Language expectancy theory

Language expectancy theory (LET) is a language based theory of persuasion . 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 . Deviations from normative behaviors can affect the receiver's attitudes and behaviors towards a persuasive message.

Expectations and violations

Expectations

Central to the theory developed by Michael Burgoon in 1970, with research efforts extending well beyond his retirement in 2001 as Professor of Medicine at the University of Arizona, is the construct of expectancies. In communication, language expectancies can be seen as enduring patterns of anticipated behavior. Expectancies are grounded in societal and cultural norms. Cultural, societal, and psychological forces influence language and determine what is normative and what is a variation from (or violation of) the norm . The research by Professor Burgoon has found many applications in management, the media, and medicine. Setting and violating expectations has become common wisdom in the political arena. LET based empirical research has shown more powerful effect sizes than derivative theories like Expectancy Violations Theory, which has a very limited domain not including the spoken word.

Research suggests receivers develop expectations about the linguistic, syntactic, and semantic properties of language and about how a given communicator will behave in a given situation M. Burgoon and Miller, 1985. Violations of these expectations will affect the receptivity of persuasive messages and can either facilitate or inhibit persuasion.

LET argues typical language behaviors will fall within a normative "bandwidth" of expectations, which tends to vary as a function of the perceived credibility of a source, the normative expectations of the receiver, and the perceived normative social climate within a given culture or group. For example, in most cultures, men tend to benefit from a wider bandwidth of expectations than women regarding the use of aggressive or intense language, consequently, the utterance of expletives are more likely to conform to one's expectations of how men generally behave, but negatively violate one's expectations of how women generally behave.

There are three factors from which communication expectancies derive:

• Communicator – salient features of the individual such as ethos or source credibility, personality, appearance, social status, and gender.

• Relationship – characteristics describing the relationship between receiver and communicator. Examples may include attraction, similarity, and status equality.

• Context Characteristics – environmental constraints such as privacy and formality proscribing or prescribing certain interaction behaviors.

Violations

Violating social norms can have a positive or negative effect on persuasion. Usually people use language to conform to social norms; however, in some situations communicators may intentionally or accidentally violate the expectations of the receivers by intentionally or accidentally deviating from the norm of expected behavior in a preferred or dispreferred manner. . Thus, 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 .

Negative violations occur when the language choices result in the disfavor of enacted behaviors perceived as being outside the bandwidth of acceptable or appropriate behavior. A negative violation will often inhibit the receiver’s receptivity to a persuasive appeal .

Language expectancy theory propositions

Language Expectancy Theory is based on a number of key assumptions . 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 intensity of language, defined by John Waite Bowers as a quality of language that “indicates the degree to which the speaker’s attitude toward a concept deviates from neutrality,” used in persuasive messages . 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 .

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 . 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 .

Criticisms of language expectancy theory

There are several criticisms of Language Expectancy Theory, offered by Michael Burgoon, who developed the theory and research over three decades. First, it can be difficult to determine whether a positive violation or negative violation has occurred . 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 conclude a positive violation of expectations has occurred. Language Expectancy Theory has also been critiqued for being too “grand” in its predictive and explanatory goals . However, given that the practical application of this theory/research is so compelling in a number of venues, probably negates this last criticism by Burgoon.

See also

• physician-patient interaction
• social influence

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." Charles R. Berger and Michael Burgoon (Editors), East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University 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.