The Film Crash & Judee Burgoon's Expectancy Violations Theory

 Expectancy Violations Theory, (according to Judee Burgoon), sees communication as the exchange of information that is high in relational content and can be used to violate the expectations of another, who will perceive the exchange either positively or negatively depending on the liking between the two people. Expectancy Violations Theory attempts to explain people’s reactions to unexpected behavior. Expectancies are primarily based upon social norms and specific characteristics of the communicators. Violations of expectancies cause arousal and compel the recipient to initiate a series of cognitive appraisals of the violation. The theory proposes that expectancy will influence the outcome of the communication as positive or negative and predicts that positive violations increase the attraction of the violator and negative violations decrease the attraction of the violator. (1)

Crash is a 2004 American drama film co-written, produced, and directed by Paul Haggis. The film is about racial and social tensions in Los Angeles. A self-described "passion piece" for Haggis, Crash was inspired by a real life incident in which his Porsche was carjacked outside a video store on Wilshire Boulevard in 1991. It won three Oscars for Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay and Best Editing of 2005 at the78th Academy Awards. (2)

In this article I will look at a scene from the film Crash through the eyes of an Expectancy Violations Theorist. Specifically, looking at how violations of what the characters expected, or a violation of what was expected of them changed the outcome of the scene.   

Every person has certain things we expect (what we predict to occur not necessarily what is desired) from other people, in relation to our interactions with them. These expectations can be different with every person we interact with and even different between varying cultures we encounter. For example, if you see your significant other from across the room, what would you expect them to do? Now, what would you expect your best friend from high school to do in the same situation? What would you expect your mother to do? Some one you don’t like? What would you expect a stranger to do in that situation? With each different person we interact with, we expect different things from that interaction. It can be small expectations, such as the distance we foresee that person will stand from us when having a conversation, to big expectations of possible positive or negative physical interaction.  The Expectancy Violation Theory or EVT deals with those expectancies, where they come from, and the effect that takes place when a person deviates from them.

Set in Los Angeles, the film opens following a car accident involving detective, Graham Waters (Don Cheadle), Ria (Jennifer Esposito), his partner, and Kim Lee. As Ria and Kim Lee exchange racial insults, Waters gets out of the car and investigates the crime scene which had indirectly caused the accident after identifying himself as a detective to the officer in charge. Waters sees the victim's shoe lying on the ground and then stares at something off screen which horrifies him... (2)

The Chinese woman begins accusing the Hispanic woman (A detective), of speaking very poor English. She uses not only wrong structures and grammar, such as “you no see” or “she do this”, but also a strong Chinese accent with “the blake lights” for instance. The “crash” continues with the replies of the Hispanic inspector. Looking down on the Chinese lady, she exhibits her contempt by alternating a normal way of speaking with the police officer and addressing with a Chinese accent.

This scene is a subtle, but good example of Expectancy Violations. The first aspect I would like to point out is our personal space expectation. We all have a personal space expectation. Our “personal space” is the invisible, variable volume of space surrounding us that defines our preferred distance from others. The word “expectation” in the term comes into play because we all have a level of distance from one-another that we associate and expect particular people in particular situations to adhere too. The area people choose to locate themselves wiles interacting with us can ether confirm or deviate from that expected level of appropriate distance. 

According to proxemics, there are four levels of interpersonal distances.

Intimate distance: 0 to 18 inches

Personal distance: 18 inches to 4 feet

Social distance: 4 to 10 feet

Public distance: 10 feet to infinity

If someone locates themselves at a distance that is not appropriate to the relationship level we have associated with them, than that person will be deviating from our personal space expectations. As an example, Kim Lee (the Asian lady) deviated from Jennifer Esposito’s (the Hispanic lady) personal space expectations by encroaching on expected distance levels for the situation. If Kim Lee would have kept deviating further and moved herself to the hypothetical outer boundary of Jennifer Esposito’s Intimate distance, (number 1 in the four levels of distance, and the closest distance in relation to you) than Jennifer Esposito’s natural instinct of fight-or-fling would have kicked-in.

It is easy to acknowledge the existence of expectancies in our interactions with others. The simple scenario at the beginning of this text identified that. However, we must ask ourselves a harder question, how did these expectancies arise?

Judee Burgoon believes the reason we develop our expectancies is so we can gauge what a person will do, and she believes we do this by using three tools; Context, Relationship factors, and Communicator characteristics.  

           

            1. Context begins with cultural norms. Distances that are appropriate in some countries are not appropriate in others. Context also includes the setting of the conversation. Intuitively, a classroom environment dictates a greater speaking distance than would be appropriate for a private chat. You would not need to be three inches from my face if we were in a football field. (Unless the football field was full of screaming fans)

            

            2. Relationship factors include similarity, familiarity, liking, and relative status. For example, a police officer has a higher relative status when in uniform, as a teacher has I higher relative status when in the classroom. 

            3. Communicator characteristics include all of the age/sex/place-of-birth demographic facts asked for on application forms, but they also include personal features that may affect expectation even more—physical appearance, personality, and communication style.

The following is an excerpt from the Crash script, involving the aforementioned scene between Kim Lee, Jennifer Esposito and a Motorcycle Cop. (3)

     ↓

-MOTORCYCLE COP

Calm down, ma’am!

-KIM LEE

I am calm!

-MOTORCYCLE COP

I need to see your      registration and

insurance.

-KIM LEE

Why? Not my fault! Her fault!

She do this!

-RIA

(Approaching)

I do this?

-MOTORCYCLE COP

Ma'am, wait in your vehicle.

-KIM LEE

Stop in middle of street! Mexicans!

No know how to drive! She blake

too fast!

-RIA

I "blake" too fast?? Oh, sorry,

you no see my "blake lights?"

-MOTORCYCLE COP

Ma-am--

(CONTINUED)

-RIA

(To Kim Lee)

I blake when I see long line cars

stop in front of me. You see over

steering wheel, maybe you blake,

too.

-MOTORCYCLE COP

(To Ria)

Ma'am--

-KIM LEE

Crazy Mexican! I call immigration

on you! Look you do my car!

-RIA

(To cop)

Can you just write in your report

how shocked I am to have been hit

by an Asian driver?

-MOTORCYCLE COP

Ma'am--

-RIA

(Flashing badge)

It's not Ma'am, it's Detective.

-MOTORCYCLE COP

Oh, Christ.

If you notice, each woman has pre-conceived notions and expectancies about the other. We can deduce this because nether Kim or Ria (Jennifer Esposito) has actually inquired about the other or exchanged information through dialogue, yet both have an arsenal of insults being deployed. For example, Kim says something about Mexicans not knowing how to drive; she also threatens to call immigration on Ria, implying that Ria is in this country illegally. On the other hand Ria makes a comment about Kim not being able to see over the steering wheel, and a sarcastic statement about how shocked she was about being hit by an Asian driver, playing to the stereotype that Asians are short and cant drive. Even the motorcycle cop, judging by his final remark, seemed to have possible expectancies deviated about women being detectives.

Now, we are able to identify the certain expectations we have assigned to those around us and we even know the tools we use to develop those expectancies. But, what happens when a person does not conform, but deviates from our expectancies and to what extent do they deviate? Do we find that deviation pleasing or distressing? Regardless who does it; we have a positive or negative value we place on the deviation of our expectancies. That value is called the Violation Valence. Moreover, we attach a degree to which we like or dislike the violation valence. For example, do I like that the person deviated from what I was expecting them to do? Or do I really like that the person deviated from what I was expecting them to do? In contrast, do I hate it? Or do I really hate it?   

Ok, now that we have a term for the positive and negative value we place on expectancy violation, we need to know what it is called when we adjust our actions to meet their violation. This is called interaction adaptation; we do this, as a reaction, when another behavior doesn’t mesh with what’s needed, anticipated, or preferred. As an example, If Kim pointed a gun on Ria, than Ria would have to utilize interaction adaptation. Kim changed the scenario by changing her interaction, therefore, Ria has to adapt to that change.

Reciprocity is a strong human tendency to respond to another’s action with similar behavior. Using the same “gun” analogy, reciprocity would dictate that Ria would have a strong tendency to respond to Kim by pointing a gun back at Kim. However, what would happen if we go-against our tendency to respond to an action with similar behavior. Let’s say, instead of Ria pointing a gun back at Kim, she have Kim a hug. Would that change the dynamics of the situation?  I think it would. That is an example of Ria violating Kim’s expectancies to achieve a different outcome.  

Would Kim still shoot Ria? Could you shoot someone that was giving you a hug? I don’t know. However, I do know that expectancy violations theory, if used strategically, can be used to your benefit. Is it a law? No. It can not be predicted what someone will do or how someone will react to what you do to an exact science. But, if you know guidelines, or a general idea, than you can map-out a more developed plan going into a situation, and that is a lot better than going into a situation blindly.  

1.         ^ Burgoon, 1978; 1983; Burgoon & Hale, 1988; Burgoon & Jones, 1976

2.         ^Wikipedia contributors. "Crash (2004 film)." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.     Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 21 Nov. 2010. Web. 26 Nov. 2010.

3.         ^CRASHstory byPaul Haggisscreenplay byPaul Haggis & Bobby Moresco Directed by Paul Haggis Excerpt from Final Production Draft Property of Bull's Eye Productions, all rights reserved. Producers: Cathy Schulman Bob Yari Don Cheadle Paul Haggis Mark Harris Bobby Moresco