Expectancy Violations Theory
There was a time when my mother told me to buy a bottle of oil in a Sari-sari Store. When I reached its shed in front a wide window, I saw several people chatting about their lives (a.k.a. “mga tambay”), and sitting on the benches of both sides of the store. The time I watched them doing those things, there was suddenly a loud clamor of a small girl who said “Palit ko’g Surf te, ug kani o…” and I was totally surprised of her abrupt appearance before me. I should have been the one being entertained by the vendor and just as the child stole that chance, I merely could do nothing but to wait and move quite inches away from her. Now, it is my turn. All exchanges happened. Then I was to go home.
As I made my way amidst the crowded place, I observed several things around which may be explained by a particular theory. There were groups of people there waiting for their turn to buy, either staying away from the chatting “tambays” or interrupted by them or just simply leaving behind like me. I know this phenomenon always occur not only on Sari-sari Stores but also to many crowded places. This environment is indeed a very good space for observations in communication.
My story can be best explained by a theory we call Expectancy Violations Theory which occurs in different places. These places, for instance, are frequently those with plenty of people like the doorways of a mall, elevators, waiting sheds, busy escalators, marketplaces and my example, in the Sari-sari Stores. This theory suggests that people maintain expectations about the nonverbal behavior of others although the way it is viewed or interpreted may vary on how favorably the “violator” is recognized (Burgoon, 1978). In my example, I was not expecting that a small girl can overtake my expectation to come first on the line and from that reason; I can interpret her action as a negative violation valence. Furthermore, for some other views or reasons, violation valence can also be positively interpreted especially if the violator is someone acceptable to be considered (physical, socioeconomic factors, etc).
Expectancy Violations Theory also evokes a study which mainly focuses on how a person uses his/her space, ‘proxemics.’ In our activity last Thursday, we considered the ‘elevator’ as our basis in observing social behavior. Anyone who examines such phenomenon in this particular place might say that people have their own capacity on maintaining their own zones privately. In our study, we found out that people have their preferred distances which limit to their space with others such as the intimate, personal, social and public distances. Intimate distances fall to the study of 0-18 inches gap and include behaviors that range from touch, to being able to observe a person’s facial characteristics (Hall, 1966). Personal distances ranging from 18 inches to 4 feet and encompassing a distance from holding hands to keeping someone at arm’s length (Hall, 1966). Social distances has a span of 4 to 12 feet to which a person can perceive skin and hair texture (Hall, 1966). And public distances encompassing 12 feet and beyond occurs mostly on a classroom setting.
In my encounter on a small girl who overtook me once in a Sari-sari Stores falls in the study ‘territoriality’ or the person’s ownership of an area or object. This topic has actually three types: primary- signals an individual’s exclusive domain; secondary- signal some sort of affiliation to an area or object and public- which are areas open to all people (Altman, 1975). My territory was occupied and thus negatively violated from that instant.
Like most other theories, Expectancy Violation Theory is an important aspect in observing how communication is worked. And whenever someday you might forget this theory, just recall every word that I wrote and the experience I encountered because like people who maintain their zones or spaces, the oil also knows how to evade itself from mixing with water.
As I made my way amidst the crowded place, I observed several things around which may be explained by a particular theory. There were groups of people there waiting for their turn to buy, either staying away from the chatting “tambays” or interrupted by them or just simply leaving behind like me. I know this phenomenon always occur not only on Sari-sari Stores but also to many crowded places. This environment is indeed a very good space for observations in communication.
My story can be best explained by a theory we call Expectancy Violations Theory which occurs in different places. These places, for instance, are frequently those with plenty of people like the doorways of a mall, elevators, waiting sheds, busy escalators, marketplaces and my example, in the Sari-sari Stores. This theory suggests that people maintain expectations about the nonverbal behavior of others although the way it is viewed or interpreted may vary on how favorably the “violator” is recognized (Burgoon, 1978). In my example, I was not expecting that a small girl can overtake my expectation to come first on the line and from that reason; I can interpret her action as a negative violation valence. Furthermore, for some other views or reasons, violation valence can also be positively interpreted especially if the violator is someone acceptable to be considered (physical, socioeconomic factors, etc).
Expectancy Violations Theory also evokes a study which mainly focuses on how a person uses his/her space, ‘proxemics.’ In our activity last Thursday, we considered the ‘elevator’ as our basis in observing social behavior. Anyone who examines such phenomenon in this particular place might say that people have their own capacity on maintaining their own zones privately. In our study, we found out that people have their preferred distances which limit to their space with others such as the intimate, personal, social and public distances. Intimate distances fall to the study of 0-18 inches gap and include behaviors that range from touch, to being able to observe a person’s facial characteristics (Hall, 1966). Personal distances ranging from 18 inches to 4 feet and encompassing a distance from holding hands to keeping someone at arm’s length (Hall, 1966). Social distances has a span of 4 to 12 feet to which a person can perceive skin and hair texture (Hall, 1966). And public distances encompassing 12 feet and beyond occurs mostly on a classroom setting.
In my encounter on a small girl who overtook me once in a Sari-sari Stores falls in the study ‘territoriality’ or the person’s ownership of an area or object. This topic has actually three types: primary- signals an individual’s exclusive domain; secondary- signal some sort of affiliation to an area or object and public- which are areas open to all people (Altman, 1975). My territory was occupied and thus negatively violated from that instant.
Like most other theories, Expectancy Violation Theory is an important aspect in observing how communication is worked. And whenever someday you might forget this theory, just recall every word that I wrote and the experience I encountered because like people who maintain their zones or spaces, the oil also knows how to evade itself from mixing with water.
No comments:
Post a Comment