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...

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.