Jump to content

User:DanielleForrester1991/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theoretical viewpoints and assumptions

[edit]

Needs for personal space and affiliation

[edit]

Expectancy Violations Theory builds upon a number of communication axioms.[1] EVT assumes that humans have two competing needs; a need for personal space, and a need for affiliation.[1][2] Specifically, humans all need a certain amount of personal space, also thought of as distance or privacy.[2] People also desire a certain amount of closeness with others, or affiliation.[1] EVT seeks to explain 'personal space', and the meanings that are formed when expectations of appropriate personal space are infringed or violated.[1] According to anthropologist Edward Hall, the zone of personal space includes: Intimate Distance (0-18 inches), Personal Distance (18 inches-4 feet), Social Distance (4–10 feet), and Public Distance (10 feet to infinity).[3]

Another feature of personal space is Territoriality. Territoriality refers to behavior which "is characterized by identification with a geographic area in a way that indicates ownership" (Hall, 1966).[4] In humans, territoriality refers to an individual's sense of ownership over physical items, space, objects or ideas, and defensive behavior in response to territorial invasions.[4] Territoriality is made up of three territory types: Primary Territories, Secondary Territories and Public Territories.[5] Primary territories are considered exclusive to an individual.[4] Secondary territories are objects, spaces or places which "can be claimed temporarily" (Hall, 1966), but are neither central to the individual's life nor are exclusively owned.[4] Public territories are "available to almost anyone for temporary ownership".[4] Territoriality is frequently accompanied by prevention and reaction.[6] When an individual perceives one of their needs has been compromised, EVT predicts that they will react. For instance, when an offensive violation occurs, the individual tends to react as though protecting their territory.

Beyond explaining individuals’ physical space and privacy needs, EVT also makes specific predictions as to how individuals will react to a given violation. Will an individual reciprocate or match someone’s unexpected behavior, or will that individual compensate or counteract by doing the opposite of that person's behavior? Before making a prediction about reciprocation or compensation, however, you must evaluate EVT's three core concepts: expectancy, violation valence, and communicator reward valence.[1][3]

Expectancies are learned and drive human interaction

[edit]

Burgoon (1978) notes that people do not view others' behaviors as random; rather, they have various expectations of how others should think and behave. EVT proposes that observation and interaction with others leads to expectancies. The two types of expectancies noted are predictive and prescriptive.[7] Predictive expectations are "behaviors we expect to see because they are the most typical" (Houser, 2005), and vary across cultures.[7] They let people know what to expect based upon what typically occurs within the context of a particular environment and relationship.[3] For example, a husband and wife may have an evening routine in which the husband always washes the dishes. If he were to ignore the dirty dishes one night, this might be seen as a predictive discrepancy. Prescriptive expectations, on the other hand, are based upon "beliefs about what behaviors should be performed" and "what is needed and desired" (Houser, 2005).[7]

Furthermore, according to EVT, three factors influence a person’s expectations: interactant variables, environmental variables, and variables related to the nature of the interaction.[8] Interactant variables are the traits of those persons involved in the communication, such as sex, race, culture, status, and age.[8] Environmental variables include amount of space available and nature of the territory surrounding the interaction. Interaction variables include social norms, purpose of the interaction, and formality of the situation.[8] As the theory evolved, these factors also evolved into communicator characteristics, relational characteristics, and context.[3] Communicator characteristics include personal features such as an individual's appearance, personality and communication style.[3] It also includes factors such as age, sex and ethic background.[3][9] Relational characteristics refers to factors such as similarity, familiarity, status and liking also influence an individual's expectations.[3] The type of relationship one individual shares within another (e.g. romantic, business or platonic), the previous experiences shared between the individuals, and how close they are with one another are also relational characteristics that influence expectations.[9] Context encompasses both environment and interaction characteristics.[9]

Communicator reward valence

[edit]

Individuals seek to reward others and seek to avoid punishing others, as explained by Social Exchange Theory.[10] When one individual interacts with another, Burgoon believes he or she will assess the "positive and negative attributes that person brings to the encounter".[3] In addition to this, they will also the encounter's potential for rewards or losses.[3] The term 'communicator reward valence' is used to describe the results of this assessment.[3] For example, people will feel encouraged during conversation when the listener is nodding, making eye contact and responding actively. Conversely, if the listener is avoiding eye contact, yawning and texting, it is implied they have no interest in the interaction and the speaker may feel violated.

Violation valence

[edit]

The term 'arousal value' is used to describe the consequences of deviations from expectations. When an individual's expectations are violated, their interest or attention is aroused.[3] When arousal occurs, one's interest or attention to the deviation increases and one pays less attention to the message and more attention to the source of the arousal.[11]

Behavior violations arouse and distract, calling attention to the qualities of the violator and the relationship between the interactants.[12] A key component to EVT is the notion of violation valence, or the association the receiver places on the behavior violation.[13] A violatee’s response to an expectancy violation can be positive or negative and is dependent on two conditions: positive or negative interpretation of the behavior and the nature (rewardingness) of the violator. Rewardingness of the violator is evaluated through many categories – attractiveness, prestige, ability to provide resources, or associated relationship. For instance, a violation of one’s personal space might have more positive valence if committed by a wealthy, powerful, physically appealing member of the opposite sex than a filthy, poor, homeless person with foul breath. The evaluation of the violation is based upon the relationship between the particular behavior and the valence of the actor.[12]

After assessing expectancy, violation valence, and communicator reward valence of a given situation, it becomes possible to make rather specific predictions about whether the individual who perceived the violation will reciprocate or compensate the behavior in question. Guerrero and Burgoon (1996; Guerrero, Jones, and Burgoon, 2000) noticed that predictable patterns develop when considering reward valence and violation valence together. Specifically, if the violation valence is perceived as positive and the communicator reward valence is also perceived as positive, the theory predicts you will reciprocate the positive behavior. For example, your boss gives you a big smile after you have given a presentation. Guerrero and Burgoon would predict that you would smile in return. Similarly, if you perceive the violation valence as negative and perceive the communicator reward valence as negative, the theory again predicts that you reciprocate the negative behavior. Thus, if a disliked coworker is grouchy and unpleasant towards you, you will likely reciprocate and be unpleasant in return.

Conversely, if you perceive a negative violation valence but view the communicator reward valence as positive, it is likely that you will compensate for your partners negative behavior. For example, one day your boss appears sullen and throws a stack of papers in front of you. Rather than grunt back, EVT that you will compensate for your boss’ negativity, perhaps by asking if everything is OK (Guerrero & Burgoon, 1996). More difficult to predict, however, the situation in which someone you view as having a negative reward valence violates you with a positive behavior. In this situation, you may reciprocate, giving the person the “benefit of the doubt.”[1].

The above assumptions and discussion can be summarized into six major propositions posited by Expectancy Violations Theory:[14]

  1. People develop expectations about verbal and nonverbal communication behavior from other people.
  2. Violations of these expectations cause arousal and distraction, further leading the receiver to shift his or her attention to the other, the relationship, and meaning of the violation.
  3. Communicator reward valence determines the interpretation of ambiguous communication.
  4. Communicator reward valence determines how the behavior is evaluated.
  5. Violation valences are determined by three factors: (1) the evaluation of the behavior, (2) whether or not the behavior is more or less favorable than the expectation, and (3) the magnitude of the violation. A positive violation occurs when the behavior is more favorable than the expectation. A negative violation occurs when the behavior is less favorable.
  6. Positive violations produce more favorable outcomes than behavior that matches expectations, and negative violations produce more unfavorable outcomes than behavior that matches expectations.

Expectancies exert significant influence on people's interaction patterns, on their impressions of one another, and on the outcomes of their interactions. Violations of expectations in turn may arouse and distract their recipients, shifting greater attention to the violator and the meaning of the violation itself. People who can assume that they are well regarded by their audience are safer engaging in violations and more likely to profit from doing so than are those who are poorly regarded. When the violation act is one that is likely to be ambiguous in its meaning or to carry multiple interpretations that are not uniformly positive or negative, then the reward valence of the communicator can be especially significant in moderating interpretations, evaluations, and subsequent outcomes. Violations have relatively consensual meanings and valences associated with them, so that engaging in them produces similar effects for positive and negative valenced communications.[15]

Metatheoretical assumptions

[edit]

Ontological assumptions

[edit]

EVT assumes that humans have a certain degree of free will. This theory assumes that humans can assess and interpret the relationship and liking between themselves and their conversational partner, and then make a decision whether or not to violate the expectations of the other person. The theory holds that this decision depends on what outcome they would like to achieve. This assumption is based on the interaction position, the interaction position is based on a person's initial stance toward an interaction as determined by a blend of personal requirements, expectations, and desires (RED). These RED factors meld into our interaction position of what's needed, anticipated, and preferred.[16]

Epistemological assumptions

[edit]

Reciprocity: A strong human tendency to respond to another's action with similar behavior. EVT assumes there is one truth. This truth is that there are norms for all communication activities and if these norms are violated, there will be specific, predictable outcomes.EVT does not fully account for the overwhelming prevalence of reciprocity that has been found in interpersonal interactions. Second, it is silent on whether communicator valence supersedes behavior valence or vice versa when the two are incongruent,such as when a disliked partner engages in a positive violation.[17]

Axiological assumptions

[edit]

This theory seeks to be value-neutral because the study was done empirically and seeks to objectively describe how humans react when their expectations are violated (Burgoon, 1978).

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d e f M. Dainton (2010). Applying Communication Theory for Professional Life: A Practical Introduction (2 ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. pp. 48–49. ISBN 978-1412976916. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ a b Burgoon, J. K. (1878). "A Communication Model of Personal Space Violations: Explication and an Initial Test". Human Communication Research. 4 (2): 130-131. Retrieved 14 March 2014.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k E. Griffin (2012). "Chapter 7: Expectancy Violations Theory". A First Look at Communication Theory (8 ed.). The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. pp. 84–92. ISBN 978-0-07-353430-5.
  4. ^ a b c d e Hall, E. T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. United States of America: Anchor Books. p. 113-125. ISBN 978-0385084765.
  5. ^ Altman, I. (1975). Environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, and crowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
  6. ^ M. L. Knapp (2005). "The Communication Environment". Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction (6th ed.). Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc. p. 124. ISBN 978-0534625634. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ a b c M. L. Houser (2005). "Are We Violating Their Expectations? Instructor Communication Expectations of Traditional and Nontraditional Students". Communication Quarterly. 53 (2). Taylor & Francis Online: 217–218. doi:10.1080/01463370500090332. Retrieved 19 March 2014.
  8. ^ a b c Burgoon, Judee K.; Jones, Stephen B. (1976). "Toward a Theory of Personal Space Expectations and Their Violations". Human Communication Research. 2 (2): 131–146. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1976.tb00706.x.
  9. ^ a b c L. K. Guerrero (2011). "Making Sense of Our World". Close Encounters: Communication in Relationships (3rd ed.). United States of America: Sage Publications, Inc. p. 91. ISBN 978-1-4129-7737-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  10. ^ West, R. L. (2007). Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application (3rd ed.). The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. p. 188. ISBN 9780073135618. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  11. ^ Le Poire B. A. & Burgoon J. K. (1996). Usefulness of Differentiating Arousal Responses within Communication Theories: Orienting Responses or Defensive Arousal within Nonverbal Theories of Expectancy Violation. Communication Monographs, Volume 63, September 1996
  12. ^ a b Afifi, W. A., & Metts, S. (1998). Characteristics and Consequences of Expectation Violations in Close Relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 365-392.
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference Houser, 2005 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ Burgoon, J. K., Stern L. A., & Dillman, L. (1995). Interpersonal adaptation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  15. ^ Burgoon 2006
  16. ^ White, C. and Burgoon, J. (2001), Adaptation and communicative design.Human Communication Research, 27: 9–37.
  17. ^ GUERRERO, L. K. and BURGOON, J. K. (1996), Attachment Styles and Reactions to Nonverbal Involvement Change in Romantic Dyads Patterns of Reciprocity and Compensation. Human Communication Research, 22: 335–370.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:DanielleForrester1991/sandbox&oldid=1168400640"