The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors
Abstract
Nonverbal expectancy violations theory holds that positive violations produce more favorable communication outcomes than conformity to expectations, while negative violations produce less favorable ones, and that reward characteristics of the communicator mediate the interpretation and evaluation of violations. The factors affecting expectancies and the consequences of violating them are reviewed and compared to other models (discrepancy‐arousal, arousal‐labeling, arousal‐valence, sequential functional) employing similar assumptions and mediating variables. An experiment extending the model domain to immediacy violations and to interactions with familiar as well as unfamiliar others had friend and stranger dyads (N=82) engage in discussions during which one member of each pair significantly increased immediacy, significantly reduced it, or conformed to normal levels. Nonimmedicacy violations produced lower credibility ratings than high immediacy or conformity to expectations for both friends and strangers. Nonimmediacy was interpreted as communicating detachment, nonintimacy, dissimilarity and more dominance than normal immediacy, while high immediacy expressed the most intimacy, similarity, involvement and dominance. Implications for the role of ambiguity in violations are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Organizational Reputation: A Review
Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. (2011) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206310390963 · Cited by 960
How Much Information?: Effects of Transparency on Trust in an Algorithmic Interface
Kizilcec, R. F. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858402 · Cited by 615
The effects of “phubbing” on social interaction
Chotpitayasunondh, V., & Douglas, K. M. (2018) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/jasp.12506 · Cited by 523
Physicians’ communication style and patient satisfaction
Buller, M. K., & Buller, D. B. (1987) · Journal of Health and Social Behavior · doi:10.2307/2136791 · Cited by 492
Walther, J. B., Loh, T., & Granka, L. (2005) · Journal of Language and Social Psychology · doi:10.1177/0261927x04273036 · Cited by 435
Metadata
- Authors
- Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L.
- Venue
- Communication Monographs
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1988-03
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 58-79
- ISSN
- 0363-7751 (ISSN-L)
- 1479-5787
- OpenAlex
- W2068470266
- Cited by
- 828
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/03637758809376158
- The paper
- Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758809376158
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.