Expectation Violation TheoryExpectation Violation Theory created by Judee Burgoon explains a person's response to the unanticipated actions of peers and the many meanings that individuals attribute to the abuse or violation of their personal space. Burgoon defined personal space as “the volume of invisible and variable space surrounding an individual that defines that individual's preferred distance from others” (Griffin, p. 85). Expectation is what people predict (or expect) to happen, instead of what they want. What a person can conclude from these descriptions is that the violation of expectations is a violation of their prediction. This theory understands communication as the discussion of information that can be used to disrupt the anticipations of someone else who will perceive the conversation positively or negatively. Expectations are primarily centered on social norms and stereotypes of communicators. Expectations may arise directly from the current interaction but are frequently shaped by an individual's initial attitude determined by a mixture of necessities, expectations, and demands. Violations of expectations cause an urge to force the communicator to begin analyzing the violation. The theory suggests that expectancy will affect the outcome of communication as positive or negative and predicts that negative violations will reduce the attractiveness of the offender. An illustration of an expectation violation is how far you let a person approach you before the space you expect. the inward approach is violated. For example, a friend would be allowed to approach you closer than a stranger. On the other hand, you expect personal space to be more intimate in a relationship. Expectation refers...... middle of paper ...... their impressions of each other, and the consequences of their interactions. Violations Expectations can in turn confuse those on the receiving end, focusing more attention on the violator and the significance of the violation itself. Someone who can assume that they are well regarded by their auditors is safer in engaging in violations and more likely to profit from them than someone who is poorly regarded. When the act of violation is likely to be unclear in its meaning or to convey many interpretations that are not consistently positive or negative, then the reward valence of the communicator may be particularly important in moderating clarifications, evaluations and the consequences. Violations have relatively consensual meanings and valences, such that engaging in them produces similar effects on positive and negative communication..