Digital visibility and the role of mutual interaction expectations: Reframing the journalist–audience relationship through the lens of interpersonal communication

Abstract

In the light of a new level of reciprocal visibility in the digital age, the journalist–audience relationship has fundamentally changed. Mutual expectations become visible or evolve anew. The question arises as to how these expectations and their (non-)fulfillment influence the journalist–audience relationship. Taking an interpersonal communication perspective by following expectancy violations theory, we focus on the level of interactions and propose a theoretical framework explaining how the interplay of journalists’ and audience’s mutual expectations affects their relationship. Our aim is to contribute to a better understanding of the journalist–audience relationship in digital media environments—and to provide indications for its functioning or failure.

Keywords

Expectancy violations theory (EVT)expectations interaction interpersonal communication journalist–audience relationship visibility

The relationship between journalists and their audience has fundamentally changed in the digital age (Schmidt and Loosen, 2015). The reasons for that include a new level of reciprocal visibility that is no longer limited to space-time proximity and the sense of sight (Detel, 2017; Thompson, 2000) and various options for direct interaction. As a result, users can express their knowledge, opinions, and preferences by writing comments, clicking on a “like” button, or using emoticons. Journalists can respond to user comments and interact with their audience in social media or in the comment sections of news outlets.

These new conditions have their benefits as they allow for a relationship that is conducive to cooperation and deliberation in the shaping of public opinion. From this perspective, they promote democracy and a stronger integration of the audience, that is, an increase in civic engagement in news-related processes (Lewis et al., 2014; Stroud et al., 2015). However, some of these expectations, for example, regarding audience participation, have been disappointed (Lewis and Molyneux, 2019; Prochazka et al., 2018) and drawbacks arise as tendencies of polarization and media hostility become apparent. For journalists, they involve the danger of becoming the target of uncivil comments and harassment (Chen et al., 2018). Thus, they can lead to a divide between the audience and journalists—or even to a break in the relationship, that is, audiences turn away from professional news content and journalists act more reluctant when engaging with the audience in digital media contexts. Societies and democracies run the risk of knowledge and participation diminishing (Gil de Zúñiga and Hinsley, 2013; Reese, 2019).

Crucial for positive or negative outcomes are the mutual expectations of journalists and audience, which now also relate to joint interactions. With respect to social interactions, expectations are understood as stable cognitions about the anticipated behavior of others, which are affected by communicator, relationship, and context characteristics (Burgoon, 2016). This article is based on the assumption that the relationship between journalists and their audience increasingly encompasses direct interaction in the sense of reciprocal, interrelated social action (Ziegele et al., 2014). The success of such a relationship depends to a large extent on the fulfillment of mutual expectations, in particular those on joint interactions in digital media environments (Lee, 2015; McLaughlin and Vitak, 2012). Against this background, the article focuses on one of the core questions that journalism studies need to address in the age of digitization: How can mutual interaction expectations and their (non-)fulfillment influence the relationship between journalists and media audience under the conditions of a new level of reciprocal visibility in digital environments—and lead to integration or divide? To answer this question, we developed a theoretical and argumentative framework based on the expectancy violations theory (EVT).

So far, hardly any theoretical approaches can be found in journalism research that provide comprehensive answers to this research question. Therefore, to analyze the relationship between journalists and audience and the underlying reciprocal expectations we apply with EVT an approach from interpersonal communication research (Burgoon, 1993). The transfer of this approach to journalism studies is justified at a time when the relationship between journalists and the public is becoming more interactive and interpersonal. Following O’Sullivan (2005), Lee (2015) categorizes the interaction between journalists and audience as a combination of mass and interpersonal communication, the so called masspersonal communication. The interpersonal level of this relationship and its increasing importance warrants a new theoretical perspective, that is, the application of an interpersonal communication approach to the relationship between journalists and audience.

In the following, we first take a closer look at the relationship between professional journalists and their media audience in the light of a new level of visibility and interactivity. In a next step, we present the results of a comprehensive literature synopsis on the mutual expectations of journalists and recipients in journalism and audience studies. To achieve this, we searched the databases for relevant studies, which we then systematized according to three different expectation dimensions: (1) journalists’ and audience’s expectations regarding the interaction counterpart, (2) the media product and production process as well as (3) the relationship and interaction with the counterpart. In doing so, we are able to highlight research gaps with respect to the (non-)fulfillment of journalists’ and audience’s expectations and their consequences for the journalist–audience relationship. On the basis of the EVT and the literature synopsis, we propose a theoretical framework which describes how the interplay of journalists’ and audience’s mutual expectations influences their relationship. Our aim is to contribute to a better understanding of the changed relationship between journalists and audiences under the conditions of a new level of reciprocal visibility and to provide indications for its functioning or failure.

The relationship between journalists and their audience in the light of digital visibility and interactivity

In former times and even at the beginning of online journalism, the public has been perceived by journalists as “passive information receivers” (De Keyser and Raeymaeckers, 2012: 826). In the meantime, however, the relationship between journalists and their audience has changed in many ways. This transformation includes the dissolution of the strict separation of producer and recipient roles that has existed for a long time (Dohle and Loosen, 2014; Hermida and Thurman, 2008; Schmidt and Loosen, 2015). Furthermore, the possibilities of integrating the audience in news related processes increase (Anderson, 2011; Karlsson, 2011). Last but not least, there are more opportunities for direct, interpersonal interactions between journalists and their audience (Lee and Tandoc, 2017; Neuberger and Nuernbergk, 2010; Welbers et al., 2016), whereas in the past there was hardly any immediate contact or participation (Lewis, 2012; Lewis et al., 2017). According to Dohle and Loosen (2014), the Internet with its diverse offerings thus alters the relationship between journalism and public and makes the connections between the two increasingly obvious. In the following, the relationship between journalists and their audience is to be understood as recurring interactions (Scholl et al., 2014), while interaction itself can be defined as a reciprocal interrelated social action and, last but not least, interactivity refers to the perceived interaction potential (Ziegele et al., 2014).

The developments mentioned above show that both interaction (or at least interactivity) and mutual visibility are integral aspects of the online contexts in which relationships between journalists and their audiences increasingly are shaped. And both aspects are directly linked with each other: In the age of digitization and online contexts, “the rise of the new visibility is inseparably linked to new forms of action and interaction brought about by the media” (Thompson, 2005: 35). Visibility can be seen as a potential for perceptibility, as “that which can be seen” (Thompson, 2005: 35) of the actors and their communicative contributions. In the digital sphere, it is no longer limited to space–time proximity and the sense of sight, but can be described as perceptibility by all senses (Detel, 2017; Thompson, 2000). In order to account for these changes, we term these new perceptual conditions as digital visibility.

Visibility of two counterparts can be both the trigger and the result of interaction and vice versa. On the one hand, for example, in order to be able to interact with someone, a possible counterpart has to be visible. On the other hand, interaction with one party can, for example, increase the visibility of a possible interaction partner. This can be the case, for example, when the exchange between members of a media audience in social media leads to increased visibility of journalists. Moreover, making news production processes more visible to news users, for example, by complementing a news article with an “explain-your-process” box (Chen et al., 2019), can trigger user engagement and initiate further journalist–audience interactions.

With regard to the relationship between journalists and their audience, in an online context, visibility and interaction (or interactivity) are not only closely linked. They also affect both sides’ expectations and are at the same time affected by them (Scholl et al., 2014). First, in the interactions between journalists and audience, their communicative contributions as well as their mutual expectations become more visible (Schmidt and Loosen, 2015). Existing mutual expectations need not be assumed or cannot be ignored by the interaction counterparts anymore (Scholl et al., 2014). Second, new expectations can arise, for example, toward interaction or interactivity, and existing expectations can change, for example, toward more visibility in news production processes than before (Hermida and Thurman, 2008; Schmidt et al., 2013). Third, the confirmation or violation of expectations can be observed more closely and communicated visibly to many—with consequences for the journalist–audience relationship.

In the following, we look at the mutual expectations of journalists and their audiences in journalism and audience studies, in particular with regard to reciprocity and interactivity, and their linkages to the journalist–audience relationship.

Journalists’ and audience’s expectations in digital media environments

Literature review: journalists’ and audience’s expectations

In journalism and audience studies, the concept of expectation is used alongside others. In journalism studies, for example, the focus lies on journalistic role perceptions or the audience image (Heider et al., 2005; Heise et al., 2013; Mellado, 2015; Schmidt et al., 2013). In audience and media reception studies, relevant concepts are trust, media accountability and media quality, journalistic functions and professional standards or motives for participation (Fletcher and Park, 2017; Gil de Zúñiga and Hinsley, 2013; McQuail, 2013; Schmidt and Loosen, 2015). Trust in the news media, for example, is thereby seen as a positive expectation and a basis for the participation of the audience (Chen et al., 2019; Fletcher and Park, 2017). In contrast, distrust refers to negative or violated audience expectations. Mutual expectations of journalists and audiences are not always clearly defined, but closely entwined as, for example, journalists’ expectations also include the expected audience’s expectations of journalism (“expectations of expectations”; Donsbach, 2004; Luhmann, 1995/1984). Taking these challenges into account, we propose an analytical modeling that aims at identifying possible expectation dimensions of journalists and audiences for mutual interaction and making them usable for the application of EVT.

In both journalism and audience studies, expectations can be modeled analytically on the following three dimensions (see Table 1): (1) the interaction counterpart, (2) the media product and the production processes behind it as well as (3) the relationship and interaction between journalists and audience itself against the background of digital visibility. While there are numerous findings on the first two dimensions, research on the third dimension has slowly increased in recent years. As our focus in this article is on the level of interaction, we provide just a short glimpse at research on the first two dimensions and put a stronger emphasis on the third dimension.

Table 1.

Dimensions of journalists’ and audience’s expectations.

	Journalists’ expectations	Audience’s expectations
Interaction counterpart	Images of audience, for example, as ignorant, responsive, or antagonistic; expectations of audience’s interests and motives	Images of journalists and journalism; expectations regarding journalistic roles or norms, for example, distance, independence, or objectivity
Media product and production process	Goals, role perceptions, norms for one’s own professional work; expectations concerning the institutional framework of journalistic work	Expectations of media quality and performance of journalistic products; expectations concerning specific instruments or formats as well as topics
Relationship and interaction with counterpart	Motives for enabling participation, for example, accessing new target groups or receiving feedback	Expectations, for example, regarding responsivity, discursivity, interactivity, involvement, participatory offerings or opportunities for follow-up communication

Starting with journalism studies, journalists’ expectations about (1) their audience are reflected in particular in their image of the audience, for example, as being ignorant, responsive, or antagonistic. The studies on this subject deal especially with the known or presumed interests and motives of the audience (Anderson, 2011; Donsbach, 2004; Loosen and Schmidt, 2012; Scholl et al., 2014).

Regarding (2) journalists’ expectations about the media product and the preceding production processes, journalists are primarily concerned with the work they do, the goals and norms they attach to it, and the institutional framework of their work. Their own role perceptions are also assigned to this dimension, as they shape the media product and the production process. They are not directly related to the audience, but rather they are often derived from the audience’s assumed expectations (Donsbach, 2012; Hanitzsch and Vos, 2017; Holton et al., 2016; Mellado, 2015; Schmidt et al., 2013). Journalists’ expectations of their own professional work and the media product are, for example, neutral or educating information (Hanitzsch et al., 2011; Vos et al., 2019).

Findings on (3) journalists’ expectations concerning the relationship and interaction with their audience are rare. Instead, insights regarding journalists’ motives for enabling the participation of the audience can be found. These include accessing new target groups and monetizing options, receiving feedback, and notes on errors, participating in an increasing diversity of opinions and, to some extent, in the diversity of topics and topicality (Robinson, 2010; Schmidt et al., 2013; Sehl, 2013). Although, earlier research examined the relationship between journalists’ role perceptions and their beliefs and practices of interaction with the audience (Holton et al., 2016), little is known about journalists’ specific expectations about interactions with their audience.

Looking at the audience’s side, numerous expectations about journalistic role(s) or norms become apparent concerning (1) journalistic actors. For example, the preservation of distance and independence as well as objectivity are mentioned, as is a control function, especially with regard to politics and business (Heider et al., 2005; Kovach and Rosenstiel, 2007; Lee, 2015). Poindexter et al. (2006) identify four dimensions of readers’ expectations of local journalists, including understanding of and caring about the local community and acting as a watchdog. Expectations of media codes of ethics as well as images of journalists, media, and journalism in the eyes of their audience are also examined (Braman, 1988; Scholl et al., 2014).

Closely related to these expectations are the audience’s expectations of (2) the journalistic work and the media product. They concentrate on media quality and the performance of journalistic products (Poindexter et al., 2006; Van der Wurff and Schönbach, 2014a). Expectations include, for example, truthful, transparent, comprehensive, rapid, but accurate reporting (Heider et al., 2005; Heise et al., 2013; Kovach and Rosenstiel, 2007; McQuail, 2013). In addition, expectations of instruments or forms of presentation, such as story formats, are analyzed (Möckel, 2019). In addition, there are studies that examine the audience’s expectations and interests of news topics (Van der Wurff and Schönbach, 2014b).

Both preceding dimensions refer to traditional journalistic roles and norms that shape the audience’s view (Lee, 2015). However, in the course of the growing importance of digital news environments, responsivity, and interactivity are shown to be additional audience’s expectations of the (3) relationship between media and society (Van der Wurff and Schönbach, 2014a). Aside from that, previous research has shown that participation, involvement and discursivity are specific expectations of the relationship and interaction with journalists (Borger et al., 2016; Karlsson, 2011; Lewis et al., 2014). The audience expects the media to provide participatory offerings and opportunities for follow-up communication (Heider et al., 2005). Interactivity also includes the expectation of receiving a response to a sent email (Newhagen et al., 1995). In summary, Heise et al. (2013) distinguish, for example, between the expectation of being perceived and recognized and the expectation of interacting directly with journalists. Van der Wurff and Schönbach (2014b) categorize audience’s relational expectations as citizen demands, referring to journalists’ responsiveness to their audience.

Theoretical conceptualizations of the new journalist–audience relationship

Some aspects of journalist–audience relationships in digital media environments have already been discussed in journalism studies within the framework of theorizing new conditions of journalism in digital media contexts. Concepts like reciprocal journalism (Lewis et al., 2014, 2017), participatory journalism (Borger et al., 2016; Hermida and Thurman, 2008; Molm, 2010; Robinson, 2011; Sehl, 2013), or community journalism (Robinson, 2014) aim to analyze new possibilities of interaction and cooperation between journalists and their audience. First concepts also explicitly focus on mutual expectations.

Drawing on the concept of participatory journalism, Borger et al. (2016) investigate participants’ expectations of the reciprocity of relationships with professional journalists when participating in news production processes. Whereas participants expect an interactive relationship and a role division with journalists, the latter adhere their traditional journalistic role as a gatekeeper and prefer a rather transactional than interactive relationship. The study further reveals that participants reduce their engagement if their expectations are violated, that is, journalists do not value their contributions or do not respond to their messages. In addition, participants have conflicting expectations with respect to the quality of audience contributions and their desire to be fully integrated in the production process. The concept of participatory journalism more explicitly focuses on users’ engagement in the production process (role perceptions, quality of media output). Although it includes the aspect of process-reciprocity, that is, referring to audience’s perception of the responsiveness of journalists, and therefore acknowledges collaborative and collective elements of journalistic work (Singer et al., 2011), it does not provide a framework to systematize journalists’ and audience’s conflicting interaction expectations. Similarly, community journalism supports the idea of a stronger civic engagement in the news production process but also enhances the interests of (local) communities in order to establish a greater sense of closeness and connectedness between audience and journalists (Robinson, 2014). Again, the focus is on media production. Both sides’ expectations about interactional encounters in social media environments are not explicitly addressed. Beyond that, reciprocal journalism puts a strong emphasis on the mutual beneficence of the exchange between journalists and audience but this does not necessarily include direct interaction (Lewis et al., 2017).

Based on assumptions of the dynamic-transactional approach (Früh and Wirth, 1992) and sociological inclusion theory, Loosen and Schmidt (2012; see also Schmidt and Loosen, 2015), argue that reciprocal expectations influence the relationship between journalists and audience. A congruence of journalistic and audience performances and both sides’ expectations will lead to a higher level of integration and a closer relationship. More recently, the authors provide empirical evidence of “a substantial amount of congruence between journalists and their audiences” (Schmidt and Loosen, 2015: 275), especially when it comes to essential parts of journalism, that is, creation, publication, and distribution.

Extending this perspective, our conceptual framework does not claim congruence and expectancy confirmation to be a prerequisite of mutually beneficial interaction outcomes. Instead, we analyze conditions under which incongruence and unmet expectations may also lead to favorable outcomes. However, the question remains how journalists and their audience respond to a violation or confirmation of the mutual expectations and how this affects their relationship. In the following, the EVT is used to theoretically explore these questions.

Expectancy violations theory and its application to the journalist–audience relationship

Theoretical approach

As briefly stated in the ‘introduction’ section, expectations are stable patterns of anticipated behavior that are influenced by characteristics of the communicator, the relationship, and the communication context (Burgoon, 1993; Burgoon and Walther, 1990). They shape and define interpersonal interactions serving as framing devices (Burgoon, 1993; Goffman, 1974). If no individual information is available, expectations derive from norms on identifiable and visible group characteristics such as gender or cultural background, characteristics of the relationship such as status or trust, and situational factors (Burgoon, 2016). According to EVT, expectations are violated, when individual actors behave in a way that is not typical or anticipated (Levine et al., 2000). Expectations are confirmed, if individuals’ interaction behavior does not substantially deviate from how they are supposed to interact (Burgoon, 1993, 2016).

EVT was originally developed to explain communicative effects of proxemics violations, that is, the violation of cultural norms of space and distance, in social interactions (Burgoon, 1978). It draws on the relevance of social norms in interactions. If a deviation from expected interaction behavior passes a certain threshold, this is regarded as a violation and possible threat. Expectancy violations in interpersonal communication contexts distract the attention from the interaction and draw it to the violation (Bevan et al., 2014; Burgoon, 1993, 2016). Moreover, the greater the deviation from the expected pattern, the stronger is the effect of the violation. However, unmet expectations are not necessarily negative as valence depends on the evaluation of the act and the actor (Burgoon, 2016). Interaction behavior and preinteractional information about the communicator determine the communicator reward valence, that is, an individual’s evaluation of the communicator’s characteristics such as attractiveness, status, or credibility (Burgoon, 1993). The rewardingness ranges on a continuum from extremely positive to extremely negative and influences the reactions of the interaction partner in the case of met or unmet expectations. In addition, expectation confirmations and violations can be considered as postinteractional information that influence the communicator reward valence regarding future interactions.

Depending on the valence of the communicator and the relationship, expectancy violations can be perceived as more positive than expectancy confirmations (Burgoon, 1993). That is, both confirmations and violations can cause positive or negative communication outcomes (Burgoon, 2016). In the following, we describe these diverging effects exemplarily for the audience perspective. (1) An expectancy confirmation is positive if the interaction counterpart is evaluated positively and interacts as expected. In the journalist–audience relationship, this could be the case if audience members value the journalist or the media organization and the journalist responds to questions or comments as they expect. (2) An expectancy confirmation is judged negatively if there are unfavorable attitudes toward the counterpart but the interaction pattern is as expected. This applies to media skeptics which might respond negatively to journalistic contributions in online discussions, for example, responding to audience questions by adding facts or sources. (3) An expectancy violation is regarded as positive if it is initiated by a favorably judged interaction partner. For instance, audience members holding favorable media images are presumably more likely to accept changes in communication practices (e.g. using humorous or less formal language) of online journalists than users with less favorable attitudes. (4) Finally, if the initiator is non-rewarding and deviates from expected interaction patterns, this is regarded as a negative violation. If we reconsider the example in the third case, this would imply that unexpected humoristic comments by journalists will be judged even worse if user hold a negative media image or are skeptical toward the media in general. Hence, EVT accounts for conditions in which expectancy violations lead to positive or even better outcomes than positive confirmations of expectations. Overall, EVT offers a theoretical framework to explain how confirmations and violations of interaction expectations influence communication outcomes, for example, liking, credibility, or persuasion (Burgoon, 2016).

EVT has been applied to different computer-mediated communication contexts, including email conversations (Kalman and Rafaeli, 2011), social media relationships (Bevan et al., 2014; McLaughlin and Vitak, 2012), multiplayer online games (Evans and Bang, 2019), and deviant online behavior (Nicholls and Rice, 2017), but also to mass media messages (Campo et al., 2004; Walther-Martin, 2015) and human–computer interaction (Burgoon et al., 2016). To our knowledge, only one attempt has been made to relate this approach to the journalist–audience relationship (Lee, 2015).

Expectancy violations and confirmations in the journalist–audience relationship

Lee (2015) suggested the application of EVT to the journalist–audience relationship. Taking into account that journalists’ expectations and norms as well as audience perceptions influence journalistic activities in social media, the study analyzed the impact of journalists’ self-disclosure and interaction with others in social media on audience perceptions of journalists. Findings reveal discrepancies between journalistic norms and social media norms of user interaction that negatively affect the audience’s perceptions of journalists’ professionality: “According to the expectancy violation theory, this result might indicate that journalists’ active liking and chatting on social media sites violate professional expectations of audiences” (Lee, 2015: 324).

We see this attempt as a starting point to elaborate in greater depth how EVT can be applied to the confirmation and violation of journalists’ and audience’s interaction expectations as well as its outcomes—and not least to make an innovative contribution to journalism studies from the perspective of interpersonal communication studies.

Applying EVT to interaction-related expectations of journalists and media audience, we also account for the different expectation dimensions of both sides, as identified earlier, that are related to the interaction counterpart, the interaction context (i.e. the media product and/or production process) as well as the interaction itself. The media product (e.g. a news post) can be the reason or starting point of an interaction, no matter how this interaction takes place (face-to-face or mediated). In digital media environments, the setting is likely to induce such interactions because users have different options to directly express their opinions or concerns by writing a comment or liking articles. As such, the roles of the media product and production process are twofold: on the one hand, they create a context for journalist–audience interactions whereas, on the other hand, they are also objects of expectations from both sides that can be affected by interactional expectancy violations.

Expectations of the interaction counterpart and context can be considered as preinteractional and postinteractional expectation dimensions (Burgoon, 2016). Moreover, these three expectation dimensions are assumed to be reciprocally related. That is, the confirmation or violation of interaction-related expectations can influence the confirmation or violation of expectations about the interaction counterpart and/or the media product. Meeting or violating interaction-related expectations, therefore, influences the journalist–audience relationship and can lead to an integration or a divide. A schematic model capturing these assumptions is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Schematic model of journalistic and audience expectations. Original EVT elements are highlighted in gray.

Figure 2 exemplifies the reciprocal relations between expectation dimensions and their effects on acceptance (e.g. indicated by web metrics) as a journalists’ interaction-related expectation and on participation as the audience’s interaction-related expectation. From a journalist’s perspective, the expectation of acceptance can be violated by its absence or by an increased incivility in audience reactions. However, if the journalist’s interaction expectations are satisfied, for example, by receiving high number of likes, shares, or approving comments, this could also lead to an expectancy violation regarding the media product or production process, that is, a loss of journalistic authority when web metrics get more important than traditional journalistic criteria. For the audience, violated participation expectations are reflected by the perception of detachment and disregard that can lead to media hostility or increased incivility. For instance, if parts of the audience perceive that some groups and their opinions are privileged in interaction, this can lead to more negative or hostile perceptions of the media outlet. Confirming participation expectations can also lead to a violation of expectations about the media product. As Borger et al. (2016) show, engaged users (although valuing possibilities of participation) are sometimes disappointed by other audience contributions to the news production and question the quality of the news outlet. Integration can, therefore, only be successful if the needs for participation are not satisfied at the expense of the credibility of the media product or the journalist, as this would lead to a negative outcome of an expectation confirmation. As depicted in Figure 2, incivility is a violation of journalists’ interaction-related expectations, but it is also an effect of violated audience expectations and can therefore indicate a divide in the journalist–audience relationship. Similarly, satisfying audience’s participation expectations can cause greater participation, indicating an increased integration. In some cases, these processes are not direct in nature, but work indirectly on the level of generalized expectations and expectancy violations (Lewis et al., 2014), that is, audiences’ expectations do not only relate to their own direct interaction experiences but also to the observation of journalists’ interactions with other audience members. The nature of the relationship can be described on a continuum between full integration (which is a theoretically achievable state of a full integration of the audience in the journalistic process; for example, participation in journalistic decision-making) and divide (which is a theoretically possible state of full alienation; for example, consumption of alternative media or cancelation of subscription). Hence, the relationship is a product of the mutual and interacting expectations of the communication partners and the confirmation or violation thereof.

Figure 2.

Expectancy violations in the journalist–audience relationship. Text in bold refers to examples in the text.

With respect to the negative (divide) and positive (integration) outcomes of expectancy violations and confirmations, EVT suggests that the higher the audience values the role of journalists and their work, the less likely they will react negatively to interaction-related expectancy violations. However, if journalists appreciate the audience’s participatory contributions, they will rather accept a certain degree of incivility. However, previous research reveals that journalistic social media activities violate audience expectations as traditional journalistic norms such as objectivity and detachment conflict with social media norms such as self-disclosure and interaction (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2018; Lee, 2015). Hence, social media activities influence audience’s perception of journalists and media products (Karlsson, 2011). Engaging with audience members in trivial conversations negatively affects audience’s perception of the journalist’s professionalism (Lee, 2015). Expectancy violations may lead to negative media perceptions resulting from increased hostile media bias, for example, when user comments questioning the editorial policy are removed or not published.

Discussion

For journalists and audience, digital visibility and increased interaction in online media environments is a double-edged sword (Lee, 2015). From the perspective of journalism, the benefits of increased audience participation in the journalistic production process are still questioned (Bentivegna and Marchetti, 2018; Karlsson, 2011; Lewis et al., 2017; Robinson, 2010; Scholl et al., 2014). On the one hand, increased visibility seems to foster the audience’s trust in news outlets (Chen et al., 2019). On the other hand, expectancy violations, for example, journalists’ experience of increased harassment and incivility, bear the risk of a one-sided breakup (Chen et al., 2018), which can lead to a divide between journalists and audience. From the audience’s point of view, the relationship is more balanced in digital media environments than in traditional ones (Dohle and Loosen, 2014), but the asymmetry remains (Reese and Shoemaker, 2016). Hence, expectancy violations can turn users away from journalists and media outlets (Lee, 2015) and therefore mitigate integration processes. However, the application of EVT to the journalist–audience relationship implies that expectancy violations also have the potential to foster integration, as the violation of expectations is part of a learning process. As such, expectancy violations do not have to be dysfunctional (Görke, 2014).

In this article, we proposed an interpersonal communication perspective to better understand the changes in the journalist–audience relationship in the light of digital visibility. Previous concepts that address this relationship in digital media environments focus either on the congruence of journalistic and audience expectations regarding audience’s inclusion in journalistic processes (Loosen and Schmidt, 2012) or on the exchange outcomes (i.e. reciprocity; Lewis et al., 2014), but also reveal diverging role perceptions and expectations of journalists (Holton et al., 2016) and engaging news media users (Borger et al., 2016). By focusing on interaction-related expectations and the interaction itself as well as integrating this relationship dimension within a complex framework of mutual expectations that characterize the journalist–audience relationship, our approach complements the theoretical concepts mentioned above. Moreover, it offers a dynamic perspective on this relationship. We assume that integration and divide are causes and effects of interacting expectation dimensions on both sides, which lead to changes in the expectation structures of journalists and media audience in the medium to long term.

Interaction expectations are influenced by preinteractional and postinteractional expectation dimensions that involve the interaction counterpart or communicator (journalists, audience members) as well as the interaction context that can be the media product itself and/or the production process. The valence of these expectation objects predict, how journalists and audience respond to expectancy confirmations and violations. If the journalist’s (traditional) role and the media product itself are highly valued, expectancy violations that concern the interaction level of the relationship, that is, responsiveness and participation, will have less negative effects on the relationship level than in the case of a distrusted journalist with a high level of responsiveness. Also, if journalists highly appreciate audience’s contributions and feedback they are presumably less concerned about negative reactions, that is, challenging opinions and criticism in the comment sections. Nevertheless, digital visibility in journalist–audience interactions likewise causes expectations among journalists (Chen et al., 2018; Heise et al., 2013) and within the media audience, especially in those with higher levels of engagement (Borger et al., 2016). This is particularly crucial with respect to issues of increased incivility in comment sections of news outlets that affects user engagement (Anderson et al., 2014; Coe et al., 2014), and with respect to a heightened competition among media outlets to increase audience reach (Welbers et al., 2016).

Journalist–audience interactions can take place in various media-related contexts providing different degrees of visibility of interaction counterparts, media products and/or content. It seems likely that higher degrees of visibility will lead to stronger effects of positive or negative outcomes in the course of expectancy violations on the journalist–audience relationship. Besides the changes in the relationship between journalists and audience due to digital visibility, new types of interaction challenge journalism in digital news environments. For example, human–computer interactions will play an increasingly important role in news production in the future (Lewis et al., 2019). EVT also provides a suitable framework for analyzing these types of interactions and relationships (Burgoon et al., 2016). Limits to the application of EVT, however, can be seen in relationships and interactions that do not involve interpersonal aspects, for example, traditional mass communication.

For future empirical investigations on the effects of interaction-related expectancy violations and confirmations on the relationship between journalists and audience guided by this framework, we propose a three-step strategy of (1) exploration, (2) measure development, and (3) testing causality. First, a thorough exploration of both journalists’ and audience’s interaction expectations, expectancy violations and confirmation is warranted to complement previous research findings (Borger et al., 2016; Lee, 2015). Qualitative interview data from both sides, for example, in combination with a Q-sort survey, are needed to capture a broad range of expectations. A synthesis of these findings can be used to define model constructs and derive appropriate measurement using survey data that is, developing and testing valid, reliable, and distinct measures of expectation dimensions of journalists and audience. Finally, the causality of the predicted relations can be tested in experimental settings, for example, including vignettes or conjoint tasks. For instance, experimental studies could analyze the effect of expectancy violations on participation and the interplay of expectation dimensions answering the following research questions: How does the violation of audience’s interaction expectations (e.g. low responsiveness of journalists) influence their level of participation? How do audience’s expectations of their interaction partner and the media product influence this relationship? On the journalists’ side, it could be tested, if expectancy violations (e.g. an increase of audience incivility) lead to lower engagement in interactions with users and how this is moderated by their role expectations and perceptions of the audience. Such investigations can shed light on the emergence of hostile media perceptions as well as ambiguities and divergences in journalistic role perceptions in digital media environments.

Conclusion

The new digital visibility in online media environments requires a stronger emphasis on the interaction level to understand the changes in the relationship between journalists and media audience. Drawing on EVT and thus on interpersonal communication research, this article proposes a theoretical model of the causes and effects of mutual interaction-related expectancy violations and confirmations that influence this relationship. Based on this model and on previous conceptualizations of journalists’ and audience’s mutual expectations, the journalist–audience relationship evolves in the light of a new level of visibility in the digital age from violations and confirmations of interacting expectation dimensions. These dimensions concern the interaction counterpart, the interaction context, and the interaction itself—and are evaluated by the interaction counterparts involved.

Footnotes

Authors’ note

All authors have agreed to the submission and that the article is not currently being considered for publication by any other print or electronic journal.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Claudia Wilhelm

Author biographies

Claudia Wilhelm is a senior researcher at the University of Erfurt, Germany. Her research interests include deviant behavior in digital media contexts, digital games, news selection and audience engagement in social media as well as gender and digital visibility.

Helena Stehle is a senior researcher at the University of Hohenheim, Germany. Her research interests include the relationship and interaction between journalism and audience, digital visibility, organizational and strategic communication, and interpersonal communication.

Hanne Detel is a senior researcher at the University of Tübingen, Germany. Her research focuses on journalism studies in times of digital visibility, computer-mediated communication, scandal, celebrity and influencer studies.

References

Anderson

Brossard

Scheufele

, et al. (2014) The “nasty effect”: online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19(3): 373–387.

Anderson

(2011) Deliberative, agonistic, and algorithmic audiences: journalism’s vision of its public in an age of audience transparency. International Journal of Communication 5: 529–547. Available at: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/884 (accessed 28 July 2019).

Bentivegna

Marchetti

(2018) Journalists at a crossroads: are traditional norms and practices challenged by Twitter? Journalism 19(2): 270–290.

Bevan

Ang

Fearns

(2014) Being unfriended on Facebook: an application of expectancy violation theory. Computers in Human Behavior 33: 171–178.

Borger

Van Hoof

Sanders

(2016) Expecting reciprocity: towards a model of the participants’ perspective on participatory journalism. New Media & Society 18(5): 708–725.

Braman

(1988) Public expectations of media versus standards in codes of ethics. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 65(1): 71–77.

Burgoon

(1978) A communication model of personal space violations: explication and an initial test. Human Communication Research 4(2): 129–142.

Burgoon

(1993) Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 12(1–2): 30–48.

Burgoon

(2016) Expectancy violations theory. In: Berger

Roloff

(eds) The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Available at: https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/full/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic102 (accessed 29 July 2019).

10.

Burgoon

Walther

(1990) Nonverbal expectancies and the consequences of violations. Human Communication Research 17(2): 232–265.

11.

Burgoon

Bonito

Lowry

, et al. (2016) Application of expectancy violations theory to communication with and judgments about embodied agents during a decision-making task. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 91: 24–36.

12.

Campo

Cameron

Brossard

, et al. (2004) Social norms and expectancy violation theories: assessing the effectiveness of health communication campaigns. Communication Monographs 71(4): 448–470.

13.

Chen

Curry

Whipple

(2019) Building Trust: What Works for News Organizations. Austin, TX: Center for Media Engagement. Available at: https://mediaengagement.org/research/building-trust/ (accessed 28 July 2019).

14.

Chen

Pain

Chen

, et al. (2018) “You really have to have a thick skin”: a cross-cultural perspective on how online harassment influences female journalists. Journalism. 21(7): 877–895.

15.

Coe

Kenski

Rains

(2014) Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication 64(4): 658–679.

16.

De Keyser

Raeymaeckers

(2012) The printed rise of the common man: how web 2.0 has changed the representation of ordinary people in newspapers. Journalism Studies 13(5–6): 825–835.

17.

Detel

(2017) Netzprominenz. Entstehung, Erhaltung und Monetarisierung von Prominenz im digitalen Zeitalter [Internet Celebrity: Emergence, Preservation, and Monetization of Celebrities in the Digital Age]. Cologne: Herbert von Halem Verlag.

18.

Dohle

Loosen

(2014) Journalismusforschung und Rezeptions- und Wirkungsforschung. Intradisziplinäre Trennung oder selbstverständliche Verbindung [Journalism studies and reception and effects research: intradisciplinary separation or self-evident connection]. In: Loosen

Dohle

(eds) Journalismus und (sein) Publikum [Journalism and (Its) Audience]. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, pp. 1–13.

19.

Donsbach

(2004) Psychology of news decisions: factors behind journalists’ professional behavior. Journalism 5(2): 131–157.

20.

Donsbach

(2012) Journalists’ role perception. In: Donsbach

(ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1–6.

21.

Evans

Bang

(2019) Extending expectancy violations theory to multiplayer online games: the structure and effects of expectations on attitude toward the advertising, attitude toward the brand, and purchase intent. Journal of Promotion Management 25(4): 589–608.

22.

Fletcher

Park

(2017) The impact of trust in the news media on online news consumption and participation. Digital Journalism 5(10): 1281–1299.

23.

Früh

Wirth

(1992) Looking into the black box: intolerance of ambiguity and dynamic-transactional processes in the development of issue-related images. European Journal of Communication 7(4): 541–569.

24.

Gil

Zúñiga

Hinsley

(2013) The press versus the public: what is “good journalism?” Journalism Studies 14(6): 926–942.

25.

Gil

Zúñiga

Diehl

Ardèvol-Abreu

(2018) When citizens and journalists interact on Twitter: expectations of journalists’ performance on social media and perceptions of media bias. Journalism Studies 19(2): 227–246.

26.

Goffman

(1974) Frame Analysis. New York: Harper & Row.

27.

Görke

(2014) Vom Hasen und vom Igel—oder warum der Journalismus sein Publikum stets erfolgreich und folgenreich verfehlen darf [The rabbit and the hedgehog—or why journalism is always allowed to miss its audience successfully and momentously]. In: Loosen

Dohle

(eds) Journalismus und (sein) Publikum [Journalism and (Its) Audience]. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, pp. 35–51.

28.

Hanitzsch

Vos

(2017) Journalistic roles and the struggle over institutional identity: the discursive constitution of journalism. Communication Theory 27(2): 115–135.

29.

Hanitzsch

Hanusch

Mellado

, et al. (2011) Mapping journalism cultures across nations. Journalism Studies 12(3): 273–293.

30.

Heider

McCombs

Poindexter

(2005) What the public expects of local news: views on public and traditional journalism. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 82(4): 952–967.

31.

Heise

Loosen

Reimer

, et al. (2013) Including the audience: comparing the attitudes and expectations of journalists and users towards participation in German TV news journalism. Journalism Studies 15(4): 411–430.

32.

Hermida

Thurman

(2008) A clash of cultures: the integration of user-generated content within professional journalistic frameworks at British newspaper websites. Journalism Practice 2(3): 343–356.

33.

Holton

Lewis

Coddington

(2016) Interacting with audiences: journalistic role conceptions, reciprocity, and perceptions about participation. Journalism Studies 17(7): 849–859.

34.

Kalman

Rafaeli

(2011) Online pauses and silence: chronemic expectancy violations in written computer-mediated communication. Communication Research 38(1): 54–69.

35.

Karlsson

(2011) The immediacy of online news, the visibility of journalistic processes and a restructuring of journalistic authority. Journalism 12(3): 279–295.

36.

Kovach

Rosenstiel

(2007) The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect. New York: Three Rivers Press.

37.

Lee

E-J

Tandoc

Jr (2017) When news meets the audience: how audience feedback online affects news production and consumption. Human Communication Research 43(4): 436–449.

38.

Lee

(2015) The double-edged sword: the effects of journalists’ social media activities on audience perceptions of journalists and their news products. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 20(3): 312–329.

39.

Levine

Anders

Banas

, et al. (2000) Norms, expectations, and deception: a norm violation model of veracity judgments. Communication Monographs 67(2): 123–137.

40.

Lewis

(2012) The tension between professional control and open participation: journalism and its boundaries. Information, Communication & Society 15(6): 836–866.

41.

Lewis

Molyneux

(2019) A decade of research on social media and journalism: assumptions, blind spots, and a way forward. Media and Communication 6(4): 11–23.

42.

Lewis

Guzman

Schmidt

(2019) Automation, journalism, and human-machine communication: rethinking roles and relationships of humans and machines in news. Digital Journalism 7(4): 409–427.

43.

Lewis

Holton

Coddington

(2014) Reciprocal journalism: a concept of mutual exchange between journalists and audiences. Journalism Practice 8(2): 229–241.

44.

Lewis

Holton

Coddington

(2017) From participation to reciprocity in the journalist-audience relationship. In: Peters

Broersma

(eds) Rethinking Journalism Again: Societal Role and Public Relevance in a Digital Age. New York: Routledge, pp. 161–174.

45.

Loosen

Schmidt

J-H

(2012) (Re-)discovering the audience: the relationship between journalism and audience in networked digital media. Information, Communication & Society 15(6): 867–887.

46.

Luhmann

(1995/1984) Social Systems. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.

47.

McLaughlin

Vitak

(2012) Norm evolution and violation on Facebook. New Media & Society 14(2): 299–315.

48.

McQuail

(2013) Journalism and Society. London: SAGE.

49.

Mellado

(2015) Professional roles in news content: six dimensions of journalistic role performance. Journalism Studies 16(4): 596–614.

50.

Möckel

(2019) News in portrait format: how can the story format on social media channels be used in a journalistic context? Journalism Research 2(1): 32–42.

51.

Molm

(2010) The structure of reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly 73(2): 119–131.

52.

Neuberger

Nuernbergk

(2010) Competition, complementarity or integration? The relationship between professional and participatory media. Journalism Practice 4(3): 319–332.

53.

Newhagen

Cordes

Levy

(1995) Nightly@nbc.com: audience scope and the perception of interactivity in viewer mail on the Internet. Journal of Communication 45(3): 164–175.

54.

Nicholls

Rice

(2017) A dual-identity model of responses to deviance in online groups: integrating social identity theory and expectancy violations theory. Communication Theory 27(3): 243–268.

55.

O’Sullivan

(2005) Masspersonal communication: rethinking the mass interpersonal divide. In: 55th annual conference of the international communication association, New York, 26–30 May.

56.

Poindexter

Heider

McCombs

(2006) Watchdog or good neighbor? The public’s expectations of local news. The International Journal of Press/Politics 11(1): 77–88.

57.

Prochazka

Weber

Schweiger

(2018) Effects of civility and reasoning in user comments on perceived journalistic quality. Journalism Studies 19(1): 62–78.

58.

Reese

(2019) The threat to the journalistic institution. Journalism 20(1): 202–205.

59.

Reese

Shoemaker

(2016) A media sociology for the networked public sphere: the hierarchy of influences model. Mass Communication and Society 19(4): 389–410.

60.

Robinson

(2010) Traditionalists vs. convergers: textual privilege, boundary work, and the journalist—audience relationship in the commenting policies of online news sites. Convergence 16(1): 125–143.

61.

Robinson

(2011) “Journalism as process”: the organizational implications of participatory online news. Journalism & Communication Monographs 13(3): 137–210.

62.

Robinson

(2014) Introduction: community journalism midst media revolution. Journalism Practice 8(2): 113–120.

63.

Schmidt

J-H

Loosen

(2015) Both sides of the story: assessing audience participation in journalism through the concept of inclusion distance. Digital Journalism 3(2): 259–278.

64.

Schmidt

J-H

Loosen

Heise

, et al. (2013) Journalism and participatory practices: blurring or reinforcement of boundaries between journalism and audiences? Recherches en Communication 39: 91–109.

65.

Scholl

Malik

Gehrau

(2014) Journalistisches Publikumsbild und Publikumserwartungen. Eine Analyse des Zusammenhangs von journalistischen Vorstellungen über das Publikum und Erwartungen des Publikums an den Journalismus [Journalists’ image of the audience and audience’s expectations: an analysis of the connection between journalists’ ideas about the audience and audience’s expectations of journalism]. In: Loosen

Dohle

(eds) Journalismus und (sein) Publikum [Journalism and (Its) Audience]. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, pp. 17–33.

66.

Sehl

(2013) Partizipativer Journalismus in Tageszeitungen. Eine empirische Analyse zur publizistischen Vielfalt im Lokalen [Participatory Journalism in Daily Newspapers: An Empirical Analysis of Journalistic Diversity in the Local Context]. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

67.

Singer

Domingo

Heinonen

, et al. (2011) Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open Gates at Online Newspapers. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

68.

Stroud

Scacco

Muddiman

, et al. (2015) Changing deliberative norms on news organizations’ Facebook sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 20(2): 188–203.

69.

Thompson

(2000) Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

70.

Thompson

(2005) The new visibility. Theory, Culture & Society 22(6): 31–51.

71.

Van der Wurff

Schönbach

(2014a) Audience expectations of media accountability in the Netherlands. Journalism Studies 15(2): 121–137.

72.

Van der Wurff

Schönbach

(2014b) Civic and citizen demands of news media and journalists: what does the audience expect from good journalism? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91(3): 433–451.

73.

Vos

Eichholz

Karaliova

(2019) Audiences and journalistic capital: roles of journalism. Journalism Studies 20(7): 1009–1027.

74.

Walther-Martin

(2015) Media-generated expectancy violations: a study of political humor, race, and source perceptions. Western Journal of Communication 79(4): 492–507.

75.

Welbers

Van Atteveldt

Kleinnijenhuis

, et al. (2016) News selection criteria in the digital age: professional norms versus online audience metrics. Journalism 17(8): 1037–1053.

76.

Ziegele

Breiner

Quiring

(2014) What creates interactivity in online news discussions? An exploratory analysis of discussion factors in user comments on news items. Journal of Communication 64(6): 1111–1138.