Table of Contents
The Core Definition and Mechanism
Expectancy Violations Theory (EVT) is a prominent framework within communication studies that seeks to explain how and why individuals react when their expectations regarding another person’s behavior are breached. At its core, EVT posits that communication is not merely an exchange of neutral information but often involves relational content that can be used to violate established norms, leading the recipient to perceive the interaction either positively or negatively. Initially focused on nonverbal communication, particularly spatial behavior, the theory has since expanded to encompass all forms of communication acts, providing a powerful lens for analyzing interpersonal dynamics.
The fundamental mechanism of EVT rests on the idea of expectancies, which are predictions or prescriptions about how people should behave in a given situation. These expectancies are primarily rooted in two areas: established social norms (what is generally considered appropriate) and the specific characteristics of the communicators involved (what is expected based on their relationship, history, and traits). When a violation occurs, it triggers a state of heightened awareness or arousal in the recipient, compelling them to shift their attention away from the message content and toward the violator and the context of the violation itself.
Crucially, the outcome of the violation is not determined by the behavior alone, but by a series of subsequent cognitive appraisals. The theory predicts that this appraisal process will determine the violation valence—the positive or negative value assigned to the unexpected act. Generally, a positive violation (a behavior that is unexpectedly favorable) tends to increase the attraction and favorable perception of the violator, whereas a negative violation (a behavior that is unexpectedly unfavorable) decreases the violator’s appeal and can strain the relationship.
Historical Development and Origin
Expectancy Violations Theory was first developed by communication scholar Judee K. Burgoon in the mid-1970s. The theory emerged from earlier research in Uncertainty Reduction research, which noted that unexpected behavior causes psychological discomfort and drives individuals to seek explanations in order to better predict future interactions. Burgoon recognized a gap in academic understanding regarding the active use of personal space as a form of communication, rather than merely a static social requirement.
Initially, the theory was termed the Nonverbal Expectancy Violations Model and focused specifically on two key nonverbal components: proxemics, which involves the use of space between individuals and the maintenance of ‘proper’ distances within specific contexts, and kinesics, which relates to body movements and gestures. Burgoon’s early work sought to move beyond the traditional view that any breach of personal space was inherently negative. Instead, she introduced the concept that the interpretation of a space violation depended heavily on the relationship between the interactants and the perceived reward value of the person committing the violation.
As the theory matured, its scope broadened significantly. It was successfully applied to other forms of nonverbal behavior and eventually to verbal acts and relational dynamics, leading to its current, more encompassing name: Expectancy Violations Theory (EVT). Considered a theory of discourse and interaction processes, EVT later served as the foundation for Burgoon and her colleagues’ subsequent work, which resulted in the development of Interaction Adaptation Theory (IAT), a more comprehensive model explaining how individuals adjust their communication behaviors during interpersonal interactions.
Core Theoretical Assumptions and Expectancies
EVT is predicated on several primary assumptions that govern how individuals interact and assess unexpected behavior. Firstly, drawing influence from Social Exchange Theory, EVT assumes that people are inherently motivated to seek rewards from others and avoid punitive or costly interactions. Secondly, the theory posits that behavioral violations are inherently distracting and arousing, which automatically directs the receiver’s attention toward the violator’s characteristics and the underlying nature of the relationship. Thirdly, the ultimate evaluation of the violation is contingent upon both the specific nature of the behavior itself and the perceived rewardingness or valence of the actor.
According to EVT, expectancies are categorized into two distinct types. Predictive expectancies inform people about what they can anticipate based on what has typically occurred in a particular environment or relationship history. These are based on established patterns; for instance, a coworker always taking the last cup of coffee in the breakroom establishes a predictive expectancy. Prescriptive expectancies, conversely, are based on general social norms, dictating what behavior is deemed appropriate or required by societal conventions, such as the expectation that one should maintain eye contact during a serious conversation.
These expectancies are influenced by three broad sets of variables. Communicator characteristics include the traits of those involved, such as their age, sex, culture, status, and personality. Relational characteristics encompass the history, familiarity, and level of liking between the interactants. Finally, the Context involves both the environment (e.g., amount of available space, formality of the setting) and the interaction variables (e.g., social norms specific to the situation, the purpose of the meeting). All these factors converge to establish the baseline against which any subsequent behavior is measured.
The Role of Violation Valence
A key concept central to the predictive power of EVT is violation valence. This term refers to the positive or negative association the receiver places on the unexpected behavior. The receiver’s reaction to an expectancy violation is highly dependent on two interacting conditions: the intrinsic interpretation of the behavior (is the act itself good or bad?) and the communicator reward valence, which is the perceived ability of the violator to provide resources or rewards in the present or future.
The communicator reward valence is evaluated through numerous categories, including physical attractiveness, prestige, wealth, social status, and the strength of the associated relationship. For example, if a well-respected, physically appealing supervisor unexpectedly gives an employee a warm, intimate hug (a violation of professional space norms), the high reward value of the supervisor might lead the employee to assign a positive valence to the violation, interpreting it as a sign of special favor or closeness. Conversely, if a person perceived as having low social status or being generally unpleasant commits the same violation, the low reward value would likely lead to a strongly negative valence and a feeling of discomfort or offense.
If the violating behavior is clearly positive (e.g., an unexpected compliment or gift) or clearly negative (e.g., an insult or physical threat), the valence is usually straightforward. However, when the behavior is ambiguous—a sudden silence, an intense stare, or a slight physical touch—the communicator reward valence becomes the decisive factor in determining whether the outcome is favorable or unfavorable for the violator.
Practical Application and Real-World Examples
To illustrate the application of EVT, consider a common scenario involving a close personal relationship and a predictive expectancy. A married couple has an established evening routine where, following dinner, the husband reliably washes the dishes while the wife handles the laundry. This routine establishes a strong predictive expectancy for both partners.
One evening, the husband finishes dinner and immediately retreats to the living room, ignoring the dirty dishes entirely. This unexpected behavior constitutes an expectancy violation. The wife experiences immediate arousal and distraction, shifting her focus from her routine task to appraising the husband’s behavior. The subsequent steps determine the outcome: First, she assesses the behavior itself (ignoring chores is mildly negative). Second, she assesses the communicator reward valence. If the husband has generally high reward value—he is typically thoughtful, loving, and reliable—she might assign a positive valence to the situation, perhaps believing he is extremely stressed from work or preparing a surprise, thus mitigating the negative behavior. Conversely, if the husband has low reward value due to recent conflicts or neglect, the violation will receive a negative valence, leading to resentment or confrontation.
For a prescriptive expectancy violation, consider a professional setting. If it is customary within an organization to greet new colleagues with a firm handshake (the social norm), but a new manager instead greets an employee with a kiss on the cheek, this constitutes a prescriptive discrepancy. The employee must immediately assess the manager’s status (high reward value) and the context (ambiguous behavior). If the manager is highly charismatic and powerful, the employee might assign a positive valence, interpreting the act as a sign of European familiarity or unique organizational culture. If the manager is known to be inappropriate, the violation receives a strongly negative valence, leading to feelings of apprehension or offense.
Common Expectancy Violations in Close Relationships
While EVT initially focused on nonverbal cues, researchers like Afifi and Metts (1998) cataloged the types of expectancy violations commonly found in close relationships, demonstrating the theory’s broad applicability to relational health and dynamics. These violations often carry significant weight because the history and high stakes of a close relationship intensify the cognitive appraisal process following a breach of expectation. They identified several key categories of relational violations:
- Relationship Intensification or Escalation: Actions that unexpectedly deepen commitment, such as an unprompted declaration of “I love you” early in dating.
- Relationship De-escalation: Actions that unexpectedly reduce commitment, such as spending significantly less time together or reducing physical intimacy.
- Relational Transgressions: Clear violations of the perceived rules of the relationship, including acts of deception, disloyalty, or infidelity.
- Acts of Devotion: Unexpected overtures that imply specialness or sacrifice, such as receiving flowers for no particular occasion or providing unexpected support during a time of need.
- Criticism or Accusation: Unexpectedly critical statements or accusations that challenge the receiver’s character or actions.
- Acts of Disregard: Actions that demonstrate the partner is unimportant or forgotten, such as forgetting a major anniversary.
- Gestures of Inclusion: Actions showing an unexpected interest in integrating the other person into one’s life, such as a sudden invitation to meet one’s family or disclosure of deep personal information.
- Uncharacteristic Relational Behavior: Unexpected actions inconsistent with the partner’s perception of the relationship, such as one member of a platonic friendship suddenly demanding a romantic relationship.
The study of these specific violations highlights that EVT is crucial for understanding how relational rules are negotiated and how partners manage the inherent uncertainty that arises when established patterns are broken.
Significance, Impact, and Connections to Related Theories
The significance of Expectancy Violations Theory to the field of psychology and communication lies in its shift in focus from viewing communication norms as static, prescriptive rules to seeing norm violations as dynamic, communicative acts that carry inherent meaning. Before EVT, many researchers assumed that any violation of a norm would invariably lead to negative outcomes. EVT challenged this by demonstrating that violations, particularly those committed by high-reward individuals, can be positive and even enhance relational outcomes.
In applied settings, EVT has found substantial use, particularly in strategic communications and marketing. The concept of Social Norms Marketing, for instance, operates directly on EVT principles. These campaigns intentionally present facts that vary sharply from the audience’s perceived norms (e.g., “Most students drink less than you think”) to create a positive expectancy violation, thereby encouraging behavioral change. Furthermore, the theory is essential in therapeutic contexts for understanding conflict resolution and boundary setting within families and couples.
EVT has strong conceptual roots and parallels with several other psychological frameworks. As noted, it borrows heavily from Uncertainty Reduction Theory regarding the arousal caused by unexpected behavior, and from Social Exchange Theory regarding the motivation to seek rewarding interactions. Two other theories share similar outlooks: Discrepancy-Arousal Theory (DAT) and Patterson’s Social Facilitation Model (SFM). While both DAT and SFM agree that deviations from expectations cause heightened physiological response, EVT distinguishes itself by focusing primarily on the subsequent cognitive appraisal and the attention shift of the receiver, suggesting that violations occur frequently and are not always as physiologically serious as other models might imply.
Criticism and Future Directions
Despite its widespread influence, Expectancy Violations Theory has faced several criticisms. One major critique concerns the initial scope of research, which was often narrow, tending to focus on highly consequential, negative acts that were clearly uncertainty-increasing. Critics argue that this limited focus failed to capture the full spectrum of violations that occur daily, many of which are minor, quickly resolved, and sometimes even uncertainty-reducing because they provide new information about the relationship or the context.
Another philosophical critique centers on the complexity of interpersonal interaction. Some critics argue that the sheer number of contingency conditions—including communicator characteristics, relational history, and context variables—makes the reliable prediction of behavioral outcomes based solely on violation valence virtually impossible in real-world situations. While the theory provides a strong framework for understanding the process of appraisal, the precise outcome remains challenging to forecast due to the subjective nature of the reward value assessment.
In response to these critiques and to further explore the dynamics of adaptation, Judee K. Burgoon developed the more comprehensive Interaction Adaptation Theory (IAT). IAT posits that individuals enter interactions with specific requirements (needs), expectations (what they predict will happen), and desires (what they wish would happen). This theory suggests that when faced with behavior that meets these needs, expectations, or desires, the response will be positive. If the behavior fails to meet these criteria, the individual can still respond positively or negatively, depending on the degree of the violation and the overall perceived valence of the relationship, demonstrating the continuous evolution of concepts stemming from the original EVT framework.