explain each of its three
main concepts, present a scholarly and personal critique of the theory, and apply it to my own
life.
The first concept, expectancy is a personal prediction of what will happen within the
situation rather than what is preferred. An individual’s expectancy of a situation is based on the
context which the interaction occurs, relationship, and communicator characteristics (Miller-Ott
and Kelly 254). The context of expectancy is established by socially constructed society norms
of space. Different cultures have varying degrees of expectancy specifically regarding personal
space. The type of relationship a person has with someone determines how much personal space
is given to an individual. There is a large difference between the personal space given to a
stranger in comparison to a romantic partner. Lastly, the communicator’s characteristics such as
their physical appearance, personality, and communication style will affect the person’s
expectancy. An individual is more likely to draw close to a communicator who has a positive
personality and welcoming smile.
The second concept, violation valence, refers to the positive or negative value we give to
unexpected behaviors, regardless of the violator (Watzlawick and Weakland 87). The idea of
violation valence lies within social norms. An individual is given leeway to perfection, but once
they violate a specific range of expected behavior, a communicator will start to evaluate the
situation to determine if they like it or not. As Burgoon explained in her theory, there are times
when it is best to break the social norms or rules. The social norm is that if the violation is
negative, stop doing it. However, if the violation is positive, do it more than expected.
Expectations are not always created by norms, they can be specific to the individual (Kelly and
Miller-Ott 254). The value a communicator gives to the violation does not follow a concrete
pattern, it varies from case to case.
The final concept, communicator reward valence is the sum total of all positive and
negative factors brought to the encounter plus the potential he or she has to reward or punish in
the future (Watzlawick and Weakland 88). This concept helps the commutator understand why in
different situations they react negatively or positively. When an individual violates a person’s
set expectancies, Burgoon believes the victim mentally assesses whether said individual will
contribute to them negatively or positively.
If a violation occurs, a change in arousal is produced. The individual experiencing the
violation is forced to determine if the violation was positive or negative. The positive or negative
 Stratton 2

thought they give to the violation that occurred will impact future interactions between the
communicators.
The Expectancy Violation Theory studies nonverbal interactions between a variety of
communicators in order to anticipate and explain different behaviors. Burgoon advises the
communicator that if they know acting in a completely unexpected way would bring about a
pleasant surprise, they should perform the act. However, if the communicator knows it will bring
about an offensive response, they should not. The communicator will be able to predict the future
outcome based on the relationships that have already been formed.
The Expectancy Violation Theory offers a new understanding of violations within
relationships, especially pertaining to our personal space. This summer, I visited my best friend
from college, Moriah Ramsey. When I arrived at her home, the interaction I initially had with her
mother gives insight on the study and goals of Burgoon’s theory. Having the background of
growing up in a loving Christian family, I had the expectation that Moriah’s parents would also
be very welcoming when I came to visit. Since I had never met her parents, I had no idea what
they were like, but I knew Moriah as being a very genuine and down to earth friend.
My personal expectancies were built upon how my parents usually meet my friends: they
typically will shake their hand, introduce themselves, and ask generic questions. However, when
I arrived at Moriah’s house and met Moriah’s mother, Lori, I was immediately welcomed with a
hug and kiss on the cheek. I was initially caught off guard and shocked that her mother had
physically kissed me on the cheek without knowing me at all.
This kiss from her mother was initially an expectancy violation. Although this was an
unexpected behavior, I mentally assessed it as a positive violation valence because it made me
feel both loved and welcomed. By envisioning the positive rewards Lori had the potential of
giving me, I summed up my communicator rewards as positive. I naturally pictured the rewards
of a loving and supportive friendship similar to the one I had with her daughter. This violation of
my personal space resulted in a positive arousal. The encounter I had with Lori was a positive
experience that leads to a positive communication outcome and the formation of a welcoming
relationship in the future. During this interaction, my relationship with Lori went from being
strangers to loving friends. However, Lori had known I was one of Moriah’s best friends prior to
meeting me. Lori was able to go into the initial encounter with pre-constructed thoughts of who I
was based on the stories her daughter had already told her. Despite the expectancy violation from
my point of view, it was a natural display of love from her mother especially since she felt like
she had already known me.
After spending a week at Moriah’s house this summer and seeing her mother when she
visits Moriah on campus, I am still greeted by a hug and a kiss on the cheek from her mother.
This initial expectancy violation has turned into a norm within my personal relationship with
Lori. I have come to the understanding that Lori’s love language is touch, and these displays of
affection were passed down to her from her parents.
As an objective theory, the Expectancy Violation Theory still helps individuals
understand expectancy violations within the relationship to context. As Watzlawick established,
Burgoon’s theory reaches five out of the six criteria needed of a good scientific theory including
reasonable explanation, relatively simple explanation, testable hypotheses, flexible qualitative
research, and practical advice (Watzlawick and Weakland 91). I believe this theory is a logical
explanation that corresponds well with the different expectancy violations I have personally
experienced in my life. It gives insight to exactly why we determine if an interaction with
someone is positive or negative. The theory cultivates a socially accepted agreement of why
 Stratton 3

communicators respond the way they do in relation to the three main concepts on the theory:
expectancy, violation valence, and communicator reward valence. Overall, the Expectancy
Violation Theory is a valuable theory in the field of communications that contributed awareness
to the dynamics of communicators and their expectations.
 Stratton 4

Works Cited

Griffin, Emory A, Andrew Ledbetter, and Glenn G. Sparks. A First Look at Communication

Theory., 2015. Print.

Miller-Ott, Aimee and Kelly, Lynne. “The Presence of Cell Phones in Romantic Partner Face-to-

Face Interactions: An Expectancy Violation Theory Approach.” Southern

Communication Journal, Vol. 80. No. 4, September-October 2015, pp. 253-270