Blog Posting #1

 1) Personally, I disagree with the statement, "A violation can never be positive." For example, within expectancy violations theory, the term violation valence refers to, "the perceived positive or negative value assigned to a breach of expectations, regardless of who the violator is (Griffin, Ledbetter, and Sparks, 2019, pg. 85)." In other words, if an individual violates a social expectation or normality, it can be positive depending on the receivers perception of the action. Generally speaking, within the United States, personal space is something that we are taught to respect from a very young age. Most individuals feel extremely uncomfortable when another person invades their personal space or touches them without consent. However, in some cases, violating personal space can be perceived as positive reinforcement. For example, patting someone on the back for accomplishing a strenuous task is almost always perceived as a positive because another individual is recognizing and non-verbally congratulating you for what you have achieved. Even though another individual is violating your personal space by physically touching you, this is considered a positive violation. In some instances, speaking closely to someone when discussing a personal matter can be perceived as a sign of high involvement in the conversation and a positive violation. When in a public setting, if an individual is disclosing confidential personal information to another person, leaning in unusually close is perceived as a sign of respect so surrounding individuals do not over hear the conversation. Below I have attached a video that further breaks down expectancy violations theory (as my visual) as well as a link to an interesting blog post that depicts the importance of patting someone on the back in a professional setting. 

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-88zn-j3Xmw 

Link to blog: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/power-pat-back-adam-bensman

3)  Reciprocity and self-disclosure are two concepts that are closely related within social penetration theory. Individuals participate in self-disclosure when they voluntarily share personal history, preferences, attitudes, values, secrets, etc., with another person (Griffin, Ledbetter, and Sparks, 2019, pg. 94). The process of self-disclosure allows individuals to be transparent with one another and it significantly contributes to the growth and development of any given relationship. Self-disclosure is a process that involves reciprocity. According to Griffin et al. (2019), reciprocity is a process that occurs when openness in one person leads to openness in another person. Self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially in the early stages of a relationship (Griffin et al., 2019, pg. 95). In other words, if a sender discloses personal information about themselves to a receiver, the receiver is likely to reciprocate that action and share personal information about themselves. Several instances may prompt both self-disclosure and reciprocity. For example, when I was a first semester freshman here at SUNY Fredonia, my roommate and I became close friends by self-disclosing information about ourselves. At the time, my roommate was a very closed individual and in order for us to become close, I took the initiative to self-disclose information about myself to him. Because of this, my roommate reciprocated by self-disclosing personal information about himself. Through the process of reciprocity and self-disclosure, my roommate and I were able to evolve in our friendship and develop a closer connection to each other. Below, I have included an image that breaks down some of the benefits and risks of self-disclosure. Note that reciprocity is on the benefits column!

4) Within our daily lives, there are certain instances when it is acceptable to violate social expectations and certain instances when it is unacceptable. An example of when it was acceptable to violate social expectations was when members of the Black Lives Matter Movement retaliated and violently protested against police brutality after the tragic murder of George Floyd. During these protests, BLM activists appropriately violated social expectations by vandalizing police cars, damaging public property, and looting stores in order to express their outrage for the inequality and discrimination that so many African Americans face within our country (Taylor, 2021). Even though BLM protesters were technically breaking the law and violating social expectations by committing these acts of violence, it was widely socially accepted by members of the democratic party because it was the only way for their voices to be heard after so many other individuals of color have been wrongfully targeted and murdered by police. The BLM protests are related to violation valence in that many individuals who are apart of the democratic party placed a positive value on their unexpected behavior of violently protesting (Griffin, Ledbetter, and Sparks, 2019, pg. 85). The BLM protests influenced the outcome of social penetration theory. For example, these protests were done with the intended outcome that African Americans would no longer be targeted by police. Even though the BLM movement was able to be heard through these protests, they risked being ridiculed for their violent behavior. According to our textbook, an outcome is "the perceived rewards minus the costs of interpersonal interaction (Griffin et al., 2019, pg. 97)." In the case of these BLM protests, the perceived rewards of eliminating police brutality against people of color through violent protests outweighed the costs of their interpersonal interactions with the community at large. There are many instances when violating an expectation is inappropriate. For example, if a student receives a poor grade on an assignment, it would be considered an inappropriate violation to argue with the professor and insult them for the bad grade. By essentially attacking the professor without any logical explanation as to why you feel the poor grade was unwarranted, one would be violating an expectation. However, if the student communicated with the professor in a professional manner and explained why they felt as though they should have received a better grade, this would be considered an appropriate violation by challenging the professors professional opinion. Arguing and insulting a professor for receiving a poor grade is related to the minimax principle of human behavior within social penetration theory. By arguing and insulting the professor, one would be maximizing their costs (by damaging their relationship with the professor), and minimizing their benefits (of potentially getting their grade changed). With this being said, arguing with a professor for receiving a poor grade would influence the outcome of social penetration theory. 

Link to the New York Times article that I cited within my answer (it further dissects the BLM protests):

https://www.nytimes.com/article/george-floyd-protests-timeline.html

Below I included an image from one of the BLM protests that shows an individual kneeling down and holding a BLM sign. There are flames behind him which demonstrate the anarchy that occurred during these protests. The flames symbolize the anger and hatred that so many individuals felt after the murder of George Floyd. 

Sources:

Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. G. (2019). A first look at communication theory. McGraw-Hill Education. 

Taylor, D. B. (2020, May 30). George Floyd protests: A Timeline. The New York Times. Retrieved January 29, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/article/george-floyd-protests-timeline.html