CHAPTER 5

EXPECTANCY VI ALAilON'S T I] EO RY
Outline
L Personal space expectations: conform or deviate?
A. Judee Burgoon defines personal space as the invisible, variable volume of space
surrounding an individual that defines that individual's preferred distance from
others,
1. The size and shape of our personal space depends upon cultural norms and
individual preferences.
2. Personal space is always a compromise between the conflicting approach-
avoidance needs that we as humans have for affiliation and privacy.
B. Edward Hall coined the term proxemics to refer to the study of people's use of space
as a special elaboration of culture.
1. He believed that most spatial interpretation is outside our awareness,
2. He believed that Americans have four proxemic zones.
.a, lntimate distance: 0 to 1B inches.
b, Personal distance: 1B inches to 4 feet.
c. Socialdistance: 4 to 1O feet.
d. Public distance: 1O feet to infinity.
3. He maintained that effective communicators adjust their nonverbal behavior to
conform to the communicative rules of their partners.
C. Burgoon suggests that, under some circumstances, violating social norms and
personal expectations is a superior strategy to conforrnity.

ll. An applied test of the original model.

A. According to Burgoon's early model, crossing over the "threat threshold" that forms
the boundary of the intimate distance causes physical and psychological discomfort.
B. Noticeable deviations from what we expect cause a heightened state of arousal and
spur us to review the nature of our relationship with a person.
C. A person with "punishing" power should observe proxemic conventions or stand
slightly farther away than expected.
D, An attractive communicator benefits from a close approach.
E. Burgoon's original theory was not supported by her research, but she has continued
to refine her approach to expectancy violations.

lll, A convoluted model becomes an elegant theory.

A. Burgoon dropped the concept ofthe threat threshold.
B. She has substituted "an orienting response" or a mental "alertness" for "arousal,"
C. Arousal is no longer a necessary link between expectancy violation and
communication outcomes such as attraction, credibility, persuasion, and
involvement, but rather a side effect of a partner's deviation.
D, To demonstrate her interest in a broad range of variables, she has dropped the
qua lifier "nonverba 1. "

63
lV. Core concepts of EVT (expectancy violations theory).
A. EVT offers a soft determinism rather than hard-core universal laws.
B. Burgoon does, however, hope to link surprising interpersonal behavior and
attraction, credibility, influence, and involvement.
C, Expectancy.
1. Expectancy is based on context, relationship, and communicator characteristics.
2. Burgoon believes that all cultures have a similar structure of expected
communication behavior, but that the context of those expectations differs.
D. Violation valence,
1. The violation valence is the positive or negative value we place on the
unexpected behavior, regardless of who does it.
2. lf the valence is negative, do less than expected.
3. lf the valence is positive, do more than expected.
4, Although the meanings of most violations can be determined from context, some
nonverbal expectancy violations are truly equivocal,
5. For equivocal violations, one must refer to the communicator reward valence,
E. Communicator reward valence.
1. The communicator reward valence is the sum of the positive and negative
attributes that the person brings to the encounter plus the potential he or she
has to reward or punish in the future.

V. Critique: a work in progress.

A. Burgoon concedes that we can't yet use EW to generate specific predictions
regarding touch outcomes and calls for further descriptive work before applying the
theory to any nonverbal behavior.
B. She is particularly troubled by two of EW's shortcomings.
1, EVT does not fully account for the overwhelming prevalence of reciprocity that
has been found in interpersonal interactions.
2. EVT does not indicate whether communicator valence or behavior valence
dominates when the two are incongruent.
C. Despite these problems, Burgoon's theory meets four of the five criteria for a good
scientific theory, and recent research suggests improvement in the fifth criterion,
prediction.

Key Names and Terms

Judee Burgoon
A theorist from the University of Arizona who developed expectancy violations theory.
Personal Space
The invisible, variable volume of space surrounding an individual that defines that
individual's preferred distance from others.
Edward Hall
An anthropologist from the lllinois lnstitute of Technology who coined the term
proxemics.
Proxemics
The study of people's use of space as a special elaboration of culture.

64
lntimate Distance
The American proxemic zone of O to 1B inches.
Personal Distance
The American proxemic zone of 1B inches to 4 feet.
SocialDistance
The American proxemic zone of 4 to ten feet,
Public Distance
The American proxemic zone of 10 feet to infinity.
Threat Threshald
An imaginary line that forms the boundary of the intimate distance. lnitially, Burgoon
believed that crossing the threat threshold causes physical and psychological
discomfort.
Expectancy
What people predict will happen, rather than nrhat they necessarily desire.
Viotation Valence
The perceived positive or negative value of a breach of expectations, regardless of who
the violator is.
C o m m u n ic ato r Rewa rd Va lence
The sum of the positive and negative attributes that the person brings to the encounter
plus the potential he or she has to reward or punish in the future.
Paul Mongeau
A communication researcher from Miami University whose research on dating
demonstrates expectancy violations theory's increased pred ictive power,

Principal Changes
The changes to this chapter are modest. Griffin includes recent scholarship
demonstrating the theory's improved predictive power, updates the Second Look section, and
clarifres the concept of valence.

Suggestions for Discussion

Closely following coordinated management of meaning-which disdains efforts to
isolate individual variables in the communication process-expectancy violations theory
provides an excellent opportunity to compare the characteristics of traditional empiricism with
thoroughgoing humanism. Whereas Burgoon's approach to communication is primarily
strategic, Pearce and Cronen view the process more broadly. emphasizing its power to
constitute or create social reality. Such comparison will give you a good chance to gauge your
students' understanding of Chapters 1 and 3. {Exercise #4 under Questrons to Sharpen Yaur
Focus constitutes a good vehicle for such discuss!on.)

Comparisons with symbolic interactionism (Cnapter 4) may also be fruitful. lt's

important to emphasize that Mead and followers were more interested in the ways in which
communication shapes the human psyche {its ontological character) than its use to enhance
one's strategic position. Whereas for Burgoon communication seems primarily instrumental in

65