Aaron Murdock

COMM 3050

Journal 1

Journal 1: Expectancy Violation Theory

Expectancy Violations Theory, proposed by Judee Burgoon, attempts to explain the way

we interact with those who violate our expectations in an encounter. There are three core

concepts of Expectancy Violation Theory, or EVT (Griffin et al., 2015, p. 85) for short. These

are Expectancy, Violation Valence, and Communicator Reward Valence. Expectancy is “what

people predict will happen, rather than what they desire” (p. 86). Violation Valence is a value,

positive or negative, that we give to an unexpected behavior by someone. And Communicator

Reward Valence is “the sum of positive and negative attributes brought to the encounter,” (p. 88)

as well as the the consideration of reward or punishment from the experience.

It’s odd that the word valence should suddenly appear in my life when I’ve not heard it in

years. I’m currently in a biology class and we’re studying Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion

Theory, which explains how electrons are ordered in “layers” starting from an atom’s nucleus

and going outward. It seems there is a similarity between this physical science concept and EVT:

the idea of layers of power or energy that determine negative or positive interactions with others,

atoms and people alike. It helps me understand both ideas better to compare them to each other,

which matches with my objective approach to life in general.

Expectancy itself has three parts. We use the these parts to make quick, unconscious

decisions about how to approach or react to others.

 Context refers to the cultural norms and settings of the people interacting (p. 86). What

one group of people consider an appropriate distance to speak to a stranger may seem too far

away or too close to be polite to another group of people. Just a few days ago my roommate

started talking to me from about eight or nine feet away while I was on the computer. It was just

far enough away that I felt the need to look at him while he talked, but I was also in the middle

of a battle on my game, and couldn’t look away unless I wanted to lose the battle. I found myself

making quick glances at him as he talked, wishing he’d just pull up a stool and sit next to me so I

didn’t feel so awkward.

Relationship encompasses similarity to oneself, familiarity, liking, and status (p. 86). I

find myself more comfortable around people I have things in common with. Those with whom I

have closer relationships I allow certain privileges when we interact, such as my nephew being

allowed to crawl onto my lap, but not his family’s dog. More generally, I see this with some

European people who greet with a kiss on the cheek, which to me seems very invasive and not

comfortable.

Communicator characteristics is about age, gender, appearance, and any other

characteristics of the person speaking (p. 86). I’m more comfortable in groups of people my age

rather than groups of people 40 years older than me. I’ve also found I act differently while in a

group of mostly females, such as at work, than in a group of mostly males, such as when I’m at

church in Elder’s Quorum. Oddly enough, I feel like I can be myself more around women more

than men, which may have something to do with being coddled by my sisters but teased by my

brothers growing up.

Violation Valence helps us make sense of what a behavior means, then whether it is

positive or negative and what to do (p. 87). If we determine it to be positive, we expect more. If
it’s negative, we want less. In high school I liked to take candid pictures at school. I would pull

out my camera at lunch and take photos before my friends could look. Some of them were fine

with it and would laugh, and some would pose. Others would shy away and try to hide their

faces, usually saying something about hating photos of themselves (this was before selfies were

really a thing). You could say the action of me taking out my camera and pointing it at someone

was the moment they had to decide what to do. Those who hid considered it a negative thing,

probably based on past experiences more than cultural norms. Those who posed thought it a

positive, and would often ask to see the picture themselves.

Communicator Reward Valence brings into play the potential for reward or punishment

by the person violating expectations (p. 88). An example from my other roommate may

demonstrate this. He moved in just a few weeks ago, and I have tried to get to know him by

asking questions and attempting conversation. Although he doesn’t exude shyness at all, I found

him answering my questions, but not asking any in return. I’m not sure whether his Hispanic

heritage has anything to do with it, or if I’m just not reading the conversations right, but his lack

of engaging with me when I’m trying to engage with him has kept me from initiating much with

him in the days since. I’m no longer expecting any reward in the form of information or even

friendship when we talk. Instead I’m expecting him to give simple answer and then move onto

his own business.

Burgoon and her associate Lesa Stern have determined that this theory is not one-way,

but more transactional. Humans are interacting with and adapting to one another all at once, not

taking turns. Each motion or word has significance. So they have crafted the Interaction

Adaptation Theory to expand EVT (p. 90).

 Although there are many variables in EVT, it is clear that there are expectations in human

interaction, and that violating those expectations will result in positive or negative outcomes for

the relationship.

Reference

Griffin et al. (2015). Expectancy Violations Theory. In A first look at communication theory (pp.

81-93). New York, NY.: McGraw Hill Education.