Theories of relational communication

In summary, AET provides a compelling explanation for why affectionate communication is so important to us as humans. Specifically, we have learned that affectionate communication is not only important to developing and maintaining close relationships, but it also yields significant physical, mental, and emotional benefits as well.

So does that mean we should start hugging everybody? No, not necessarily. All of us have different “limits” for how much affection we desire. For example, you might have a very high limit of desired affection with a romantic partner (i.e., we prefer more affection from people we are close to). But with a stranger, you probably have a very low limit of desired affection (i.e., we prefer less affection from people we don’t know).

Therefore, the type of relationship we have with other people (e.g., friends, co-workers, romantic partners, etc.) will likely influence how much affectionate communication we desire from them, as well as what our expectations are for how they communicate affection to us. In turn, to experience the benefits of affectionate communication, we need to make sure it fits within the expectations of our relationships and the affection limits of the people in those relationships.

But what if someone gives us more affectionate communication than we expect or want? In other words, what happens when those expectations or limits are broken? Would that bother you? If your romantic partner gives you more affectionate communication than you expect, that would probably be viewed positively. However, if this happens with a classmate, you might not appreciate that very much, especially if its nonverbal in nature.

To dig into this deeper, we might question why it is okay when some people break these types of expectations, but not okay when others do it. How do we make those determinations? These types of questions about when people break communication expectations are quite common, yet difficult to answer at times. To help find some potential answers, we turn to our attention to the second theory in this module: expectancy violations theory.

Expectancy Violations Theory

Think about the last time you flew on an airplane. What were your expectations for how that would go? What would the flight be like? Specifically, what would the flight attendants do or say?

We generally have expectations for what flight attendants should do before taking off, such as making sure everyone finds their seat, reminding all passengers to fasten their seat belts, and performing the safety instructions. Some of us could probably even predict what they will say if we’ve traveled quite a bit.

However, imagine if your flight attendant did not make any announcement about seat belts or communicate any safety instructions. What if they performed no safety checks? What if all they did was say, “Welcome!” and then make a few jokes about crash landings. How would you feel? What would you do? If you’re like most people, you might be pretty concerned and even scared! Why? This would most likely be due to the flight attendants drastically violating your expectations of what they should be doing.

Expectancy violations theory (EVT; Burgoon, 1978; Burgoon & Jones, 1976; Burgoon & Hale, 1988) initially explained the consequences of when people violate social norms and expectations about individuals’ nonverbal behaviors, specifically those about personal space. For example, think of the time when a coworker stands awkwardly close to you. EVT would say that the way they handle personal space certainly violates your expectations.

EVT was later applied to both verbal and nonverbal encounters in a variety of communication contexts, such as emotional communication (Burgoon, 1993) and computer-mediated communication (e.g., Ramirez & Wang, 2008). The primary assumption of EVT is that individuals hold expectations/expectancies for interpersonal encounters and use them as frameworks to make sense of the world around them.

These expectations are influenced by individual, relational, and contextual factors. When individuals’ expectations are violated (i.e., expectancy violations), their attention is deviated from the event to the violation; they experience heightened emotional and physiological reactions, and they try to assess and explain the violation (Burgoon & Hale, 1988). In essence, EVT explains both how people respond to unexpected communication incidents and why they do so.

Let’s go back to the example presented at the beginning. The unusual behaviors of the flight attendant will certainly violate your expectations, and you probably will stop what you are doing (deviate your attention to the violation), start to feel knots in your stomach (heightened emotional and physiological reactions), and try to figure out what is going on about the flight attendant (assess and explain the violation). Hopefully no one would ever experience something like this!

According to Burgoon (1993), communicator reward valence, or the extent to which a communicator is positively or negatively perceived, encompasses an array of characteristics, such as physical attractiveness, competence, and intelligence. People often make a quick calculation of all the available characteristics of a communicator and then assess the potential benefits interaction with the communicator might offer.

But why does this matter? Communicator reward valence affects how people interpret and evaluate expectancy violations (i.e., whether the violation is important or unimportant and if it is desirable or undesirable). The result of the interpretation and evaluation process is what is called violation valence, which refers to how positive or negative we view a violation to be. It entails both the direction (i.e., positive or negative) and the magnitude (e.g., how much a violation deviates from an individual’s expectation) of the valence.

Let’s think about an example here to illustrate the process. You unexpectedly find out that your friend, Bob, who you have perceived as kind and trustworthy (communication reward valence), is cheating on his girlfriend. You’ve tried your best to figure out why Bob is doing this (interpretation and evaluation). Maybe he is unhappy with his relationship? Maybe his girlfriend is also cheating on him? Regardless of the reasons for his infidelity, you believe that Bob’s behavior is quite unacceptable and wrongful (violation valence), and you decide to talk with him and give him a wake-up call.

It is important to note that early literature on relationship violations generally views violations as negative, but EVT explains that not all violations are negative and some are even favorable (Burgoon, 2015). Think about that time when an attractive stranger pays for your Starbucks order. That would be quite an unexpected, but delightful, surprise, right? So keep in mind that “expectancy violations” can be both positive and negative.

In summary, EVT provides a helpful perspective in understanding situations in which our expectations about social interactions are violated in some way. To help tie together a lot of what you have learned here, check out this video that provides a summary of the concepts and principles of EVT.

As you have likely experienced, our expectations are often violated by many different people, such as our friends, family members, romantic partners, and even strangers. One way that our expectations are often violated is in how people manage or share our private information. For example, if your friend were to share one of your biggest secrets with someone else, that might violate your expectation for how your friend was supposed to behave and specifically how they were supposed to protect your information.

In order to reduce the chance of this type of expectancy violation, you may engage in conversations with your friend to set up rules to about how they should protect your private information. But how would we come up with these types of rules? Why would we feel those rules even necessary?

To help answer some of these questions about how we manage our private information, we turn to our third theory in this module: communication privacy management theory.

Communication Privacy Management Theory

Put yourself into this scenario: Your best friend, Anna, came up to you. She took a deep breath and said, “Okay, I am gonna tell you something, but you must promise that you won’t tell anyone else. Jake and I just broke up.” How would you feel? What would you say to her?

Communication privacy management (CPM) theory (Petronio, 2002) addresses the process of disclosing private information to others. Grounded in the assumption that individuals experience consistent tensions between revealing and concealing private information, CPM presents a rule-based system in which individuals make decisions to disclose or conceal private information and coordinate privacy management with others (Petronio, 2002).

CPM uses a boundary metaphor to explain the mechanisms through which individuals and collectives manage private information and coordinate privacy management. Unlike other theories on disclosure and privacy, it particularly highlights the role confidants play in the privacy management process.

Petronio (2004) has articulated five core principles of CPM explaining how a rule-based privacy management system functions. The first two principles lay out the foundational assumption of CPM by presuming individuals’ perceptions about private information. Principle one states that people believe they have the ownership of their private information.

Due to the perception of possessing private information, people believe they have the right to control and regulate the dissemination of their private information, as principle two claims. For instance, when you are back home during winter break, your uncle may welcome you with all kinds of questions about your study, your social life at college, and your romantic relationship. You may feel a bit irritated as you believe that you own your private information and you have the right to choose whom you want to disclose the information to.

The third principle centers around privacy rule development. It proposes that people develop certain rules regarding whether to make the privacy boundary open or to keep it closed. Petronio (2002) identifies five criteria (i.e., culture, gender, motivation, risk and benefit ratio, specific contexts) people use to set up privacy management rules.

The culture we belong to, our gender and that of the confidant influence whether we choose to disclose or not. For example, there might be specific reasons why Anna decides to tell you about her breakup (e.g., to seek support). Additionally, she probably has considered the risks and benefits associated with disclosing and the context in which the disclosure should happen.

The fourth principle explains what happens when people disclose private information to others. According to CPM, individuals who reveal private information to others make others the co-owners of the private information. New privacy rules are thus needed to be negotiated so that all stakeholders are clear about their roles in managing the private information. According to CPM, there are three types of rules that are often discussed and negotiated: boundary linkage, boundary ownership, and boundary permeability (Petronio, 2010).

Boundary linkage refers to the considerations about whether co-owners of private information are allowed to grant access to others into the privacy boundary, and if so, the criteria for selecting new confidants privy to the information. Boundary ownership represents how much control co-owners independently have with regard to the management of private information. Boundary permeability involves concerns about how much private information can flow out of the boundary.

Going back to the example we talked about at the beginning of this module. Your best friend Anna told you that she broke up with her boyfriend Jake but did not want you to tell anyone else. This is an effort to establish privacy rules. Maybe a few days later, you said to Anna: “Kelly has been worrying about you since she hasn’t seen you at the sorority gatherings. Do you think I can tell her that you broke up with Jake? Or at least you are having some issues with your relationship?”

Here, you are negotiating existing privacy rules with Anna, particularly about whether you have the control to distribute the information (boundary ownership), whether you can grant Kelly the access to the private information (boundary linkage), and if so, how much you can share (boundary permeability).

The fifth principle considers the consequences of ineffective and unsuccessful boundary coordination. CPM predicts that boundary turbulence (e.g., unwanted intrusion, misunderstanding, interpersonal conflicts) will occur when expectations for privacy management are unmet; when privacy rules are violated by one or more of the co-owners, or when the privacy rules are unclear (e.g., fuzzy boundaries).

CPM has been a helpful perspective for researchers studying the management of private information in various contexts. For example, Brannon and Rauscher’s (2019) study indicated that that boundary permeability was associated with how individuals responded to discussions about sexually transmitted infections (e.g., caring more for the partner or protecting oneself). Ledbetter’s (2019) research suggested that family communication patterns were associated with the degree of parental privacy invasions and children’s privacy defense during the first year of college.

At this point, you have been able to learn quite a bit about CPM, as well as the way this theory explains the processes and rules for how we manage our private information. To help tie this all together, let’s take a look at the following video, which summarizes the main ideas discussed in this video.

With all of this in mind, the next time your friend tells you some private information and expect you to keep it to yourself, hopefully you can remember CPM. You can realize that you are included as the co-owner of your friend’s private information and that it’s better to clearly communicate about privacy rules for that information so that you don’t get into trouble later!