Efficacy Violation Theory Of Expectations In Interpersonal Communication

In this article Burgoon et al. use Expectancy Violation Theory to examine how different forms of interfaces that confirm or violate user expectations affect the communication process, social judgments, ability to influence, and accuracy to recall associated with HtEAC (communication with a computer generated person). Burgoon et al. explain that EVT begins by identifying the pervasiveness and potency of expectations during interpersonal communication. Expectations come from characteristics of actors, their relationship to one another, and the context in which their communication takes place. Moreover, in EVT, the valence construct is attached to both the violator and the violator's communication. Violations cause a shift in attention by intensifying
the salience of the violation and by prompting more fine-grained observations of the violator. EVT predicts that when a target positively evaluates a violation, the task-related outcomes will improve relative to expectancy confirmations. Violators with positively valenced violations receive a boost in credibility and attraction and are perceived as more rewarding; thus, their recommendations are more likely to be followed.
Burgoon et al., conduct this experiment by having participants interact with an embodied agent or with a human partner to solve a task. Participants are given a number of different scenarios and the researchers examine whether or not EAs sway their response. The results are then viewed and organized into charts for easier examination, which makes this experiment quantitative. EVT is used to explain the HtEAC process and how people trust EAs opinion more than a human being's opinion. To do this, they built on EVT to test a theoretical model that explains how met and unmet expectations affect communication processes, social judgments, accuracy of call, and influence. The participant’s expectations and evaluations of the interactions are classified as one of four EVT conditions: positive expectancy confirmations, positive violations, negative confirmations, or negative violations. Furthermore, violation valence, positive violation, and negative violation are important EVT concepts used in this study. Violation valence concerns how the communication itself is regarded. When a violation is committed, EVT posits the existence of a dual-appraisal process consisting of interpretations and evaluations of the communication act itself. Positive violations are acts or characteristics of the EA that are unexpected but evaluated more favorably than conforming to expectations by the human partner. Negative violations of expectations are unexpected acts or characteristics that are valenced more unfavorably than negatively valenced, expected ones.
The major voices found in this body of work are Lowry, P.
B. and Floyd, K. Additionally, major principles and findings of EVT in HtHAC are that (1) people have expectations, (2) people assign positive and negative valence to a violation of expectation, (3) violating expectations that are positively valenced increases positive communication results more than confirming expectations, (4) expectancy violations that are negatively valenced decreases communication results, and (5) the effects of expectation and valence (EVT conditions) on social judgment, communication quality, and task performance have been validated. After conducting their study, Burgoon et al. found that their results suggest that when the EA deviates from expectations, effects on the HtEAC process and related outcomes can be more pronounced. EAs evaluated as positive violations had more favorable effects on task attractiveness than other human or EA interaction partners. As predicted by EVT, EA interactions that were positively evaluated elicited more perceived connectedness, feelings of being understood/receptivity, and dependability than those EA interactions evaluated negatively. However, negative violations did not produce worse outcomes than negative confirmations. EVT offers a useful lens for examining the communication effects of HtEAC and points to benefits of creating EAs that evoke positive violations of expectancy. Despite their exceptional results, they admit that a limitation or possible downside to their study is that they had a small population size, therefore, more experiments similar to this should be conducted to either confirm or deny their
results.