Expectancy Violations Theory and Social Penetration Theory

 1. Explain whether you agree or disagree with the statement, “A violation can never be positive.” Use a real-life example to support your answer.

Last semester, I started playing Dungeons & Dragons with a new group of people, one of them I had not met before then. We all played together well, it was easy to jump back and forth and continue the game-play in an interesting way. But, recently, the player that I have known for the shortest amount of time gave me a gift. This violated my expectations in a positive way. Thus, I disagree with the statement “a violation can never be positive.” 

According to Em Griffin, “violation valence refers to the positive or negative value we place on a specific unexpected behavior” (Griffin, p. 85). My expectation was to not receive a gift (it wasn’t even a thought in my head), mainly because we had not known each other for that long, and we only ever played D&D together. But when she gave me the gift, my expectations were violated in a positive way, because who doesn’t love getting gifts?

The Gift

2. Two crucial variables in Burgoon's expectancy violations theory are the violation valence and the communicator reward valence. What’s the difference between these two variables? Which is more important? Use a real-life example to support your answer.

Burgoon’s expectancy violations theory takes a socio-psychological perspective into people’s expectations and the ways that they are violated, either positively or negatively (Griffin, 2019). Within this, there are two variables: violation valence and communicator reward valence. Violation valence is the “positive or negative value we place on the unexpected behavior,” and communicator reward valence is “the sum of the positive and negative attributes the person brings to the encounter plus the potential he or she has to reward or punish in the future” (Griffin, 2019). 

When looking at which is more important, I believe that violation valence is more important. A negative violation can entirely ruin someone’s attitudes and beliefs of another person, whereas a positive violation can improve a relationship. For example, in my free time, I enjoy watching Twitch streamers. One of them, RanbooLive, has done various charity streams, where he plays a variety of video games for hours, and all the money he makes from that stream (either through people subscribing to him, donating to him, etc.) goes to charity. In one of his streams, he raised and donated over $300,000 — all of it going to the Trevor Project, a nonprofit organization that helps prevent suicide in LGBTQ+ youth. Though I am only a viewer, Ranboo doing this subathon made me think higher of him, as he helped donate so much money to an organization that I admire and hold dear. This was also a violation of my expectations — as I never expected him to donate that much money ever — but it was positive because it positively impacted how I think about him. 

A link to the tweet he made about the stream:
https://twitter.com/Ranboosaysstuff/status/1429499107735863297?s=20&t=K6-rHfmOYXPPZxhYCfDj-A

4. In your opinion, when is it appropriate and when is it inappropriate to violate expectations? How might the violation influence the outcomes of SPT?

Violating expectations is something that is natural in every human interaction. A person doesn’t know another person completely, so anything they do could violate an expectation, even if you have known that person for a long time. But, there are appropriate and inappropriate times to violate expectations. For example, in the textbook, the author uses a scenario wherein two new roommates are meeting for the first time, and one of them wants to express how much he misses his girlfriend. But, as they first met, he doesn’t want to overstep and tell too much about himself at one time. This is an example of an inappropriate time to violate expectations — during a first meeting, you won’t typically hear about the other person’s emotions, especially negative ones. An inappropriate time to violate expectations can also influence the Social Penetration Theory, or SPT. SPT is “the process of developing deeper intimacy with another person through mutual self-disclosure and other forms of vulnerability,” which is usually a bit of a longer process (Griffin, p. 94). An inappropriate violation can halt that process, either slowing it down or stopping it completely, thus making the intimacy and relationship with another person not good, or nonexistent. 

However, there are appropriate times to violate expectations, that can and will help the SPT process. In the movie “Step Brothers,” for example, the two step brothers Brennan and Dale hate each other at first: they can’t stand that they’re brothers. But then, they start to violate each other's expectations — they find out they have different things in common through these violations — and the SPT process really takes off and they grow closer. This is an example of an appropriate time to violate expectations — they were step brothers who were forced to interact, and they both violated each other's expectations, which led to them having a positive relationship. 

Works Cited:

Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2019). Chapter 7: Expectancy Violations Theory and Chapter 8: Social Penetration Theory. In A first look at communication theory (10th ed., pp. 79–95). essay, McGraw-Hill Education.

McKay, A. (Director). (2008). Step Brothers [Film]. Columbia Pictures.