Expectancy violations theory (EVT) is a theory of communication that analyzes how individuals respond to unanticipated violations of social norms and expectations. The theory was proposed by Judee K. Burgoon in the late 1970s and continued through the 1980s and 1990s as "nonverbal expectancy violations theory", based on Burgoon's research studying proxemics. Burgoon's work initially analyzed individuals' allowances and expectations of personal distance and how responses to personal distance violations were influenced by the level of liking and relationship to the violators. The theory was later changed to its current name when other researchers began to focus on violations of social behavior expectations beyond nonverbal communication. This theory sees communication as an exchange of behaviors, where one individual's behavior can be used to violate the expectations of another. Participants in communication will perceive the exchange either positively or negatively, depending upon an existing personal relationship or how favorably the violation is perceived. Violations of expectancies cause arousal and compel the recipient to initiate a series of cognitive appraisals of the violation. The theory predicts that expectancies influence the outcome of the communication interaction as either positive or negative and predicts that positive violations increase the attraction of the violator and negative violations decrease the attraction of the violator. Beyond proxemics and examining how people interpret violations in many given communicative contexts, EVT also makes specific predictions about individuals' reaction to given expectation violations: individuals reciprocate or match someone's unexpected behavior, and they also compensate or counteract by doing the opposite of the communicator's behavior.
Components The EVT examines three main components in interpersonal communication situations: Expectancies, communicator reward valence, and violation valence.
Expectancy Expectancy refers to what an individual anticipates will happen in a given situation. Expectancies are primarily based upon social norms and specific characteristics and idiosyncrasies of the communicators. Burgoon (1978) notes that people do not view others' behaviors as random. Rather, they have various expectations of how others should think and behave. EVT proposes that observation and interaction with others leads to expectancies. The two types of expectancies noted are predictive and prescriptive. Predictive expectations are "behaviors we expect to see because they are the most typical," (Houser, 2005) and vary across cultures. They let people know what to expect based upon what typically occurs within the context of a particular environment and relationship. For example, a husband and wife may have an evening routine in which the husband always washes the dishes. If he were to ignore the dirty dishes one night, this might be seen as a predictive discrepancy. Prescriptive expectations, on the other hand, are based upon "beliefs about what behaviors should be performed" and "what is needed and desired" (Houser, 2005). If a person walks into a police department to report a crime, the person will have an expectation that the police will file a report and follow up with an investigation. Judee Burgoon and Jerold Hale categorize existing expectations into two types based on the process of interaction: pre-interactional and interactional expectations. Pre-interactional expectations are the package of knowledge and skills a person already has before entering a conversation. For example, aggressive attitudes may not be expected if previous experience has not included dealing with similar attitudes. Interactional expectations form the abilities equipped to conduct an ongoing conversation. Proper reactions and nodding to show listening behaviors are expected in a conversation. When the theory was first proposed, EVT identified three factors which influence a person's expectations: Interactant variables, environmental variables, and variables related to the nature of the interaction. Interactant variables are the traits of those persons involved in the communication, such as sex, attractiveness, race, culture, status, and age. Environmental variables include the amount of space available and the nature of the territory surrounding the interaction. Interaction variables include social norms, purpose of the interaction, and formality of the situation. These factors later evolved into communicator characteristics, relational characteristics, and context. Communicator characteristics include personal features such as an individual's appearance, personality and communication style. It also includes factors such as age, sex, and ethnic background. Relational characteristics refer to factors such as similarity, familiarity, status and liking. The type of relationship one individual shares within another (e.g. romantic, business or platonic), the previous experiences shared between the individuals, and how close they are with one another are also relational characteristics that influence expectations. Context encompasses both environment and interaction characteristics. Communicator characteristics lead to distinctions between males and females in assessing the extent to which their nonverbal expressions of power and dominance effect immediacy behaviors. Immediacy cues such as conversational distance, lean, body orientation, gaze, and touch may differ between the genders as they create psychological closeness or distance between the interactants. Behavioural expectations may also shift depending on the environment one is experiencing. For example, a visit to a church will produce different expectations than a social function. The expected violations will therefore be altered. Similarly, expectations differ based on culture. In Europe, one may expect to be greeted with three kisses on alternating cheeks, but this is not the case in the United States.
Communicator reward valence The communicator reward valence is an evaluation one makes about the person who committed a violation of expectancy. Em Griffin summarizes the concept behind communicator reward valence as "the sum of positive and negative attributes brought to the encounter plus the potential to reward or punish in the future". The social exchange theory explains that individuals seek to reward some and seek to avoid punishing others. When one individual interacts with another, Burgoon believes he or she will assess the "positive and negative attributes that person brings to the encounter". If the person has the ability to reward or punish the receiver in the future, then the person has a positive reward valence. Rewards simply refer to the person's ability to provide a want or need. It can be represented by several features, such as communicators with high social class, reputation, knowledge, positive emotional support, physical attractiveness, and so on. The term 'communicator reward valence' is used to describe the results of this assessment. For example, people will feel encouraged during conversation when the listener is nodding, making eye contact, and responding actively. Conversely, if the listener is avoiding eye contact, yawning, and texting, it is implied they have no interest in the interaction and the speaker may feel violated. The deviation of expectations does not always yield negative results, which depends on the degree of reward held by the reward communicator. An action might be viewed as positive by a high-reward communicator, as the same action might be seen as negative by a lower-reward communicator. When examining the context, relationship, and communicator's characteristics in a given encounter, individuals will arrive at an expectation for how that person should behave. Changing even one of these expectancy variables may lead to a different expectation. For example, in different cultures, directly looking into a speaker's eyes, especially in a personal conversation, can represent distinct meanings.
Violation valence Behavior violations arouse and distract, calling attention to the qualities of the violator and the relationship between the interactants. A key component of EVT is the notion of violation valence, or the association the receiver places on the behavior violation. A violatee's response to an expectancy violation can be positive or negative, and is dependent on two conditions: positive or negative interpretation of the behavior and the nature (rewardingness) of the violator. The nature of the violator is evaluated through many categories – attractiveness, prestige, ability to provide resources, or associated relationship. For instance, a violation of one's personal distance might have more positive valence if committed by a wealthy, powerful, physically appealing member of the opposite sex than a filthy, poor, homeless person with foul breath. The evaluation of the violation is based upon the relationship between the particular behavior and the valence of the actor. A person's preinteractional expectancies, especially personal attributes, may cause a perceiver to evaluate the communication behavior of a target differently in terms of assigning positive and negative valenced expectancies. Another perspective of violation valence is that the perceived positive or negative value assigned to a breach of expectations is inconsequential of who the violator is. This perspective places much greater weight on the act of the breach itself than the violator.
Arousal Expectancy violations refer to actions which are noticeably discrepant from an expectancy and are classified as outside the range of expectancy. The term 'arousal value' is used to describe the consequences of deviations from expectations. When individuals' expectations are violated, their interests or attentions are aroused. When arousal occurs, one's interest or attention to the deviation increases, resulting in less attention paid to the message and more attention to the source of the arousal. There are two kinds of arousals. Cognitive arousal is an idea that people will be mentally aware of the violation. Physical occurs when people have body actions and behaviors in response to the deviations from their expectations. For example, when one experiences physical arousal, he or she chooses to move out of the physical space, keep the distance with other conversationalists, or stretch his or her body. Beth Le Poire and Judee Burgoon research to examine physical arousal in conversation. The result shows that after participants report their cognitive arousal, physically speaking, their heart rate decreases and pulse volume increase.
Threat threshold The occurrence of arousal is aligned with threats. Burgoon introduced the term "threat threshold" to explain that people have different levels of tolerance about distant violations. The threat threshold is high when people feel good even if they keep a very close distance with the violator, whereas people with low threat threshold will be sensitive and uncomfortable about the closeness of distance with the violator.
Theoretical assumptions and viewpoints
Propositions After assessing expectancy, violation valence, and communicator reward valence of a given situation, it becomes possible to make rather specific predictions about whether the individual who perceived the violation will reciprocate or compensate the behavior in question. Guerrero and Burgoon noticed that predictable patterns develop when considering reward valence and violation valence together. Specifically, if the violation valence is perceived as positive and the communicator reward valence is also perceived as positive, the theory predicts individuals will reciprocate the positive behavior. Similarly, if one perceives the violation valence as negative and the communicator reward valence as negative, the theory again predicts that one will reciprocate the negative behavior. Thus, if a disliked coworker is grouchy and unpleasant, people will likely reciprocate and be unpleasant in return. Conversely, if one perceives a negative violation valence but views the communicator reward valence as positive, it is likely that the person will compensate for his or her partner's negative behavior. For example, imagine a supervisor appears sullen and throws a stack of papers in front of an employee. Rather than grunt back, EVT predicts that the employee will compensate for the boss's negativity, perhaps by asking if everything is okay. More difficult to predict, however, is the situation in which a person who is viewed unfavorably violates another with positive behavior. In this situation, the receiver may reciprocate, giving the person the "benefit of the doubt". The assumptions discussed thus far can be summarized into six major propositions posited by EVT:
People develop expectations about verbal and nonverbal communication behavior from other people. Violations of these expectations cause arousal and distraction, further leading the receiver to shift his or her attention to the other, the relationship, and the meaning of the violation. Communicator reward valence determines the interpretation of ambiguous communication. Communicator reward valence determines how the behavior is evaluated. Violation valences are determined by three factors: The evaluation of the behavior Whether or not the behavior is more or less favorable than the expectation. A positive violation occurs when the behavior is more favorable than the expectation. A negative violation occurs when the behavior is less favorable. The magnitude of the violation. Positive violations produce more favorable outcomes than behavior that matches expectations, and negative violations produce more unfavorable outcomes than behavior that matches expectations.
Needs for personal space and affiliation EVT builds upon a number of communication axioms. EVT assumes that humans have two competing needs: A need for personal space and a need for affiliation. Specifically, humans all need a certain amount of personal space, also referred to as distance or privacy. People also desire a certain amount of closeness with others, or affiliation. EVT seeks to explain 'personal space', and the meanings that are formed when expectations of appropriate personal space are infringed or violated. Another feature of personal space is territoriality. Territoriality refers to behavior which "is characterized by identification with a geographic area in a way that indicates ownership" (Hall, 1966). In humans, territoriality refers to an individual's sense of ownership over physical items, space, objects or ideas, and defensive behavior in response to territorial invasions. Territoriality involves three territory types: Primary territories, secondary territories and public territories. Primary territories are considered exclusive to an individual. Secondary territories are objects, spaces or places which "can be claimed temporarily" (Hall, 1966), but are neither central to the individual's life nor are exclusively owned. Public territories are "available to almost anyone for temporary ownership". Territoriality is frequently accompanied by prevention and reaction. When an individual perceives one of their needs has been compromised, EVT predicts that they will react. For instance, when an offensive violation occurs, the individual tends to react as though protecting their territory.
Proxemics EVT offers an opportunity to study how individuals communicate through personal space. This part of the theory explains the notion of "personal space" and an individual's reactions to others who appear to "violate" their sense of personal space. What people define as personal space, however, varies from culture to culture and from person to person. The "success" or "failure" of violations are linked to perceived attraction, credibility, influence and involvement. The context and purpose of interaction are relevant, as are the communicator characteristics of gender, relationships, status, social class, ethnicity and culture. When it comes to different interactions between people, what each person expects out of the interaction will influence their individual willingness to risk violation. If a person feels comfortable in a situation, they are more likely to risk violation, and in turn will be rewarded for it. Introduced by Edward Hall in 1966, proxemics deals with the amount of distance between people as they interact with one another. Spatial distance during an interaction can be an indication of what type of relationship exists between the people involved.
There are 4 different personal zones defined by Hall. These zones include:
Intimate distance: (0–18 inches) – This distance is for close, intimate encounters. Normally core family, close friends, lovers, or pets. People will normally share a unique level of comfort with one another. Personal distance: (18 inches – 4 feet) – Reserved for conversations with friends, extended family, associates, and group discussions. The personal distance will give each person more space compared with the intimate distance, but is still close enough to involve touching one another. Social distance: (4–10 feet) – This distance is reserved for newly formed groups, and new acquaintances and colleagues one may have just met. People generally do not engage physically with one another within this section. Public distance: (10 feet to infinity) – Reserved for a public setting with large audiences, strangers, speeches, and theaters. Many different cultures are influenced by proxemics in different ways and respond differently to the same situation. In some cultures, those who have not formed close relationships may greet each other with kisses on the cheek, engaging one another well within the intimate range of proxemics. In other cultures, a custom greeting is a handshake which maintains a physical separation but is well within personal distance. Across the proxemic zones, actions can be interpreted differently among different cultures. For example, Japanese people do not address others by their first names unless they have been given permission. Calling someone by their first name in Japan without permission is considered an insult. In the Japanese culture, they address people using their last name and 'san', which is equivalent to 'Mr.', 'Mrs.' and 'Ms.' in the English language. The way Japanese people address each other is an example of a verbal proxemic zone. A Japanese person allowing another to call them by their first name is an example of intimate distance, because this is a privilege extended only someone very close to them.
Applications
Interpersonal communication It is important to note that EVT can apply to both non-relational interaction and close relationships. In 1998, more than twenty years after the theory was first published, several studies were conducted to catalog the types of expectancy violations commonly found in close relationships. Participants in friendships and romantic relationships were asked to think about the last time their friend or partner did or said something unexpected. It was emphasized that the unexpected event could be either positive or negative. Participants reported events that had occurred, on average, five days earlier, suggesting that unexpected behaviors happen often in relationships. Some of the behaviors reported were relatively mundane, and others were quite serious. The outcome of the list was a list of nine general categories of expectation violations that commonly occur in relationships.
Support or confirmation is an act that provides social support in a particular time of need, such as sitting with a friend who is sick. Criticism or accusation is critical of the receiver and accuse the individual of an offense. These are violations because they are accusations not expected. An example is a ball player telling a teammate he should have caught the ball rather than supportively giving him or her a slap on the back and offering words of encouragement. Relationship intensification or escalation intensifies the commitment of the communicator. For instance, saying "I love you" signifies a deepening of a romantic relationship. Relationship de-escalation signifies a decrease in commitment of the communicator. An example might be spending more time apart. Relational transgressions are violations of the perceived rules of the relationship. Examples include having an affair, deception, or being disloyal. Acts of devotion are unexpected overtures that imply specialness in the relationship. Buying flowers for no particular occasion falls into this category. Acts of disregard show that the partner is unimportant. This could be as simple as excluding a partner or a friend from a collective activity. Gestures of inclusion are actions that show an unexpected interest in having the other included in special activities or life. Examples include invitations to spend a special holiday with someone, disclosure of personal information, or inviting the partner to meet one's family. Uncharacteristic relational behavior is unexpected action that is not consistent with the partner's perception of the relationship. A common example is one member of an opposite-sex friendship demanding a romantic relationship of the other. In later review of the studies, the support or confirmation category was inserted into acts of devotion and included another category, uncharacteristic social behavior. These are acts that are not relational but are unexpected, such as a quiet person raising his or her voice. In terms of the response to expectancy violations, the sensitivity of expectancy violations varies from genders. Research found that women are less tolerant than men when their expectation are violated by negative behaviors, regardless of the types of violations such as dishonesty and immorality.
Friendship Expectations with friends formulate over time and are usually brought together by a series of observations of behavior and predictions on how that friend will act in the future. When these expectations are violated, it often can be damaging and dangerous for a close friendship. It can cause an end to the friendship and create a strong negative experience in that person's life. Over time, people might expect friends to act consistently around them until a violation to this expectation takes place. For example, when they begin "breaking promises or even acting in an inauthentic manner to impress others, can have aversive consequences for close relationships" (Cohen 2010). People expect their friends to act in a social manner and adhere to all of our personal rules they set in their minds, such as being nice, kind, considerate, and refraining from any comment that puts another down. This is a part of the personal rules with a personal friendship, though in a different setting with that individual around different people, the rules may be broken. While this might be an offense in one's eyes, it may not be offensive in the others. Each negative experience can deteriorate the relationship and allow more experiences where expectations are continually violated until the relationship is dissolved. Cohen said "the more that a friendship is voluntary, easily replaceable, and disconnected from external pressures to continue, the more vulnerable it is to expectancy violation damage" (Cohen, 2010). Someone will always look for the better option if a negative experience has taken place. The more invested someone is in a friendship, the stronger the effect will have on the individual when expectations are violated. Gender also plays a role in expectancy violation. Friendships with members of the same sex usually operate differently than those between different sexes. Women are generally less tolerant with men when violations have taken place. Relationships, whether it be with the same sex or not, tend to fail over time when one or both parties do not adhere the norms that the other is accustomed to and engage in behaviours such as hostile attitudes, sharp comments, distancing from the other, etc. Both parties are also capable of violating each other's expectations at the same time. It is not just one person in the relationship that perceives behavior as unusual. One can respond to a violation with another social violation, leaving the friendship in confusion of the direction it is going. One study done in 2025 says that people are quick to put blame on the physical world if people are unalike from themselves. This comes from the fact that if someone has not had the same experiences as you, they will not expect the same things as you.
Family relationships: phubbing Expectations in family relationships are prone to being violated via phubbing. Phubbing is a term coined to describe when an individual goes on their phone and mentally removes themselves from the conversation and physical reality, thus snubbing their interaction partners. This violates expectations in family relationships when a younger individual is around an older adult. Travis Kadylak found that "older adults feel ignored and disrespected" in situations where a younger family member is phubbing. In this case, the younger individually and unconsciously violated the older adult's expectations that stems from the adult's perception of social etiquette. Kadylak calls for further research on how phubbing expectancy violations affect the well-being of older adults. When it comes to smartphone use in conversations overall, researchers found that proactive and reactive smartphone use, often use that interrupts the conversation, leaves to lower perceived attentiveness and politeness from the conversational partner due to their expectations of a direct conversation being violated. Whereas integrative smartphone use, when the smartphone becomes a part of the conversation, leaves no significant impact on the perception of the conversation. In 2025, a study examining phubbing behaviors during casual and serious conversations was conducted. Seeing phubbing behavior did not relate to the perception of poor conversation quality. However, when observing phubbing behavior, female participants perceived lower conversation quality between the conversation partners compared to male participants. It is more common to observe two men spending time together and using their phones to decrease immediacy, rather than a woman. Perceived poor conversation quality was also associated with lower perceived connectedness between the conversation partners, as well as with lower perceptions of appropriateness toward the interlocutor who was phubbing. Additionally, another research project titled "I Have to Become a Phubber": A Case Study of a Female College Counselor's Phubbing at Home was conducted. The study found that during face-to-face conversations, constantly checking smartphones without responding in time leads to inconsistent expectations. Phubbing also tends to create more conflicts between the phubber and the person being phubbed. When another person's behavior is inconsistent with an individual's expectations, this expectancy violation triggers awareness and prompts a series of cognitive evaluations of the violation. If the violation conflicts with the individual's psychological valence, the expectancy violation can damage the interpersonal interaction. A study examining expectancy violations in text-based communication found that expectations vary considerably in extended families. Expectations are flexible in extended families, and transmitting messages at inappropriate times may breach these expectations. In addition, anticipating empathy and support when interacting with close friends leads to timely and empathetic responses that confirm favorable expectations.
Romantic relationships
Expectancy violations happen frequently in romantic relationships. In relationships there is an unspoken expectation when interacting and that is the significant other will give their full undivided attention when in the presence of their significant other. As the new generation evolves, the face to face contact has changed. With the access use of phones and social media the attention of individuals has shifted to their devices and continues to become worse. Since there is access to many mobile devices, there has been an increase of lack of communication face to face. This has made it difficult for some relationships to grow and has created conflict because the expectation of attention has been shifted. "Individuals expect conversational partners to be moderately involved in an interaction (Burgoon, Newton, Walther, & Baesler, 1989). Within existing relationships, partners rely on one another to show interest and immediacy in interactions (White, 2008). However, the presence of cell phones and the expectation to be constantly available (Ling, 2012) impacts partners' abilities to give full attention to one another" (Miller-Ott, A., & Kelly, L. 2015). Regardless of where the romantic relationship takes place, people are likely to have negative valence about cell phone usage, including texting, viewing news and playing games, if their expectations of attention and intimacy are violated. In addition, excessive cell phone usage during a date has a great impact on romantic partner's negative valence towards the usage. However, Miller-Ott and Kelly found that a small amount of cell phone usage during a date is acceptable, such as responding to a text message and quickly bringing attention back to the date partner. The same behavior in different occasions and contexts is viewed differently in terms of the degree of valence. Research found that same behavior is viewed as more negative in a restaurant than at home. Since people are more likely to have higher expectations for undivided attention during formal contexts, using a cell phone in formal dates will more negatively violate partner's expectations. Divided attention is acceptable in casual contexts – therefore, the degree of expectancy violations is low under a hanging out context. After expectation are violated in the romantic relationships, one may assume that an apology may fix expectations that were violated; however, Benjamin W Chiles and Michael E. Roloff found that "apology is positively evaluated by apologizers, this relationship is moderated by their expectations of acceptance prior to the actual response to the apology". Laura K. Guerrero and Guy F. Bachman found that high quality relationships tend to forgive more than relationships with less investments, yet they tend to inflict hurt intentionally. In a study done in 2022, Lilly and Buehler conducted a survey measuring young adults' reaction to sexually explicit introductions on an online dating tool versus a traditional introduction. They found that young adults were much more likely to negatively react to a sexually explicit introduction as opposed to a traditionally one. The study discusses how EVT is the main cause of this negative reaction. Because the receiver is expecting a traditional introduction as opposed to a sexually explicit one, the receiver's expectations are violated and they experience a negative reaction. Lilly and Buehler recommend while using an online dating tool to wait to send a sexually explicit message until it follows potential expectations if at all. Following expectations can be critical for online dating even in a more minute sense. DelGreco and Denes found when it comes to a woman receiving a compliment from a man using an online dating tool, her response can leave a lasting impact if it violates expectations. The study found that men expect women to be thankful for the compliment. If the woman negatively violates expectations with agreement or self praise, there tends to be the biggest negative impact left on the man. If the woman positively violates expectations with denial or disagreement, there is still a significant negative impact left on the man. Ultimately, EVT and gender roles/expectations can be very applicable to one another. Barak and Loewenstein discovered that inconsistencies in relationships are not always resolved by adjusting the relationships. Instead, people often reinterpret the inconsistencies to avoid modifying their relationships, and this is more common when the inconsistencies are large.
Stereotypes, Gender and Sexuality A study on personality traits and gender-based stereotypes in perceived negotiation skills was conducted in 2024. The study found that women tend to perform better in same-sex negotiations than in opposite-sex negotiations, while no significant differences were observed for men-pointing to the detrimental effect of gender in negotiation. Negotiation outcomes were mostly one-sided in favor of high-powered negotiators when stereotypical masculine traits were displayed, whereas stereotypically feminine traits tended to produce win-win outcomes. When negotiators' behaviors counter gender-specific beliefs, negative expectancy violations occur, generating backlash and negatively affecting negotiators' outcomes. When facing an unexpected negotiation partner, the impact of a hiring manager's gender-role violation on job candidates become evident. Job candidate believed that hiring managers were more extreme in characteristics that violated gender-role expectations: agentic female hiring managers were seen as more agentic than their male peers, while communal male hiring managers were perceived as more communal than their female counterparts. Job candidates were also less comfortable with an agentic female hiring manager than with an agentic male hiring manager. Further negotiating with an agentic female hiring manager would result in the least favorable outcomes, whereas those negotiating with a communal hiring manager would result in the most favorable outcomes. Researchers Gheorghe, Andreea, Curșeu, and Petru Lucian studied Leading Through Affiliation: The Effect of Humor Type and Gender on the Likelihood of Being Perceived as a Leader. They found that people using affiliative humor had a higher perceived chance of emerging as leaders compared to those using aggressive humor, and gender itself did not have a significant effect on leadership emergence. The affiliative-aggressive humor discrepancy in leadership emergence was greater for men than for women. Moreover, men tend to receive more credit for affiliative humor, while women are penalized less for using aggressive humor in groups.
Cell phone usage Cell phone usage behaviors that do not contradict intimate moment are viewed as positive violations, including sharing interesting messages and playing online games together. People have less negative valence on cell phone usage if they gain more reward from the behaviors. Research also found the most common response to the violated cell phone usage is to do nothing. However, people have different reactions to the violations under different stages of romantic relationships. In the early stage of dating, people are more likely to respond by indirect messages and silence. While there are direct verbal responses when expectations are violated in established relationships.
Sexual resistance Sexual resistance is viewed as a typical expectancy violation in romantic relationships. In 2003, Bevan used EVT to evaluate the impact of sexual resistance on close relationships. The research focused on two considerations: relational contexts and directness of the messages. The research concluded that people who are resisted in a romantic relationship perceived the violation of sexual resistance as more negative and unexpected than those resisted in a regular cross-sex friendship. The reason might because romantic partners believe that they have clearer and deeper understanding of each other's expectations and degree of acceptance and tolerance. When it comes to message directness of sexual resistance, although the study did not find any significant difference of levels of violation valence and expectedness between direct and indirect messages, direct sexual resistance messages in close relationships proved to be more relationally important than indirect messages. Therefore, direct sexual resistance messages will be a harmful factor that affects the continuity of a romantic relationship.
Hurtful events The degree of expectancy violations in romantic relationships quality affect how partners react to hurtful events caused by their partner. Partners who view their significant others as positively rewarding are more keen to use constructive communication after experiencing a negative hurtful event. EVT analysis approach also show that if the negative valence happens when partners find the other to be unrewarding, it results in destructive communication, leading to breakups.
Online dating Maria DelGreco and Amanda Denes investigate men and women's expectations and interpretations of communicative cues in the initiation stage of heterosexual online dating. When women expect men's responses to compliment, women face negative deviation when men express narcissism and agreement. Moreover, women with positive deviations of expectations are assessed more negatively than those who align with expectations.
Human-Technology Interaction with AI and Chatbots Researchers found that the communication style of chatbots can influence consumers' satisfaction, trust, and engagement in the context of service failure. This is demonstrated through interactions with social-oriented communication-style chatbots, which elevate the level of consumers' interaction satisfaction and behavioral intention. This study examined how the communication style of chatbots influences consumers' satisfaction, trust, and engagement in the context of service failure. Additionally, when consumers' expectations are violated to a higher level, chatbots using a socially oriented (vs. task-oriented) communication style are more likely to incite higher interaction satisfaction, trust, and patronage intention. Another study about chatbot interactions examined the opposing effects of response time in human-chatbot interaction. It was found that experienced users may find a delayed response time irritating because they are aware that a chatbot can answer instantly. The results also reveal that social presence, or the feeling of being there, mediates the effect of chatbot response time on usage intentions (the willingness of a person to use a particular product, service, or system). It was also found that when perceived social presence is low, skilled users have a higher usage intention than novice users. This means that users will use it more often because of the direct answers rather than high social presence. Researchers Deng Zhaohua, Song Dan, and Evans Richard conducted a study exploring the effects of estimated accuracy and the actual performance of AI systems on human-AI collaboration. They found that humans over trust low-performing AI systems and distrust high-performing ones. As a result, the misplaced trust reduces human-AI collaboration performance by weakening the complementarity between humans and AI. Although humans are more likely to follow the suggestions of AI systems and contribute less human knowledge when they know they are cooperating with an AI system that has high estimated accuracy. There are two specific studies that focus on the effects that smartphones have on our face-to-face conversations. One study done by Stevic, Liftinger, and Matthes in 2025. This study had a heavy focus on the relationship between men and women in relationships. They found that the presence of smartphones in the midst of a conversation with significant others, had poor effects on the connection of the couple, the quality of the conversation, and appropriateness. Selak, Merkaš, and Ivanković, studied parents and their