The Expectancy Violation Theory

The expectancy violations theory defines communication as the exchange of information that is high in relational content and can be used to violate the expectations of another. For instance one expects a person to act a certain way for instance to be a chauvinist but they end up acting like a true gentleman. The perception of exchanging can be accepted either negatively or positively depending on the level of mutual likeliness between the two parties, and can also influence the outcome of communication. If negative it hinders future communication and if positive it will enhance the communication. It also explains people’s reaction to unexpected behavior because expectancies are based on the communicator’s social norms and their specific characteristics. Violations of expectancies cause arousal and compel the recipient to invite a series of cognitive appraisals of the violation, as well as causing uncertainty in people’s behavior.

There are three primary theoretical viewpoints and assumptions which predict the expectancy violations theory. The first viewpoint or assumption is the “Social Exchange Theory” explains how people seek to reward and seek to avoid punishing others. Secondly, the arousal and distraction of behavior violations call attention to the qualities of the violator and the relationship between the people who interact. Thirdly the evaluation of the violation is based upon the relationship between the particular behavior and valence of the communicator.

The expectancy violations theory also proposes that observation and interaction with others lead to expectancies. There are two types of expectancies, predictive and prescriptive. Predictive expectancies define communication or interaction based upon what occurs within the context of a particular environment and the relationship of the communicators. For example a child has to water the plants everyday before the parents return back from work. If the child decides or forgets to water the plants everyday during the week it is known a predictive discrepancy. Prescriptive expectations are based on behavior and social norms which are appropriate within a specific context of communication for example greeting someone with a kiss on the lips for the first time rather than a handshake.

The expectancy violations theory outlines the three factors which influence a person’s expectations; interactant variable, environmental variables and variables related to the nature of the interaction ( Burgoon & Janes, 1976) . Interactant variables are the traits of those involved in the communication process. This includes set, race, culture, status and age. The environmental variables include the amount of space available and the nature of the territory surrounding the interaction variables include social norms, purpose of interaction and the formality of the nature of the interaction. These factors have all evolved into communicator characteristics, relational characteristics and context. The communicator s characteristics overlap with interactant variables. The interaction and relational category have been broken down into their own category. Context on the other hand compasses with both environment and interaction characteristics.

Criticism on the expectancy violations theory found that a large amount of attention has shown violations to be highly consequential acts, negative in nature and uncertainty increasing. Afiti and Metts (1998) illustrate that expectancy violations vary in frequency , seriousness and valence evident through literature and anecdotal. It has also been found to be true that the expectancy violations theory carries a negative valence yet numerous are positive and actually reduce uncertainty because they provide and actually reduce uncertainty because they provide additional information within the parameters of the particular relationship, context and communicators.