The current investigation addressed (a) thepersewrance ofpreinteraction expectancies in the face of actual wmmunication behavior, (b) the separate effects of personal attribute and communication expectancies, and (c) the role of expectancy wnfirmation or diswnfirmation on postinteraction evaluations. Participant perceivers were induced to holdpositimornegative expectancies regarding a target partner's general personal attributes and spec@ communication behavior prior to a problem-solving discussion. They then interacted with a confederate target who communicated in apleasant, involved fashion or its opposite, after which perceivers evaluated target personal attributes and communication behavior. All three hypotheses rewived at least partial support. Preinteractional expectancies, especially personal attribute ones, caused perceivers to evaluate targets and their communication behavior dgfferently, with negatively valenced expectancies sewing as negative violations. Relative to a pleasant, involved communication style, unpleasant, uninvolved communication was less expected and evaluated negatively, thus firnctioning as a negative violation; it also reduced credibility, attraction, and perceived rewardingness ofthe target. Finally, disconfinnato y communication altered target evaluations rehtive to confirmatory communication, especiallyfor high-valence targets. These results lend support to the premises and predictions of expectancy violations the0 y.We rarely if ever confront others without some expectations about how they should behave. (Jones, 1986, p. 41) The ubiquity of expectancies in framing interpersonal encounters has been proclaimed by numerous scholars. Beyond their pervasiveness as scripts, schemata, scenarios, behavioral routines, or norms i n attribution Judee K Burgoon is Professor of Communication at the University of Arizona. Beth A.

This investigation analysed the kinds of communicative acts that are considered privacy-invading, which communication strategies are used to restore privacy when it has been violated and how relationship type affects communication of privacy. A preliminary self-report survey and a pilot study employing open-ended interviews (n=43) led to the development of a questionnaire in which respondents (n=444) rated 39 possible actions on invasiveness and rated the likelihood of using 40 different tactics to restore privacy. Types of privacy violations formed five dimensions: (1) psychological and informational violations, (2) non-verbal interactional violations, (3) verbal interactional violations, (4) physical violations and (5) impersonal violations. Strategies used to restore privacy included: (1) interaction control, (2) dyadic intimacy, (3) negative arousal, (4) distancing, (5) blocking and (6) confrontation. Significant differences emerged across doctor-patient, employeremployee, teacher-student, parent-child, spouse-spouse and siblingsibling relationships.

No abstract