Summary with the article on human interaction during conversation: Discrepancy arousal theory and cognitive valence theory by Guerrero et. al (2001).

Researchers have found that the behavior of one individual influences the behavior of another individual when they interact with each other during a conversation. Certain messages between these people will become similar over time. This article will focus on explaining, comparing and giving critique on two popular communication theories of mutual influence. These are the discrepancy arousal theory (DAT) and the cognitive valence theory (CVT). These theories see arousal change as the cause of adaptation processes. The level of arousal change predicts how one person adapts to another person’s behavior. Adaptation is the process whereby people’s verbal and non-verbal behaviors are influences by each other and this leads to increased or decreased similarity.

This article will mostly focus on reciprocity and compensation. Reciprocity means that a person responds in a similar way to a partner’s behavior. The response must be functionally comparable to the message triggering the response. Dominance should be met with dominance. Compensation means that a person responds with behaviors of comparable functional value, but in the other direction. There are also approach and avoidance behaviors. Approach behaviors sent cues that one wants to interact or is available for it and this increases closeness. Avoidance behavior is the opposite: somebody doesn’t really want to interact and the closeness is decreased.

Discrepancy arousal theory

This theory arose out of three pre-existing theories: equilibrium theory, arousal-labeling theory and discrepancy arousal theory. The first theory suggests that when one person’s affiliation behavior is more intense or less intense than his or her interaction partner wants, this interaction partner will increase or decrease affiliation behavior to establish an equilibrium. The arousal-label theory was basically the same, only more emphasis was put on arousal. The discrepancy arousal theory was the platform that can be used best to develop the DAT from, but this theory focused on infant-adult interactions. DAT makes predictions for both verbal and non-verbal communication. Discrepancy refers to the difference of expected and perceived action. Based on characteristics and norms people expect others to behave in a certain manner. If the expected and actual behavior differ, discrepancies are felt and these can change arousal. Small discrepancies will cause small arousal change and big discrepancies will cause high arousal change. Depending on the degree of arousal change the type of response can be positive or negative. Moderate increases in arousal are pleasant and this leads to positive emotions, while high increases in arousal are unpleasant and this leads to negative emotion. That means when you expect somebody to do something and he or she does this, you will most likely feel positive emotions.

But when you expect somebody to do something and this persons does not show the behavior you expected, you will most likely feel negative emotions. These emotions are linked to avoidance and approach behaviors. Positive emotions will lead to approach behaviors, while negative emotions will lead to avoidance behaviors.

Cognitive valence theory

The CVT was actually grounded in a couple of theories and one of them was the DAT. This CVT beliefs that cognitive factors must be included that help people evaluate change as positive or negative. Increased immediacy heightens arousal and high levels of arousal change lead to flight responses, while moderate levels of arousal change lead to variable responses. Under conditions of moderate arousal change people decide to reciprocate or compensate. The factors that influence the decision to reciprocate or compensate are culture, the situation, personality, relationship, temporary state (in what mood somebody is) and the interpersonal valence of the partner. The last factor refers to how rewarding the person who increases immediacy is. Attractive and powerful people have more leeway to increase immediacy. When all six of these factors are positive reciprocity will occur. When even one of these factors is evaluated negatively, compensation will occur.

The differences

These two theories look a little alike, but are quite different. CVT only looks at increases in immediacy behavior, whereas DAT looks at increases and decreases in immediacy behavior. Also, cognition is obviously more important in CVT than in DAT. In DAT affect plays a central role. The level of arousal change determines whether the affect is positive or negative and this affect determines whether the person will engage in approach or avoidance behavior. in CVT affect is not a predictor variable, but an outcome. Reciprocity is accompanied by positive affect, whereas compensation is accompanied by negative affect.

Support for the theories

DAT predicts that decreases in immediacy lead to arousal change. Different studies support this immediacy-arousal link. There is not much scientific support for the level of arousal change. Both theories predict that high levels of arousal change lead to avoidance responses and that moderate levels of arousal lead to approach. It seems that low and high levels of arousal lead to negative emotional outcomes, whereas moderate levels of arousal lead to positive emotional outcomes. Researchers, however, haven’t found the threshold were high arousal lies and it is therefore difficult to determine what high and low arousal is. There are studies that agree with the DAT and CVT and find similar findings, but there are also many studies that find the opposite results than the results of the DAT and CVT. Some studies found that more arousal change occurred in a moderately low immediacy condition and not a very high or very low immediacy condition. This is contrary to DAT.

Given their limitations, DAT and CVT still seem to provide useful frameworks for explaining the relationship between interpersonal processes, reciprocity and compensation. Both theories do need to be studies further and researchers should determine if and when high arousal change leads to negative affective responses. Future research should also look at why some studies agree with DAT and CVT and others don’t. Why are there conflicting outcomes? The writers of this article think that future research should also focus more on language and emotionally charged interactions.