Language expectancy theory

Language expectancy theory (LET) is a language based theory of persuasion [M. Burgoon and Miller, 1985; M. Burgoon, Hunsaker & Dawson, 1994; M. Burgoon, Jones & Stewart, 1975)] . The theory looks at the effects of linguistic variations on persuasive messages. It is based on the assumption that language is a rules-based system and people develop certain norms and expectations in regard to the appropriate usage of language in given situations [M. Burgoon and Miller, 1985] . Deviations from normative behaviors can affect the receiver's attitudes and behaviors towards a persuasive message.

Expectations and violations

Expectations

Central to the theory is the construct of expectancies. In communication, expectancies can be seen as enduring patterns of anticipated behavior [J.K. Burgoon, 1993] . Expectancies are grounded in societal and cultural norms. Cultural and societal forces influence language and determine what is normative and what is a variation from the norm [M. Burgoon and Miller, 1985] .

Research suggests that receivers develop expectations about the linguistic properties of language and how the communicator will behave [J.K. Burgoon, 1993; M. Burgoon and Miller, 1985] . Violations of these expectations will affect the receptivity to persuasive messages and can either facilitate or inhibit persuasion. LET argues that all language behaviors fall within a normative expected range called a bandwidth. This bandwidth may vary depending on the normative behaviors in a given culture. For example, men tend to have a wider bandwidth than women do when it comes to aggressive language [M. Burgoon, Hunsaker & Dawson, 1994] .

There are three factors from which communication expectancies derive [J.K. Burgoon, 1993] :

* Communicator – salient features of the individual such as personality, appearance and gender.

* Relationship – characteristics that describe the relationship between receiver and communicator. Examples may include attraction, similarity and status equality.

* Context Characteristics – environmental constraints such as privacy and formality that proscribe or prescribe certain interaction behaviors.

Violations

Violating social norms can be an effective tool of persuasion. Usually people do use language to conform to the social norms; however in some situations communicators violate the expectations of the receivers by deviating from the norm or expected behavior. This can be done intentionally or accidentally [M. Burgoon and Miller, 1985] . When violations occur, receivers can react either positively or negatively.

Positive violations can occur in two ways, 1) when the enacted behavior is preferred over what was expected or 2) when a communicator is initially negatively evaluated by the receiver and the source conforms more closely to the expected behavior [M. Burgoon, 1994; M. Burgoon and Miller, 1985] .

Negative violations occur when the language choices negatively lie outside of the bandwidth of acceptable or appropriate behavior. A negative violation will often inhibit the receiver’s receptivity to a persuasive appeal [M. Burgoon, Hunsaker & Dawson, 1994] .

Language expectancy theory propositions

Language Expectancy Theory is based on a number of key assumptions [M. Burgoon and Miller, 1985] . Below are the first four:

Proposition 1

"People develop both cultural and societal expectations about language behaviors which subsequently affect their acceptance or rejection of persuasive messages."

Proposition 2

"Receivers have normative expectations about the level of fear arousing appeals, opinionated language, and magnitude of language intensity appropriate to persuasive discourse."

Proposition 3

"Highly credible communicators have the freedom to select varied language strategies in developing persuasive messages, while low credible communicators must conform to more limited language options if they wish to be effective."

Proposition 4

"Receivers have normative expectations about appropriate communication behaviors which are gender specific."

Language expectancy theory and intensity

A key concept that comes out of the above propositions is the impact of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_intensity intensity of language] , defined by [http://comm.colorado.edu/bowersj John Waite Bowers] as a quality of language that “indicates the degree to which the speaker’s attitude toward a concept deviates from neutrality,” [Bowers, 1963, p. 345; 1964, p. 416] used in persuasive messages [M. Burgoon and Miller, 1977] . Theorists have concentrated on two key areas 1) intensity of language when it comes to gender roles and 2) credibility.

The perceived credibility of a source can have a great impact of the persuasiveness of a message. Researchers found that high-credible sources can actually enhance their appeal by using intense language; however low-credible speakers are usually more persuasive if they use low intensity appeals [M. Burgoon, Dillard & Doran, 1983; M. Burgoon, Hunsaker & Dawson, 1994; M. Burgoon and Miller, 1985] .

A similar conclusion came from research on the persuasiveness of males and females. Females are less persuasive than males when they use intense language because it violates the expected behavior [M. Burgoon, Dillard & Doran, 1983; M. Burgoon, Hunsaker & Dawson, 1994; M. Burgoon and Miller, 1985] . Females are more persuasive when they use low intensity language. Males however are seen as weak when they argue in a less intense manner.

Theorists argue further that females and speakers perceived as being low credibility have less freedom in selecting message strategies and that the use of aggressive language is a negative violation of expectations [M. Burgoon, Dillard & Doran, 1983] .

Criticisms of language expectancy theory

There are several criticisms of Language Expectancy Theory. First, it can be difficult to determine whether a positive violation or negative violation has occurred [M. Burgoon, 1993] . When there is no attitude or behavior change it may be concluded that a negative violation has occurred (possibly related to a boomerang effect). Conversley, when an attitude or behavior change does occur it may be too easy to conclud a positive violation of expectations has occurred. Language Expectancy Theory has also been critiqued for being too “grand” in its predictive and explanatory goals [M. Burgoon, 1993] .

ee also

*Expectancy violations theory
*Interpersonal deception theory

Notes

References

* Bowers, J.W. (1963). Language intensity, social introversion, and attitude change. "Speech Monographs, 30," 345-352.
* Bowers, J.W. (1964). Some correlates of language intensity. "Quarterly Journal of Speech, 50," 415-420.
* Burgoon, J.K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. "Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12," 13-21.
* Burgoon, M. (1994). "Advances in Research in Social Influence: Essays in Honor of Gerald R. Miller" (tenative title), Charles R. Berger and Michael Burgoon (Editors), East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, in press, 1993.
* Burgoon, M., Dillard, J. P., & Doran, N. (1984). Friendly or unfriendly persuasion: The effects of violations of expectations by males and females. "Human Communication Research, 10," 283-294.
* Burgoon, M. Jones, S.B., Stewart, D. (1975). Toward a message-centered theory or persuasion: Three empirical investigations of language intensity. "Human Communication Research, 1," 240-256.
* Burgoon, M. and Miller, G.R. (1977) Predictors of resistance to persuasion: propensity of persuasive attack, pretreatment language intensity, and expected delay of attack. "The Journal of Psychology, 95," 105-110.
* Burgoon, M., & Miller, G.R. (1985). An expectancy interpretation of language and persuasion. In H. Giles & R. Clair (Eds.) "The social and psychological contexts of language" (pp. 199-229). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
* Burgoon, M., Hunsacker, F., & Dawson, E. (1994). Approaches to gaining compliance. "Human Communication," (pp. 203-217). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.