Talk:Expectancy violations theory

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rubyrener.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding diagrams
This page is very text heavy, do you think a diagram explaining "Proxemics" will illustrate the theory well? --Natalie Brocklesby 21:52 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Relating to the diagram explaining "Proxemics", if we put a link to get feedback on the diagram before uploading it. --Aliciaag93 (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The article definitely needs an image, but it's a difficult topic to illustrate, probably needing a sort of abstract schematic diagram to illustrate the theory. If you have created a suitable image that can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and uploaded here, that would be fantastic, and would help the article reach the highest quality levels of Wikipedia. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your feedback, we will take all your comments on board. Me and Alicia have a few ideas so far which we will develop next week Natbrock (talk) 09:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, we have added a diagram showing the four different personal zones of the Proxemics with the Proxemics and kinesics of expectancy violations theory section. We went through Wikimedia Commons and uploaded it there like you recommended. I hope the diagram will bring a high quality towards Wikipedia for this page. Thank You for all of your help. -- Aliciaag93 (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Should "Judy Burgoon" be spelt "Judee Burgoon"? See this Google search --Finbarr Saunders 08:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

AfD result
This article was nominated for deletion. The result was: no consensus. See Articles for deletion/Expectancy violations theory · Katefan0(scribble) 19:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Plez renominate for AfD
See the byline in this article and then see this page. I think it should be obvious that for some reason the original AfD reached an incorrect result (no conclusion) and that in fact this article clearly violates WP:NOR.

I tried to renominate it myself, following the rather unclear directions on the AfD page, but this was a disaster, so if anyone who knows how to renominate an article agrees with what I said above, please go ahead. ---CH 17:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A quick Google search shows that "expectancy violations" is a legitimate theory that extends beyond whatever Judy Burgoon thinks about it, so there's probably an article to be written here. However, Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a repository for someone's personal paper about the topic.  Since this AFD closed in September with a result of no consensus (save that it needs to be cleaned up), and since the nobody has done any work on it at all, rather than renominating for AFD I'm going to redirect the article to Communication theory.  If somebody wants to come along and create the article from scratch they still can, we get rid of publicizing someone's paper as the end all and be all of the theory, and avoid another 5-day AFD vote. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 17:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethics
Kant is fun, but has nothing to do with EVT. This section should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.212.52 (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing "Criticism of the theory"
I have done some work on the section Criticism of the theory and it has been removed. Can I ask who or why, please? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irina predescu (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer review from Yuting
Hi Paul! I agree the page is so text heavy that readers could be overwhelmed. You might need to be a very sensible editor and put more efforts on trimming rather than developing the content. For example, it is a good idea, as you proposed, that the introductory paragraph should be cut short and more “user-friendly”. Here are two more specific suggestions for your next stage of the Wikipedia project:
 * Uplift the Sections of Core Concepts of Expectancy Violations Theory and Theoretical viewpoints and assumptions, on top of the section of History. Because as a reader, my priority is to learn more about the viewpoints of the theory, rather than the development history of the theory.
 * Currently, there are two sections of criticism. You might need to combine them. The longer section of criticism is using a lengthy case to counter- argue the EVT. I suggest you rewrite this criticism part with more succinct words. you could also summarize the criticism in from different aspects, such as utility and applicability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yutingmissdelphi (talk • contribs) 21:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Peer review from Vision
Hi Paul, At first glance your theory page seems to be really rich. However, after reading the lead part, I have to agree with you that the language is sort of unclear. More importantly, my feel is that it reads like fragments mixed together but not well integrated. Therefore, I suggest that you may want to work on better summarize the theory and make it more like an article than excerpt. Another suggestion from me regards the structure. Obviously, the sections after “Criticism of the theory” were not organized logically. (For example criticism of the theory itself shows up twice.) I think you have done a great job in your page edit outline in describing how you are going to restructure it. Also, I just want to mention that you “bonus analysis of talk page” is really fascinating!!! I might do a similar analysis as well, because it addresses some general concerns from a community that not only read the article but also try to enhance it. Vision Liao (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
Great job with this Wikipedia page Scott! As I read through the page, I found myself actually learning more about the theory through some of the examples given. From what we've learned in class, I didn't feel that this page missed any pieces of EVT. I felt that this page had a great flow of ideas; there was a logical sense to how the information was being presented, and it made for a very easy read. Moreover, the examples used were very clear and very relevant to each point. I really appreciated the conciseness and clarity of each example, they really enhanced the point at hand without taking away from it with too much information. The related theories section on your page, I found really interested. It was a nice way to round out the theory and show how it relates not only to other theories, but also how there is some overlap between what some theories state. I found that to be very useful. One thing that I would have liked to have seen was quick examples within the territoriality section. The use of clear examples is a definite strength in this page, and I would've liked to have seen that within the territoriality section. I think there is an opportunity to explain with a quick example the different levels of territoriality. Other than this, I thought this was a great page with clear, educational information. - Lina Lbm53gu (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer review from Tong
Hi Scott. You have done a great job editing this page. After reading the page, readers will get a comprehensive knowledge of EVT. First, I notice that you added a lot of content to the page such as metatheoretical assumptions, related theories and new application of the theory to Facebook, which are all very significant part of the theory. For readers like us interested in communication theories, it’s really helpful to know the ontology, epistemology and axiology of EVT as well as its interconnection with other communication theories, and new development of the theory. The reorganization of the structure you’ve done helps to present the theory in a very logical and consistent way. You also removed a lot of redundancy, which I think is extremely important for Wikipedia page, because readers come to the page for quick and useful information, your edition enables them to immediately locate the content that attracts them most. To be reader-friendly throughout the whole page, the introduction part can be improved in a way that only the core content of the theory appears. The short preview of theoretical details is not necessary given that they will be elaborated later. The rest of it can be categorized under subtopics like “background” or “history”. You’ve made a great contribution to the page. Tlgu201533 (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Introduction
Hi Ruby, the introduction on this page is a little lengthy and intimidating, so I would recommend cutting it down to make it more accessible. I think a basic overview would be a good first paragraph, and then you could introduce the history of the theory, major contributors, and other nuances later in the page.

Zdomercct (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Some Thoughts from MC
Hello!

This is not my assigned page, but I wanted to comment on this as one of the two "extra pages" we are required to add sources to.

I agree with the prior comment that the intro is pretty long, so that could be edited. But overall, this is a good, informative page. I would encourage you to add to the Applications section, though. I think an important Application to add would be one that comments on disabled communities or other communities that violate the normative expectations of society.

Erving Goffman's book, Stigma, is a great resource for this: https://www.freelists.org/archives/sig-dsu/11-2012/pdfKhTzvDIi8n.pdf

While he does not mention this theory by name, this book (while outdated) is an important text about how to interact with people that "violate" certain expectations you may have. I've talked about it a lot in class, but speech impediments are an example of some action that violates norms, in this instance, norms surrounding how people should verbally communicate.

Those are just some of my thoughts (it is your page to edit so feel free to ignore me lol) Good luck editing! --Kekile (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Class Peer Edit
I think this page looks really good!

One the big thing that I found was under the "Computer-mediated communication and social media" section. I thought this section did a really great job about talking about the positives of EVT through CMC, but I thought it could have done more in addressing the drawbacks that can occur when these two theories overlap as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.133.194 (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review by RA
Hi! The theory page on Wikipedia is very long and has too much information disclosed under various sections. Here are some of my suggestions that may help you in improving the page. I would suggest working on the ‘Introduction’ and minimize the amount of information shared in the beginning. This introduction goes on to disclose excess material that maybe headed under ‘Components’ (especially ‘participant behavior’ and ‘outcome’).

There is information in the prescribed book Introducing Communication Theory- Analysis and Application by West and Turner) on the aspects of ‘arousal’ and ‘threat threshold’. These explain the consequences of deviating from expectations and how distance impacts the threat one feels (respectively). I noticed that the proxemics were referred to as ‘space’. You could rename proxemic zones as ‘distance’ instead of space since proxemics refer to actual value of the distance while space is more of an ambiguous term.

I suggest your addition of ‘Romantic Relations’ under Computer Mediated Technology because the paper explains the use of mobile and internet when in proximity of a loved one. These, in a way, are an inclusion of the use of technology. This is a very relevant topic and it is a good thing that you were able to find a paper that can highlight this issue. Under the heading of Computer Mediated Technology, the concept of face to face is referred to as ‘FtF’ which I suggest you change to F2F. The reason being that I searched ftf and it has varied connotations (ranging from sports to video games) that makes it an ambiguous term.

I suggest checking the citation number 40 for your contribution (Media Relations) because it also figures under ‘Application- Interpersonal Communication’. I was able to locate an infographic to explain the Reward and Punishment on this website: http://www.sclcr.com/library/browse.php?category=all&view=large. This is available on an academic website and you could consider adding this because the page has only one infographic to display.Hayday13 (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

CCT peer edit 2019
This article uses many details and case studies to explain different interpersonal communication situations in our daily life, giving a vivid explanation and good guidance to the readers. The Related theories section impresses me a lot, because it not only covers some similar theories with EVT, but also distinguishes their key difference, helping me to clarify them effectively. However, I think this article still has three problems to fix and hope my suggestions can help. Firstly, the Components part says that EVT comprises with expectancy, communicator reward valence and violation valence. Dividing the theory into three parts and explaining it at great length separately with respective influencing factors may confuse the novices at the beginning, because the paragraph doesn’t interpret the relationship between them until next big section. Maybe come straight to the core concept and cut some details that have little influence on the discussion in the following text will make it clearer. Secondly, the Applications part covers too many situations with inappropriate headings and proportions, making the structure unreasonable. For example, the secondary heading of Academic environment followed by seven tertiary headings, maybe they can be reclassified according to the behavior of the subject into different dimensions with succinct language. Besides, a tertiary heading of Friendship seems can be added into Interpersonal communication part to cover the content before Romantic relationship, and some contents about cell phone usage are mentioned before the tertiary heading to which it belongs, so it needs an adjustment to make the content structure more self-consistent. Thirdly, I am not sure whether the source used in Critique is reliable or not. “A first look at communication” seems like some primary sources and the study was conducted by the author who doesn't provide any commentary or in-depth verification. This kind of study findings should generally be avoided unless they're accompanied with a secondary source. Therefore, I think using this test to verify the unpredictability of EVT may be not a good choice. June42 (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

CCT 2020 Peer Review from ZL
Hi！I am a graduate student from Georgetown University Comm Theory/Frameworks Standard course, here are my suggestions for this article:

(1) Structure: The article has a very comprehensive structure including: introduction, key words, assumptions, applications, critiques, and relevant theories. The article also has images elucidating the proxemics and some other examples. The proxemic image is not so well suggesting the "distance" from the inner to the outer. Maybe it will look better to change to another image.

(2) Organization The article has each section transited fluently. Theoretical sections have very clear organizations and good references. The application part is little bit verbose, especially the "Interpersonal Communication" section. The "Friendship" part has the same reference with the "The media figure" part, and two sections are telling similar things.

(3) Evidence The article uses 75 references, and they all are reliable sources including books and journals. Some recent researches are also added in the article.

(4) Content The content is quite logic and well-organized. It will be even better by adding more examples. Under the heading Expectancy, the 3rd paragraph: "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.[16] 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." I think it is little bit confusing using as an example here. It explained the communicator characteristics though, maybe change to a more detailed example which could exemplify all three characteristics. Also, two examples of behavior expectations and cultural expectations didn't illustrate key words in the former part, so it is a little bit confusing for readers to understand.

Under the heading Communicator reward valence: I think the example needs further explanation corporation with key words. How's the reward valence changed in the reaction the talking person received?

Under the heading needs for personal space: I think it will be better to provide examples to illustrate what is territoriality and the differences among primary territories, secondary territories, and public territories.

About the Proxemics: The article already mentions that the proxemics will not always work in different cultures, and I think it might be necessary to add that the proxemics offered by Hall is based on the study of North Americans.

Suggested References: With the influence of the pandemic, it is necessary to study how teachers and students perceive behaviors in an online learning environment as dunexpected and whether develop positive or negative assessment. It will contribute to the future study and guide instructors, students, and program developers to enhance their work.

Besides, the "Business" section has fewer researches, so it is suggested to explore relevant recent researches. Mobile games and advertisement insertation is popular. How users perceive advertisement inside games and what forms might effect may be interesting to study.

Bourdeaux, R., & Schoenack, L. (2016). Adult Student Expectations and Experiences in an Online Learning Environment. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 64(3), 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2016.1229072

Evans, N., & Bang, H. (2018). Extending Expectancy Violations Theory to Multiplayer Online Games: The Structure and Effects of Expectations on Attitude Toward the Advertising, Attitude Toward the Brand, and Purchase Intent. Journal of Promotion Management, 25(4), 589–608. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2018.1500411 ZLyuLililalawawa (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

This article seems to be quite text heavy still, despite the many calls to add more graphics. Could it still benefit from the use of graphics / diagrams to elaborate on the models? (KieraLynn96 (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC))

Wiki Education assignment: Advanced Communication Theory
— Assignment last updated by Natalie750 (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Communication Theory
— Assignment last updated by Shsustu (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)