A First Look at Communication Theory (6th edition)

Paul Mongeau
A communication researcher from Arizona State University whose research on dating
demonstrates expectancy violations theory’s increased predictive power.
Interactional Adaptation Theory
Theory developed by Burgoon, Lesa Stern, and Leesa Dillman that extends and expands
EVT.
Interactional Position
A person’s initial position in an interaction, based on three factors: requirements,
expectations, and desires.
Requirements
A term of interactional adaptation theory referring to outcomes that fulfill our basic
human needs.
Desires
A term of interactional adaptation theory referring to what is personally desired as a
situation’s possible outcome; what we’d like to see happen.
Principal Changes
Griffin has extended his treatment of expectancy violations to include Burgoon’s interaction
adaptation theory. In addition, the critique section has been amended and references in the
Second Look have been updated.
Suggestions for Discussion
Comparing with other theories
Closely following coordinated management of meaning—which disdains efforts to
isolate individual variables in the communication process—expectancy violations theory
provides an excellent opportunity to compare the characteristics of traditional empiricism with
thoroughgoing humanism. Whereas Burgoon’s approach to communication is primarily
strategic, Pearce and Cronen view the process more broadly, emphasizing its power to
constitute or create social reality. Such comparison will give you a good chance to gauge your
students’ understanding of Chapters 1 and 3. (Item #4 in the textbook under Questions to
Sharpen Your Focus constitutes a good vehicle for such discussion.)
Comparisons with symbolic interactionism (Chapter 4) may also be fruitful. It’s
important to emphasize that Mead and his followers were more interested in the ways in which
communication shapes the human psyche (its ontological character) than its use to enhance
one’s strategic position. Whereas for Burgoon communication seems primarily instrumental in
function, for symbolic interactionists it is fundamentally constitutive. (Integrative Essay
Question #30, below, addresses this issue.)
Other factors that impact an outcome
We find Griffin’s willingness to disclose his “stereotyped assessments” of his four
students (90-91) refreshingly honest. We are also pleased with the way in which he uses these
assessments to exemplify the importance of the communicator reward valence. Building on
this analysis, we have found it productive to speculate further on other factors that might
72