Expectancy Violations Theory

Expectancy violations theory (EVT) explains reactions of people who believe an established social norm has been disregarded by another. For example, when someone who comes uncomfortably close to another person while they are in a conversation.

EVT originated as a nonverbal communication theory in the late 1970s to help make sense of proxemic, or space, violations. Since the inception of the theory, it has been experimentally tested and extended into interpersonal communication, where the theory was utilized to help explain communication in close relationships, as between romantic partners. Today, EVT has been further tested and applied to more communication contexts, which will be overviewed in what follows, after explicating the theoretical concepts and assumptions.

Expectancies are formed in many different ways. For some, this may come from a prior experience in a certain situation. Others are formed through established practices and community traditions. Other expectancies are derived from unwritten or non-verbalized cultural norms of an organization. Regardless of source or origin, when an action is done that is consistent with an expectancy, the action largely goes unnoticed. When the opposite happens, however, the action stands out and a perceived violation occurs.

Before examining expectancy violations, the central concept of expectations must be understood. EVT centers upon expectations, defined by Burgoon (1993) as “an enduring pattern of anticipated behavior” (p. 31) based upon societal norms and the knowledge of an individual’s unique interaction style. Expectancies are the central construct of EVT, and according to Backman (1985) they represent shared understandings and rules for communicative encounters and serve as framing devices used to define and shape interactions. According to Burgoon (1993), expectations are used to help people plan their communication and communicative encounters, because expectations help people predict behavior. Burgoon (1993) further explains that expectations are perceptual filters that influence how people process information.

EVT uses eleven definitional axioms and assumptions to help clarify the theory and to identify the interdisciplinary concepts, some of which have been borrowed from fields such as psychology. These axioms and assumptions collectively help explain how people develop, evaluate, and respond to violations of expectations using both verbal and nonverbal communication (Burgoon, 1978; see Table 1). The axioms and assumptions are meant to inform the development of hypotheses in EVT research, using the three core concepts of the theory: expectancy, violation valence, and communicator reward valence (Burgoon, 1978; see Figure 1).

Theoretical Concepts

Expectancies are what people predict will happen, rather than what they desire (Griffin, 2012), and is influenced by three variables: context, relationship, and communicator characteristics, which are outlined in expectancy theory. The context is informed by cultural norms, as well as the setting of the communication. Relationship factors include variables like familiarity, liking, and status (Griffin, 2012). Lastly, the communicator characteristics include demographic variables like age and sex, but also include personality composition and physical appearance (Griffin, 2012). Taken together, these variables help us understand why we predict different encounters between spouses than between teachers and students, why we behave differently at a restaurant than we do in our bedrooms, and why we often treat people older than us with greater respect, based on what is culturally appropriate.

EVT assumes that interactions are based on norms, or behavior that is considered typical, although not always planned and frequently mindless. Although people hold expectations about their social interactions, it is also routine for violations of expectations to occur in both personal and professional communication. Burgoon (1978) defines an expectation violation as any deviation (either positive or negative) from a held expectation. EVT advances that violations activate our interest or attention and awaken adaptive or defensive mechanisms in our brain to cope with the deviation, causing a distraction, before making an evaluation of the violation (Burgoon, 1978). This is similar to the “fight or flight” responses we often hear about in unexpected situations, but less dramatic and more communicative rather than psychological. Violations, especially negative violations, such as receiving rejection or criticism, can lead to increased levels of uncertainty and create communication consequences, like a reduction in communication or a change in the communication strategy being used. Once our brains are aroused by a violation, either positive or negative, the interpretation-evaluation sequence is triggered (Afifi & Metts, 1998).

Interpretation and Evaluation Phases

As previously stated, expectancy violations trigger an arousal, which activates the phases of EVT. An arousal in EVT is described as something that piques our attention because it is outside of what is typical. For example, a hug from your boss may trigger a psychological arousal because you were expecting a handshake. Now, because an unexpected event has occurred, the interpretation and evaluation phases of EVT have been activated within your mind. First, people interpret what happened and then evaluate the violation by assigning a valence (positive or negative label) to the unexpected interaction (Burgoon, 1978). Many expectancy violations are easy to evaluate. For example, a punch in the face is typically evaluated as a negative violation, and either leads to a punch back, or removing oneself from the situation. Conversely, a kind word or gesture from a loved one is often expected, but when it is not, we typically evaluate that positively as a nice, or kind offering of support and love. However, there are many expectancy violations that are less obvious and more ambiguous. For example, an unexpected touch by someone can be interpreted in various ways including attraction, dominance, and even assault. The interpretation and evaluation phases of EVT are critical to communication because it is what happens during these phases that influences how we communicate after the violation.

While violation valence helps to understand the evaluation of an expectancy violation, it is the combination of the violation valence and the communicator reward valence that predicts follow-up communication. When responding to a communicative encounter, we have a choice: to do what is expected, or to deviate from the norm. To make this choice, we consider the communicative consequences, which are best understood through two things: the communicator reward valence, and typical/appropriate behaviors as indicated by cultural and societal norms (Burgoon, 1993). Communicator reward valence is the concept that people possess characteristics that influence the extent to which interactions with them are rewarding; these may include variables such as physical attractiveness, knowledge and expertise, socioeconomic status, power, and similarity, to name a few (Burgoon, 1993). This is why we are often more tolerant of violations by a boss, people in positions of power in society, and people who we see as brilliant than we might be with someone who we view as subordinate or even an equal to ourselves.

It is important to note that expectations are related to the behaviors that are appropriate for a situation and may reflect what a person knows to be “typical.” For example, when applying for something like college or a job or internship, it is typical to be notified that submission of the application is complete, and not receiving this confirmation could be considered by the applicant a violation when interpreted through the lens of EVT. EVT says that we make evaluations of expectancy violations based on the degree to which the other person is perceived as rewarding, such that:

• positively valued messages from a positively regarded source are rewarding,
• negatively valued messages from a positively regarded source are punishing,
• positively valued messages from a negatively valued source are not rewarding and may even be punishing, and
• negatively valued messages from a negatively valued source are not punishing and may even be rewarding” (Burgoon, 1978, p. 133).

Going back to the example of being an applicant for school, a job, or internship, feedback can be interpreted either positively or negatively. For instance, being invited for an interview would likely be positive feedback, whereas being rejected for school or a job, or not being informed of a decision in a timely manner, would be negatively interpreted.

The interpretation and evaluation phases of EVT are unique and borrow from psychology, as previously mentioned, because they occur intra-personally, while adjustments in our behavior demonstrate the communicative changes that take place following expectancy violations. In the development and evolution of EVT, Burgoon, LePoire, and Rosenthal (1995) reviewed several theoretical approaches that predicted how people would respond to unexpected communication encounters. Using EVT concepts like reward level of the communication partner and whether or not the violator is increasing or decreasing communication, EVT assumes both reciprocity and compensating responses, rather than just one or the other (Burgoon et al., 1995). More simply, positive violations produce better outcomes than positive expectations, and negative violations produce worse outcomes than negative expectations.

Communicative Responses

Behavioral adaptations associated with EVT are extending beyond interpersonal and nonverbal domains and beginning to be examined in organizational and online contexts. For example, in high-reward relationships, such as between a hiring manager and a job candidate where both parties stand to gain something valuable (i.e., a new employee and a job, respectively), EVT posits that recipients will reciprocate attempts by the communicator to increase communication. Conversely, if the hiring manager is unresponsive or no longer communicating with the job candidate, whether during or after an interview, the candidate may compensate for the decrease in communication through a change in their communication strategies (see Smith, 2017). A recent study examined the concept of “phone snubbing” or being distracted by a phone, by a supervisor toward an employee and found that this behavior was evaluated as negative, leading to lower feelings of job satisfaction and trust toward supervisors (Roberts & David, 2020).

Using a more interpersonal context, a man who finds a woman very attractive would likely engage in compensating behaviors if she violated his expectations by not returning his calls or texts, perhaps by showing up to her house, or finding another way to contact her. However, if he stopped communicating with her, she would likely reciprocate the behavior by decreasing her own communication, a concept known as synchrony. EVT has used synchrony to better understand and explain behavioral adaptations to predict that when someone interacts with a rewarding other, they will reciprocate behavior following positive violations, and compensate following negative violations. A recent study used EVT to explain perceptions of women’s responses to compliments from men in an online dating app. The findings indicated men found it off-putting (negative violation) when women agreed with their compliments, and instead preferred it (positive violation) when women disagreed or conformed with expressing thanks (DelGreco & Denes, 2019).

EVT in Practice

To date, EVT has been applied to a variety of communication contexts such as nonverbal behavior, communication with friends, interpersonal deception, intimate relationships, workplace communication, email communication, and within healthcare. Since people have expectations for nearly every communicative event, the theory provides great utility for research that aims to predict and explain communication. EVT offers a “soft-determinism” approach, rather than the hard-core universal laws that some other theories present. Therefore, the theory remains in a state of evolution, both contextually and empirically. To that end, interaction adaptation theory was created as an extension and expansion of EVT, to better explain how people adjust their behavior when it is not matching what is needed or anticipated (Griffin, 2012). In sum, EVT meets the criteria for a scientific theory in that it is simple and easy to understand, it is testable, and offers advice for moving forward.

About the Author

Stephanie A. Smith, PhD, APR, is an assistant professor of communication at Virginia Tech. Her research areas include studying the expectations recent college graduates have about entering the workforce, as well as the expectations employees have about generational communication in the workplace. She is currently studying the employee side of cybervetting to better understand how prospective employees research and make decisions about potential employers using websites and online information.

References

Afifi, W., & Metts, S. (1998). Characteristics and consequences of expectation violations in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 365–92.

Backman, C. W. (1985). Identity, self-presentation, and the resolution of moral dilemmas: Toward a social psychology theory of moral behavior. In B. L. Schlenker (Ed.), The Self and Social Life, pp. 261–89. New York: McGraw Hill.

Burgoon, J. (1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and initial test. Human Communication Research, 4, 129–142.

Burgoon, J. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 30–48.

Burgoon, J., LePoire, B., & Rosenthal, R. (1995). Effects of preinteraction expectancies and target communication on perceiver reciprocity and compensation in dyadic interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 287–321.

DelGreco, M., & Denes, A. (2019). You are not as cute as you think you are: Emotional responses to expectancy violations in heterosexual online dating interactions. Sex Roles, doi.org/10.007/s11199-019-01078-0.

Drew, C. (July 26, 2023). Expectancy violation theory: Definition & examples. Helpful Professor.com. Retrieved on May 2, 2024, from helpfulprofessor.com/expectancy-violation-theory.

iResearchnet. (n.d.). Expectancy violation. Retrieved on May 2, 2024, from communication.iresearchnet.com/interpersonal-communication/expectancy-violation.

Griffin, E. (2012). Communication: A first look at communication theory. McGraw Hill: New York, NY.

Hale, J., & Burgoon, J. (1984). Models of reactions to changes in nonverbal immediacy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8, 287–314.

Roberts, J., & David, M. (2020). Boss phubbing, trust, job satisfaction, and employee performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 155, doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109702

Smith, S. A. (2017). Job searching expectations, expectancy violations, and communication strategies of recent college graduates. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 80, 296–320. doi.org/10.1177/2329490617723116