How often have you replayed a conversation in your mind, shocked by something a person said or did that left you at a loss for words? Perhaps you’ve gone on a promising first date with someone who comes across as charming over text, full of thoughtful replies and little jokes—only to discover a completely different side of them over dinner. You settle in, eager to see where things might go, but halfway through the meal, your date begins speaking harshly to the waiter, making cutting remarks and snapping about minor details. The energy at the table seems to change. Maybe you find yourself glancing at your water glass, unsure whether to laugh, speak up, or plan your escape. Whatever response you choose, that sudden breach of expectation sticks with you. The version of them you’d pictured evaporates, replaced by someone far less appealing.

Expectancy violations theory helps us understand these moments by focusing on the expectations we bring into every interaction.1 Whether you realize it or not, everyone carries an unwritten set of assumptions—ideas about how people should act, what counts as respectful, and which behaviors feel out of place. These expectations take many forms. Some are predictive: beliefs about what will probably happen next, such as expecting a polite greeting or anticipating laughter at a certain kind of joke.2 Others are prescriptive, which refer to mental rules about what people should do, like offering an apology after bumping into someone or holding back criticism in public. 

Each is shaped by culture, personal experience, and those little lessons absorbed from friends, family, teachers, and even strangers. Sometimes, the rules are obvious, such as waiting your turn in line or saying “thank you” when someone holds the door. Others are far subtler. Consider how you might expect a certain level of eye contact, or have a sense of what topics are “safe” in small talk. Most of the time, these standards stay hidden, rarely questioned until someone does something that stands out.

Everyday conversations constantly tests these assumptions. A friend offers a compliment, a colleague cracks a joke, a stranger asks for directions. Then, an unexpected action brings those buried expectations to the surface. When someone overshares during small talk, you might feel a mix of amusement and discomfort. At other times, someone’s gaze lingers just a bit too long across the table, turning what could have been a warm moment into something tense or unsettling. While it’s tempting to believe we always notice when expectations are broken, many violations pass unmentioned, leaving behind nothing but a faint sense that something was “off.”

The digital world provides countless new ways for expectations to be violated. Imagine texting someone after a fun evening, only to get a two-word response days later. Sometimes, a person who always keeps things formal at your organization suddenly sends you a flurry of enthusiastic messages outside of work hours. Even small changes—like a period where you expected an emoji, or a phone call instead of a text—might make you wonder if something has shifted beneath the surface. Our social instincts work overtime, interpreting every delay, typo, or unusual phrase.

What’s striking is just how many corners of life are touched by expectancy violations. Parents sometimes throw their teenagers off balance by reacting with patience instead of anger when a curfew is missed, rewriting family scripts in a single moment. Offices are a minefield of silent rules where one unexpected gesture, or a generally calm leader who throws an unexpected tantrum, can remake a team’s mood overnight. Even when a corporation launches a big campaign to champion a social cause, audiences listen for sincerity and watch closely for signs that promises might not match real-world action.

Expectancy violations theory doesn’t just describe how people respond to surprise; it allows us to see the rules that shape social life in action. The next time you catch yourself dissecting a strange interaction or laughing over an awkward story, know that you’re witnessing expectations at work, revealing just how much the unwritten rules matter, sometimes more than the words themselves. 

Proxemics: The study of how people use physical space to communicate, including how distance conveys meaning in social interactions. For example, standing close to a friend during a conversation may signal intimacy, while stepping back from a stranger often indicates a desire for personal space.

Predictive Expectation: A belief about what is likely to happen in a given situation, shaped by past experience or social norms, such as expecting a colleague to respond to your email professionally or a teacher to start class on time.2 

Prescriptive Expectation: A belief about what people should do, based on cultural values or personal standards, such as apologizing after a mistake or treating others with respect in public.2

Mind Reading Expectation: The assumption that someone close to us, especially a partner or friend, should automatically know what we’re thinking or feeling.4 When that expectation isn’t met, it often leads to frustration, hurt, or emotional distance.

Disillusionment: A feeling of emotional letdown that occurs when someone or something fails to live up to a hopeful or idealized impression, often replacing trust or excitement with sadness or regret.

Long before anyone wrote down rules, you could look to a sunlit branch to see expectation in action: a row of chimpanzees trading grooming duties, each animal knowing their place in line. Those who respected the rules stayed close; those who didn’t often found themselves on the outside looking in.5

People aren’t much different. Fast forward a few millennia, and those group norms and expectations echo in village squares, candlelit halls, and public baths. Sometimes, a tiny break from tradition set tongues wagging, whether it was a neighbor switching seats at the table or a traveler greeting locals in an odd way. The common thread? People always noticed when someone did something unexpected. 

For most of human history, these social codes just were—passed along in stories, mimicked at the dinner table, felt in the gut. It wasn’t until the twentieth century that scholars tried to map out how these silent expectations shaped our lives. In the 1960s, cultural anthropologist Edward T. Hall offered a new way of analyzing social interactions: proxemics.6 Proxemics is the study of how people use physical space to communicate—how close we stand, how much distance feels comfortable, and what those boundaries quietly reveal about our relationships. 

He mapped out four physical zones: intimate for family or romantic partners, personal for friends and good acquaintances, social for colleagues or casual contacts, and public for strangers or large gatherings. These zones are deeply cultural too, and what counts as friendly or formal in one part of the world might come across as standoffish or startling elsewhere. In parts of Latin America, friends may greet with a hug and cheek kiss, while in Japan, formality and distance signal respect.

The story doesn’t stop with Edward Hall’s map of personal space. In the early 1980s, communication scholar Judee Burgoon took those insights and ran with them.7 Inspired by Hall’s work on proxemics, Burgoon wanted to know: What actually happens when someone crosses those invisible boundaries, like when a person stands too close at a meeting or drifts away during a chat? Do we get defensive, or does it sometimes spark something positive?

Burgoon began with the basics of distance, studying moments when people broke the unwritten rules around personal space. She noticed that not every breach led to discomfort.8 Sometimes, a surprise close-up brought people together. Other times, it led them to cross their arms. The reaction depended on who did it, what their relationship was, and the mood surrounding the moment.

This line of questioning led Burgoon to formalize expectancy violations theory: a new framework for understanding what unfolds when social expectations are upended. She first spotlighted three main factors: the traits of the people involved (like age, gender, personality), the situation or environment, and the nature of the interaction itself. As research on the topic advanced, these were soon referred to as communicator characteristics (e.g., personal style, cultural background, age), relational characteristics (e.g., interaction history, status, closeness), and situational context (e.g., everything from job interviews to late-night hangouts).2

Beyond just proxemics, scholars started tracing expectancy violations everywhere people connect. Organizational psychologists found that even massive companies live and die by expectations. When a trusted brand makes a promise and keeps it, people’s faith grows. Miss the mark, and reputations unravel.9 The same goes for technology. These days, a single odd response from a chatbot—a joke that falls flat, a missing apology—can make users lose faith in the company and its customer service capabilities.10

As new arenas of communication keep popping up, expectancy violations theory just keeps finding more ground to cover.2 Whether it’s boardrooms, classrooms, social media, or the artificial intelligence systems that now shape so many of our daily conversations, one thing stays true: where there are people, there are expectations, and every so often, someone’s bound to break them.

Edward T. Hall

An American anthropologist renowned for his groundbreaking work on intercultural communication. In the 1960s, Hall introduced the concept of proxemics—the study of how people use personal space and distance as a silent language.6 Over his career, Hall also provided a powerful framework for understanding how social rules and nonverbal cues can mean very different things across cultures.

Judee K. Burgoon

An American communication scholar best known for her pioneering research on expectancy violations and nonverbal communication.1,2 In the late 1970s, she developed expectancy violations theory, a major framework for understanding how people interpret and react to unexpected social behaviors.

The real-world effects of expectancy violations go far beyond awkward moments or bruised feelings. Whether in our closest relationships, our digital interactions, or our loyalty to brands, what we anticipate and what actually happens can change the way we connect, support, and commit.

Relationship satisfaction 

Violations of expectation don’t just rattle us in high-stakes moments: they’re a central force in the highs and lows of close relationships. In dating and marriage, people often assume that partners “should just know” when something’s wrong or what the other person needs. Psychologists call this the mind-reading expectation (MRE).4 Although it sounds harmless, research suggests that MRE is a major contributor to hurt feelings and ongoing conflict in romantic relationships. 

Expectancy violations theory helps make sense of why these moments sting so much. Close relationships, whether romantic or platonic, come loaded with unspoken agreements. We expect kindness, support, and a certain level of attention. So, when a partner misses the signs or fails to recognize that they’ve upset us, it doesn’t just feel like a minor oversight. For many, it feels like a double letdown—the original hurt, plus the sense that the other person didn’t even notice.

Recent research backs this up. A study led by Courtney Wright and Michael Roloff found that people who expect their partners to be mind readers often end up more dissatisfied.4 When those expectations are violated, feelings of hurt escalate, sometimes boiling over into conflict or silent treatment. The partner’s failure to “just know” can trigger a bigger reaction than the initial slight, driving people to withdraw or lash out.  

Over time, this pattern has real consequences. Expectations left unspoken—and inevitably violated—chip away at trust and intimacy. In the end, expectancy violations theory doesn’t simply explain how things fall apart but also reminds us how important it is to challenge our silent scripts before they rewrite the narrative of a relationship.

AI Chatbots

The rise of artificial intelligence has transformed how people seek help, from mental health apps to automated customer service. Yet for all the promise of support chatbots, their success hinges on a fragile thing: our expectations.

Recent research shows that the way a chatbot presents itself—and how closely its responses match that image—can dramatically alter a user’s experience. In a recent study, college students shared academic stressors with chatbots labeled as either “expert” or “newbie.”11 Some bots responded in a personalized, back-and-forth manner, referencing the user’s own words. Others offered generic, canned advice. When a chatbot labeled itself as an expert but then defaulted to bland, impersonal replies, users felt a stronger sense of disappointment compared to expert bots that used their words back at them. It wasn’t just the quality of advice: it was the sting of having an expectation set and then violated. Ratings of trust, sincerity, and caring all dropped when the bot failed to deliver on its promised persona. On the flip side, users showed more patience with the “newbie” bot, whose lack of expertise had already set the bar low.11

What does this mean for real-world design? The effectiveness of AI support may depend less on dazzling users with technology and more on fulfilling the simple social expectations that underlie all conversation. Small tweaks, like referring to a user’s earlier comments or using a warm tone, can transform a stilted exchange into a meaningful connection. A second takeaway is that if you set the bar too high with bold promises of expertise but fail to deliver, even the most advanced technology can wind up feeling hollow. In the world of chatbots, it’s the gap between what’s promised and what’s delivered that can make all the difference. 

Brand loyalty and customer retention

For modern brands, managing expectations isn’t just a finishing touch: it’s the foundation of long-term loyalty.12 Every time someone chooses a product, shares a post, or walks into a store, they’re bringing along a mental checklist of what a good company ought to do. Maybe it’s the promise to honor loyalty points, a guarantee of quality, or the expectation that a favorite product won’t be discontinued without warning. Whatever the source, these expectations form an invisible pact between companies and consumers, shaping every future interaction.

Expectancy violations theory shows just how much hinges on that pact. Consumers don’t just notice a company’s behavior; they react strongly when something falls outside their expectations. This was front and center in an experiment by Sun-Young Park in 2021, which invited people to consider Dunkin’ Donuts’ track record on social responsibility.13 Some participants came in expecting the company to maintain high corporate social responsibility, while others did not. Then, they read either glowing praise or harsh criticism of Dunkin’s workplace practices. 

When Dunkin’ Donuts, already seen as an ethical leader, failed to live up to its reputation, support dropped, intentions to return plummeted, and the perspective of the brand changed negatively. On the flip side, when expectations started low, the very same bad news barely registered; the bar was already set low. Positive surprises, on the other hand, did nudge attitudes upward, but those effects were modest. 

As the logic of expectancy violations theory makes clear, customer loyalty depends on how reliably brands uphold the expectations they’ve set. When those expectations are broken, rebuilding trust often proves challenging, and even long-standing relationships can change course.

No theory is without its blind spots. For all its influence, expectancy violations theory has sparked debates over what gets studied, how ambiguous cases are interpreted, and even what “expectation” means in the first place. These ongoing questions continue to shape both research and practice.

Are we missing the small stuff? 

A major criticism of expectancy violation research, especially in relationship science, is its focus on headline-making moments. Scan the literature and you’ll see the spotlight on big events: infidelity, the first signs of violence, or abrupt breakups.14 Communications professor Walid Afifi and colleagues observed that most studied violations in romantic relationships are seen as “turning points.”15 These moments feel easier to define and measure, which may explain why they attract so much academic attention.

Still, this leaves out the majority of relationship experiences. Most connections are shaped by a long sequence of smaller surprises—overlooked chores, unexpected gifts, surprise date nights. These smaller, sometimes positive violations barely register in the academic conversation, even though they’re often the ones shaping trust, affection, or even resentment.

The authors also highlight the issue of context. In surveys, researchers often classify violations as simply positive or negative, but in practice, the meaning of any unexpected act depends on timing and circumstance. In a relationship, a playful tease might be welcome one day and viewed as irritating the next. Similarly, affection that comes at the wrong moment may feel awkward instead of appreciated.

By focusing on only the most dramatic violations, this area of research misses out on what shapes most relationships: the steady accumulation of small, unexpected moments. Unless the theory expands to include these smaller disruptions, its picture of expectation will remain incomplete.

When the mechanism remains unclear

Another thorny debate within expectancy violations theory has to do with what happens when nonverbal violations leave room for interpretation. Not every social misstep is blatant. Sometimes, a nonverbal breach, like a missed handshake or a sudden step back, lands in a gray area, open to multiple interpretations. Judee Burgoon herself has highlighted that an initial negative violation might be brushed off, rationalized, or quietly discounted if people can imagine a benign explanation.2 Maybe it was an accident. Maybe it was nerves. The question is, what tips the balance?

Here, the theory runs into trouble as it primarily offers broad categorizations, like positive or negative. However, it says much less about the mental machinery people use to judge those ambiguous moments. How do we decide if someone’s awkward silence signals rejection, distraction, or something else entirely? Which cues matter most, and when does uncertainty give way to a firm judgment?

Burgoon herself has suggested that, to move forward, the theory needs to lay out exactly how people sort through this uncertainty.2 Currently, the theory sketches out possible outcomes when an expectation is violated, but it doesn’t quite capture how people sift through competing explanations, draw on context, or weigh intent. For now, the presence of these gray areas remains one of the most elusive parts of the theory.  

What does “expectation” really mean?

A third controversy, which Burgoon herself has also highlighted, centers on what we actually mean when we talk about “expectation” in expectancy violations theory.2 Is it what people think will happen (predictive expectation), or what they believe should happen (prescriptive expectation)? In much of the literature, these ideas get tangled up, even though they reflect different sides of social life.

It’s more than a technical debate. Imagine a long hug at the airport. Predictive expectation might say, “People usually keep things brief in public.” However, prescriptive expectation could insist, “Loved ones ought to greet each other warmly, especially after time apart.” If researchers aren’t clear on which type they’re measuring, it’s easy to misinterpret the meaning of a violation. Is the breach about someone’s best guess for what’ll happen, or about the social rules they’d want others to follow?

This muddle matters for anyone designing studies or interpreting results. Without a crisp distinction between predictive and prescriptive expectation, findings might wind up ambiguous or misleading. Burgoon herself has called for researchers to draw a clearer definition of what expectation means when designing their studies.2 If expectancy violations theory is going to give clear answers, future studies need to clarify whether they’re testing prediction, prescription, or both expectations, since reactions could differ quite a bit depending on which type is in focus.

Expectations and the pain of ghosting

In the world of mobile dating, ghosting has become a painful yet common way for connections to end.16 Most people know the drill: a promising match suddenly stops replying, with no explanation. However, not every ghosting hurts the same, and recent research helps explain why.

A 2023 study by Konings and colleagues dug into the emotional impact of ghosting on young adults using mobile dating apps.17 The team wanted to know: What makes ghosting sting so much for some, while others seem to brush it off? Here, expectancy violations theory played a starring role.

According to expectancy violations theory, we bring a set of expectations into every relationship—even the fleeting ones sparked by a swipe. When someone’s behavior matches what we anticipated, the emotional fallout is usually mild. However, when a partner’s disappearance feels unexpected, negative, and important, that breach lands differently. The researchers found that ghosting only led to lower self-esteem and a sharper sense of disillusionment if it violated these core expectations.17 Here, disillusionment refers to the sinking feeling that arises when a hopeful or positive impression of a person turns out to be wrong. In other words, the damage was done not just by being ignored, but by being blindsided in a way that compromises the story you’d built about that connection.

This effect didn’t show up when users already expected flakiness or were less invested in the connection. The pain wasn’t about the event itself, but how much it strayed from the script in a person’s mind. This study offers a compelling example of how expectancy violations play out in the digital dating world, not only reshaping our understanding of ghosting but also highlighting the importance of unspoken expectations in every potential relationship.

Childbirth in a time of uncertainty

The COVID-19 pandemic rewrote the script for nearly every facet of maternity care in the United States. Policies changed overnight—prenatal appointments shifted online, hospitals shortened stays, and family visits were strictly limited.18 The small rituals and support networks that once defined birth were suddenly off-limits, leaving many women to navigate labor and delivery in unexpected isolation.

A 2024 study by Bute and colleagues set out to understand how these institutional policies and social distancing rules shaped women’s birth experiences.19 Drawing on focus group interviews with women from across the country, the researchers found a common theme: the emotional fallout of violated expectations.

Many mothers spoke of an overwhelming sense of loneliness. Some described walking through empty, dimly lit maternity wards, a far cry from the lively, bustling environments they had imagined. Others struggled with the pain of denying loved ones access to their newborns, feeling guilty about boundaries that clashed with family traditions. One participant summed up the experience: “We’re always together... to settle with ‘We’ll come look at him through the window,’ I just felt so guilty.”19

Expectancy violations theory helps explain why these changes landed so heavily. When the reality of giving birth during a pandemic veered sharply from the supportive, communal experience many expected, women described emotional responses ranging from disappointment to anger, even guilt and anxiety. As one mother put it, “This should be a joyous occasion, but then it just gets shut down.”19 The stories collected in this research make it clear: when institutional changes collide with deeply held expectations, the emotional impact reverberates well beyond the hospital walls, reshaping what should have been a moment of connection into one of adaptation and loss.

The authors point to a crucial takeaway for health systems and providers. Women who were pregnant during the early months of the pandemic often cited a lack of support from their care teams, describing feelings of uncertainty and distress.19 While hospitals were adapting to a public health crisis, the need for clear, proactive communication did not disappear. Proactively reaching out to reassure women that they would still receive attentive, compassionate care—even if the process looked different—could have eased anxiety and helped protect trust.

In the end, the study underscores how critical it is for systems and providers to anticipate not only medical needs, but also the emotional expectations patients bring to pivotal life events. When those expectations are met with empathy and clear guidance, the story of care can remain one of support, even when unusual circumstances force change.

Social Norms

Behind every expectation is a shared rule. Social norms are the invisible scripts we follow in everyday life, from how we greet people to how we behave in public spaces. This piece explores why we follow these informal rules in society, and what happens when we push against them. 

Theory of Mind

When someone breaks an unspoken rule, how do we figure out why they did it? Theory of Mind helps us decode the thoughts and intentions behind unexpected behaviors, whether it’s a mistimed joke or an overly personal comment. It’s what allows us to ask: Were they being rude, or just anxious? Read this article to find out how our ability to interpret others’ mental states shapes every social interaction.

1. Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1–2), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X93121003
2. Burgoon, J. K. (2015). Expectancy violations theory. In The international encyclopedia of interpersonal communication (pp. 1–9). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic102
3. Pope, A. (1871). The works of Alexander Pope: Correspondence (Vol. 2). J. Murray. http://books.google.com/books?id=_j8OAAAAIAAJ&oe=UTF-8 
4. Wright, C. N., & Roloff, M. E. (2015). You should just know why I'm upset: Expectancy violation theory and the influence of mind reading expectations (MRE) on responses to relational problems. Communication Research Reports, 32(1), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2014.989971
5. Pusey, A., Williams, J., & Goodall, J. (1997). The influence of dominance rank on the reproductive success of female chimpanzees. Science, 277(5327), 828–831. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5327.828
6. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
7. Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Hale, J. L., & de Turck, M. A. (1984). Relational messages associated with nonverbal behaviors. Human Communication Research, 10(3), 351–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1984.tb00025.x
8. Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test. Human Communication Research, 4(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00603.x
9. Bailey, A. A., & Bonifield, C. M. (2010). Broken (promotional) promises: The impact of firm reputation and blame. Journal of Marketing Communications, 16(5), 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260802683678
10. Parveen, N., Afshan, S. N., Srivastava, P., Hajjaj, R. Y., Osman, H. A., Adam, N. A., ... & Alqahtani, S. M. M. (2025). The role of chatbots in customer service: Examining language use and its impact on customer satisfaction. Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, 31(1), 403–407.
11. Rheu, M., Dai, Y., Meng, J., & Peng, W. (2024). When a chatbot disappoints you: Expectancy violation in human-chatbot interaction in a social support context. Communication Research, 51(7), 782–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221094299
12. Temporal, P. (2011). Advanced brand management: Managing brands in a changing world. John Wiley & Sons.
13. Park, S. Y., Cho, M., & Kim, S. (2021). The effect of CSR expectancy violation: Value from expectancy violation theory and confirmation bias. Journal of Marketing Communications, 27(4), 365–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2019.1671478
14. Bachman, G. F., & Guerrero, L. K. (2006). Relational quality and communicative responses following hurtful events in dating relationships: An expectancy violations analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(6), 943–963. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407506070473
15. Afifi, W., & Metts, S. (1998). Characteristics and consequences of expectation violations in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(3), 365–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598153004
16. Freedman, G., & Powell, D. N. (2024). Ghosting: A common but unpopular rejection strategy. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 18(12), e70026. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.70026
17. Konings, F., Sumter, S., & Vandenbosch, L. (2023). It’s not you, it’s me: Experiences with ghosting on mobile dating applications and Belgian emerging adults’ self-esteem. Sexuality & Culture, 27(4), 1328–1351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-023-10156-y
18. Budin, W. C. (2021). Preparing for birth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Perinatal Education, 30(3), 123–125. https://doi.org/10.1891/jpe-2021-0001
19. Bute, J. J., Brann, M., Scott, S. F., & Johnson, N. L. (2024). Expectancy violations and boundary management when giving birth during a pandemic: Implications for supporting women. Journal of Communication in Healthcare, 17(1), 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2023.2267844