Expectancy violations theory applied to a shy student

Expectancy Violations Analysis

Identification

At school there is a young man named G, whom I would describe as a low reward person. He can be an affable and delightful person to talk to, but there is no guarantee that on every occasion he will be so. Sometimes he can appear distracted, uninterested, bored, and even sullen and uncommunicative. He is not particularly demonstrative, although around certain individuals of an easy-going, hearty manner who express their love for him, he lightens up considerably and shows a good deal more animation than in situations when no such persons are around. He also has a slight stammer that causes him to tend toward shyness; however, around lively characters for whom he has a liking, he tends to drop his guard and communicate more openly and freely. Thus, G shows himself to be affected by persons of a specific charming character by giving positive feedback. According to Burgoon and Hale, there may be a number of factors other than the nonverbal that play into G's reward valence. However, for the purposes of this paper, I will test Expectancy Violations Theory with G. By violating his nonverbal expectations.

I have chosen G. specifically for his shyness. My relationship with him is a kind of mentor-student relationship. While G. has demonstrated his intellectual abilities many times, there is the awareness that, since I am older and more experienced in the world, I maintain a position of authority above and beyond that of G's. What I would like this experiment to show me is whether G. is responsive to nonverbal violations in a positive way with me as with persons of his own age and liking. There exists a connection between G. And me; however, it is one of mutual respect and not one of what might be called camaraderie. Since G. recognizes me more as a tutor than a confidant or friend, this experiment will likely test his knowledge of me by crossing the boundaries of our relationship. By violating his nonverbal expectations in the direction of camaraderie, I expect G. To display his natural shyness and display signs of negative reward valence.

Analysis of Expectancy Violation

Either, a) G. was happy to learn that our encounter had been nothing more than a scientific experiment, or b) he was happy that the boundaries of our relationship had for a moment been expanded in the direction of camaraderie. Another possibility may be that G. was merely happy to have been the test subject of my Expectancy Violation Analysis -- which, of course, would indicate that he was pleased to be so singled out among many; that, or perhaps the strangeness of the incidence impressed him: he is one, after all, who takes pleasure in the random occurrences of the day.

The Behavior Valence which G. initially ascribed to my behavior appeared to be slightly negative -- but perhaps there was also something positive in it as well. This was difficult to discern, for G. did two things: first, he froze as though disliking of our close contact; then, he relaxed as though attempting to familiarize himself with such behavior -- or at least not be so physically moved by it. Ultimately, the behavior valence ascribed to my behavior was ambiguous for, as my intentions were unclear to G, so was the way in which he should respond -- thus, he ascribed both a positive and negative behavior valence to my actions. However, once the intention of my contact was revealed, G showed physically that he was pleased; with a verbal accounting of myself, G ascribed a positive behavior valence.

The Communicator Reward Valence which G. ascribed to my behavior was, as expected, low. It was only moderately positive, if at all, initially -- and, overall, before my intentions were revealed, it was ambiguous at best. G already had a conception of our relationship, and my crossing of the boundaries of that mentor-student relationship into a friend-friend relationship (as demonstrated by my embracing him), confused him momentarily. However, G appeared to trust me enough to not lot his emotions get the upper hand, and he calmed himself and was able to communicate to me that, while the situation had become awkward, he was not unable to deal with it. Did the benefits of my diminishment of space outweigh the costs? I would answer that yes they did -- but only after I explained my actions verbally to G. Had I not done so, the manner in which our encounter took place would have been construed as odd and unaccountable.

The Behavior Valence and the Communicator Reward Valence together help show the range of G's response to my expectancy-violating behavior. However, as Burgoon and Hale state, many factors other than nonverbal expectancy violation may have contributed to G's response to my actions. For example, setting may have easily been a factor: libraries are for study and work, not for jocular embraces and easy-going times; secondly, had his friends been around and I included in their circle, such diminishment of space and embracing may have been deemed appropriate if the circumstances and the timing were right -- then again, perhaps not; thirdly, G having the type of personality he has, there is no guarantee that even someone with whom he desires to be on a more intimate footing would have received an overall positive valence from G. G may insist upon presenting himself ambiguously in all situations so as to resist being pegged by any one person. After all, I have noticed on more than one occasion that even with the very friends he chooses to open up around, there have been moments when, embraced, he has responded in the exact same manner as he did with me. Therefore, as Burgoon and Hale assert, the results of this experiment are inconclusive and ambiguous; other factors must be taken into consideration.

In conclusion, this experiment revealed the necessity of more in depth analyses of communication, personality, setting, place, gender, role, etc. Nonverbal communication certainly has an effect on one's expectancy levels, but there appear to be more factors that weigh into the reaction process of one whose expectancies have been violated.