Burgoon, Judee

Expectancy Violations Theory and Interpersonal Deception Theory

Burgoon's research in the late 1970s and early 1980s was on the reactions invoked by violations of personal space. She developed the expectancy violations theory (EVT), which posits that discrepancies from expected nonverbal behaviors generate arousal, causing either positive or negative reactions, depending upon the attractiveness (positive valence) or averseness (negative valence) of both the violation and the communicator. A robust research program conducted by Burgoon and others using EVT has demonstrated how violations of expectations can help draw attention away from the content of a message and toward the unexpected behavior itself, engendering more positive interpretations of both the behavior and the message for positively valenced [Page 102]communicators, but more negative evaluations for negatively valenced communicators. Burgoon's research has examined the effects of a broad range of verbal and nonverbal expectancy violations on the credibility and attractiveness of communicators, and on the quality of relationships when such violations are enacted.

In the 1990s, Burgoon began a long collaboration with David Buller and others in which she applied her knowledge of verbal and nonverbal communication to the detection of interpersonal deception, leading to the development of interpersonal deception theory (IDT). IDT posits that deceivers use strategic and nonstrategic behaviors to deceptively communicate, while recipients attempt to assess deceiver credibility. Strategic behaviors are seen as purposeful attempts to manipulate interactions, whereas nonstrategic behaviors are thought of as “leakage” that may provide clues to the presence of deception.

IDT is one of the only theories to examine how the behaviors of the deceiver and the receiver interact to perpetuate deception. While the deceiver is manipulating his or her message to appear truthful, the receiver is assessing the credibility of the speaker (perhaps unconsciously) while hiding any suspicion and providing feedback to the deceiver. The deceiver, in turn, can use the feedback from the sender to alter his or her behavior and appear more persuasive. The unit of analysis for IDT thus becomes the interaction, rather than the acts of the deceiver, the content of the message, or the responses of the receiver in isolation. Ultimately, the theory offers a communication-based explanation for how the give-and-take of human interaction can be observed to affect both the detectability of deceivers and the accuracy of credibility assessments.

...