Expectancy Violations Theory - Core Concepts of Expectancy Violations Theory

Core Concepts of Expectancy Violations Theory

First, expectancy refers to what an individual anticipates will happen in a given situation. Expectancy violations refer to the actions sufficiently discrepant from the expectancy to be noticeable and classified as outside the expectancy range. In psychology such behavior is frequently referred to as behavioral disconfirmation. Expectancy is similar to the idea of social norms and is based on three primary factors. According to the expectancy violation theory, three factors affect expectancies, communicator characteristics, relational characteristics and context. Communication characteristics refer to individual differences, including age, sex, ethnic background, and personality traits. For instance, you might expect an elderly woman to be more polite than an adolescent boy, or you might expect your extroverted friend to be outgoing at a party and your introverted friend to be quiet and reserved. Relational characteristics refer to factors as such as how close we are to someone, what type of relationship we share (platonic, romantic, business), and what types of experiences we have shared together. Hearing “I love you” from a romantic partner might be an expected behavior, but hearing the same words from a casual acquaintanceship might be highly unexpected. Similarly, certain types of intimate touch are usually expected in romantic relationships but not platonic ones. Finally, context includes both the social situation and cultural influences. Clearly there are different behavioral expectations depending on the situation. For example, if you are in church attending a funeral, you expect people to act differently than if you were at the same church attending a wedding. Behavioral expectations may also shift depending on whether you are at work or out for a night on the town with friends. Similarly expectations differ based on culture. For example, you may expect someone to greet you by kissing your face three times on alternating cheeks if you are in parts of Europe, but not if you are in the United States.

By examining the context, relationship, and communicator’s characteristics, individuals arrive at a certain expectation for how a given person should and will likely behave. Changing even one of these expectancy variables might lead to a different expectation. Once you have determined, however, that someone’s behavior was, in fact, a breach of expectation, you then judge the behavior in question. This breach is known as the violation valence—the positive or negative evaluation you make about a behavior that you did not anticipate. Importantly, not all violations are evaluated negatively. Very often a person behaves in a way that you might not have expected, but this surprising behavior is viewed positively. For example, a normally cantankerous colleague brings coffee and bagels to the Monday morning staff meeting or the habitually shy intern actually makes eye contact with you and asks for your opinion on a new project. The EVT model predicts that negative and positive violations of expectations will function differently. Specifically, behavior that unexpectedly violates a norm (i.e., a negative violation) should berated as more deceptive than expected violations of a norm (i.e., a negative confirmation), while normative but unexpected behavior (i.e., appositive violation) should be rated as less deceptive than expected normative behavior (i.e., a positive confirmation). The third element that must be addressed before predicting reciprocation or compensation involves assessing the person whose behavior is in question.

Similar to the violation valence, the communicator reward valence is an evaluation you make about the person who committed the violation. Specifically, does this person have the ability to reward (or punish) you in the future? If so, then the person has a positive reward valence. Rewards simply refer to this person’s ability to provide you with something you want or need. Similarly, punishment refers to the person’s ability to thwart your desires. A boss, a spouse, or a client might also be examples of someone whom you perceive to have such reward–punishment power. Again, however, it is possible for someone with a positive reward valence to engage in a negative violation. A study show that the positive expectancy condition as high involvement does not necessarily still received higher ratings of desire for future interaction than did low involvement. The difference between the negative violation and the negative confirmation do not appear significant. Disconfirmations tend to intensify the outcomes,especially in the positive violation condition (negative expectancy/high involvement).