Expectancy Violations Theory
Similar to Gottman’s theory, EVT predicts that people can break negative cycles of conflict communication by engaging in positive, compensatory behavior in response to a partner’s hostility.
Thus, EVT provides a framework for explaining sequences of communicative behavior, including reciprocity and compensation, which occur in response to unexpected events that can lead to or occur during conflict. According to Burgoon’s EVT (Burgoon & Hale, 1988; Burgoon, Stern, & Dillman, 1995), people hold both predictive and prescriptive expectancies for people’s behavior. Predictive expectancies involve knowing how a person tends to act in a particular situation. For instance, based on his past behavior, Kate might expect Kevin to kiss her good-bye as they both depart for work in the morning. Prescriptive expectancies, on the other hand, involve expecting someone to conform to general rules of social appropriateness. So, once at work, Kate might expect to shake hands with a new business associate when meeting her for the first time.According to Burgoon’s (1983, 1993) theory, expectations help regulate both emotion and behavior. When someone’s behavior is perceived to exceed expectations, positive emotions and reciprocal behavior likely follow (e.g., Kevin gives Kate an especially nice kiss; she feels positive affect and hugs him longer than usual). In contrast, when someone’s behavior is perceived to fall short of expectations, negative emotions likely follow (e.g., Kate’s new coworker ignores her extended hand). In some cases, people compensate in response to negative expectancy violations; in other cases, they reciprocate and a cycle of negative behavior ensues.
Whether people compensate or reciprocate depends in part on the reward value of the person who committed the expectancy violation (e.g., how attractive or how high or low in status).
If the person is unrewarding, then her or his negative behavior will likely be reciprocated (e.g., Kate’s new coworker is an intern, so she frowns and looks away when her extended hand is ignored). If the person is highly rewarding, then her or his negative behavior will likely be compensated, at least initially (e.g., Kate’s new coworker is of high status, so she smiles despite feeling snubbed when her attempt to shake hands fails). However, if the rewarding person persists in exhibiting negative behavior, the receiver is likely to experience increased negative affect and eventually reciprocate.EVT is applicable to conflict situations. Afifi and Metts (1998) had people recall something a friend or romantic partner did that violated their expectations. Positive expectancy violations included relationship escalation (e.g., saying “I love you”), acts of devotion (e.g., helping the partner through a crisis), and gestures of inclusion (e.g., extending an invitation to meet one’s family). Negative expectancy violations included criticism or accusations (e.g., insulting someone), relationship de-escalation (e.g., spending less time together), transgressions (e.g., being unfaithful or deceitful), and acts of disregard (e.g., forgetting an important occasion). Obviously, these negative expectancy violations can also lead to conflict as well as emotions such as anger and guilt.
EVT has also been applied to the study of relational transgressions and hurtful events. Drawing from EVT, Bachman and Guerrero (2006a) predicted that reward value and negative valence (i.e., the degree to which the event negatively violated expectancies) would associate with communicative responses to hurtful events. They found that people were most likely to use integrative communication (i.e., problem solving) when the relationship was rewarding and the event constituted a relatively mild transgression. Conversely, when people rated their relationships as unrewarding prior to the hurtful event, they tended to report using de-escalation, distributive communication (e.g., yelling, making accusatory statements), and vengeful behavior.
When people perceived the hurtful event as a severe relational transgression, they were more likely to report using de-escalation, distributive communication, and active distancing (e.g., ignoring or stonewalling their partner). Perhaps surprisingly, Bachman and Guerrero (2006a) also found that people reported a tendency toward using constructive rather than destructive responses when they were deeply hurt by the partner’s actions. Similarly, Lukasik (2001) found that adolescents who were deeply hurt by something a friend said or did during conflict were more likely to forgive the friend. These findings may indicate that people tend to be the most hurt when someone they care about makes cruel remarks or engages in relational transgressions toward them; because they care about the errant partner, they may attempt to use constructive rather than destructive communication. Such an explanation is consistent with principles from EVT, which suggest that people are more likely to respond to negative expectancy violations positively when the violator is rewarding.Despite this tendency, the predominant pattern is to reciprocate negative behavior (Burgoon et al., 1995). This may be because negative emotions surface when someone fails to meet expectations. So if Kevin expects Kate to help entertain his friends when they come over to watch football, he will likely become angry if she goes upstairs and ignores them. In such a case, the same behavior that produces an expectancy violation also produces an aversive emotional response, which in turn can lead to conflict and negative behavior, such as defensiveness or accusations. Rusbult, Drigotas, and Verette (1994) claimed that it is very difficult for people to accommodate their partners and break negative cycles of behavior when they are experiencing negative emotion.
Of course, within the context of conflict interaction, the threshold for what counts as an expectancy violation may shift. Angry words and harsh vocal tones may be expected during conflict, even though they are unexpected in other contexts. For couples in distressed relationships, it may become increasingly difficult to violate one another’s expectations during the course of a conflict because negative spirals of behavior are expected.
During conflict, behaviors such as speaking in a neutral tone, giving the partner a compliment, or failing to respond to a personal insult may sometime violate expectations more than negative behaviors. Thus, a starting point for research on conflict from an EVT framework may be to determine what behaviors typically constitute positive and negative violations during conflict. Behaviors that are perceived to violate expectations positively may help stop destructive cycles of communication.The extent to which a behavior is perceived to be an expectancy violation also helps predict whether or not forgiveness is forthcoming. Guerrero and Bachman (2010) used principles from EVT and Rusbult’s (1983) investment model (IM) to predict forgiveness and forgiving communication following relational transgressions in dating relationships. Individuals were surveyed before and after a relational transgression occurred. Victims were likely to report granting forgiveness if they had previously rated their relationship as rewarding (among other characteristics) and currently perceived the transgression to be relatively mild. Variables from EVT and the IM also predicted the types of forgiving communication that participants reported using (if any). For example, conditional forgiveness (e.g., forgiveness that is contingent on meeting demands) was likely when participants reported having a rewarding relationship, having few good alternatives outside their current relationship, and evaluating the transgression as relatively severe. These individuals likely feel torn regarding whether or not to forgive their partner—on the one hand the transgression was severe, but on the other hand the relationship was previously rewarding and might therefore be worth saving. Having a rewarding, high-quality relationship was also associated positively with discussing the transgression and granting forgiveness explicitly. The more negative the expectancy violation was, the less likely victims were to report showing forgiveness through nonverbal displays (e.g., hugging), discussion, or minimization (e.g., saying that it’s “no big deal”).
Thus, this study demonstrates that EVT variables are not only associated with emotions and conflict behavior but also with forgiveness, which can be an important part of reconciliation during or after a conflict episode.Thus far, research suggests that EVT is a helpful framework for understanding communication related to relational transgressions and forgiveness. This work has several implications for couples who are coping with conflict as discussed next.
1. Couples should negotiate rules and expectations for behavior in their relationships. Conflict often arises when partners have different expectations for behavior, so reaching a consensus regarding standards
for behavior can help couples avoid conflict and provide a starting point for negotiation when conflict does occur. For example, Kate and Kevin may need to establish rules regarding household chores and calling when one is going to be late.
2. Offenders should realize that the more a transgression violates expectations, the more work they will need to do to try to make amends. Offenders should also understand that if a transgression constitutes a particularly severe violation of expectancies, forgiveness may never be forthcoming.
3. Individuals with low reward value (i.e., those who are considered less socially or physically attractive) should be especially careful not to violate expectations during conflict (or by engaging in a relational transgression) since they will be judged more harshly than individuals with high reward value.
4. Finally, hurt feelings are likely to be expressed during conflict when relational transgressions have occurred. Hurt feelings may reflect not only the severity of the transgression but also the closeness of a relationship, since individuals tend to be more hurt when the transgressor is someone they care about. Thus, hurt individuals may sometimes feel competing impulses— on the one hand they want to disconnect from the person who hurt them, but on the other hand they want to stay close.
The hurt individual may need time to sort through these conflicting feelings, and the offending individual may need to give the hurt person time to do so.Critical Issues for Future Research
Thus far, scholars have spent considerable energy studying both conflict and emotion, but with the exception of Gottman’s cascade model, and to a lesser extent, EVT, little work has directly investigated the links between communication and emotion within situations involving relational conflict. Retzinger (1991) argued that specifying the presence or absence of emotions such as contempt and anger may help “untangle the knot of protracted conflict” and that “the communicative aspects of emotional states need to be assessed as they occur in interaction” (pp. 60-61), yet few investigations have examined moment-by-moment patterns of emotion in conflict. Jones and Bodtker (2001) also noted that the lack of attention given to emotion in research on conflict mediation is surprising. However, work related to the communication of hostile, vulnerable, flat, positive, selfconscious, and fearful emotions, along with the two theories discussed herein, provide a foundation for examining the role emotion plays in conflict. Several issues stand out as candidates for future research on each of the six conflict-related emotions discussed in this chapter, as described next. More research is also needed on culture as a possible moderator of the associations between emotion and conflict behavior.