1. Many of you provide your interpretation of the nonverbal behavior (e.g., she was uncomfortable) without describing the nonverbal cues first (e.g., she was moving around a lot, sneering at time, nervous laughter at other times). It is important to be very specific about the cues you observed before you tell us what you think they mean. In some ways, this mirrors a structural approach – observe the cues, then assign meaning.

2. You need to be specific about how you are applying theory. For example, if you are applying Expectation Violation Theory, it is not enough to mention the theory and then talk about expectations, even positive and negative ones. Instead, you need to link your conclusions to the theory (e.g., EVT predicts that reward value is important for ambiguous situations. I believe the situation was ambiguous because x, y, and z occurred.)

3. When your word processor tells you there is a grammatical problem, pay attention.

4. In applying EVT, a number of people confused positive/negative violation with the reward value of the violator. According to the theory, reward value (whether the person is rewarding or not), is only important when the violation is ambiguous. Thus, you must first ask yourself if the violation is positive, negative or ambiguous, with reward value only coming into play if the violation is ambiguous.

5. When you find a case the does not appear to fit the theory (called an anomaly) try to explain it, first using the theory and then bringing in some other explanations.

6.  Too much detail on the violations. This does not leave enough space to analyze fully.