Many people come into and go out of our lives; some
have a larger impact than others. As humans we interact with each other on a
daily basis and relationships are developed, some you may refer to as
acquaintances, some friends, and others as intimate friends. This is a very
complex process that we go through every day of our lives, repeating it over
and over, encountering people that we may end up either knowing or not until
the day we die.
About
Social Penetration Theory
Social Penetration Theory proposes that, as
relationships develop, interpersonal communication moves from
relatively shallow, non-intimate levels to deeper, more personal ones. The
theory was formulated by psychologists Irwin Altman and Dalmas
Taylor to provide an understanding of the closeness between two
individuals.
Social penetration is defined as a process that
moves a relationship from non-intimate to intimate. Social Penetration theory
states that this process occurs primarily through self-disclosure. This theory
is also guided by the assumptions that relationship development is systematic
and predictable and also includes deterioration, or growing apart. Social
Penetration theory also claims that our relationships progress through four
stages before reaching stability where communication is open and partners are highly
intimate.
Altman and Taylor proposed that closeness occurs
through a gradual process of self-disclosure, and closeness develops if
the participants proceed in a gradual and orderly fashion from superficial to
intimate levels of exchange as a function of both immediate and forecast
outcomes. This psychological theory, as with many others, is applied in the
context of interpersonal communication. It can also be defined as the process
of developing deeper intimacy with another person through mutual
self-disclosure and other forms of vulnerability. The Social Penetration theory
is known as an objective theory, meaning that the theory is based on data drawn
from experiments, and not from conclusions based on individuals' specific
experiences.
Altman and Taylor believe that only through opening
one's self to the main route to social penetration – self-disclosure – by
becoming vulnerable to another person can a close relationship develop.
Vulnerability can be expressed in a variety of ways, including the giving of
anything which is considered to be a personal possession, such as a dresser
drawer given to a partner.
Altman and Taylor were convinced that the process of
social penetration moves a lot faster in the beginning stages of a relationship
but then it slows considerably. Those who are able to develop a long term,
positive reward/ cost outcome are the same people who are able to share
important matches of breadth categories. The early reward/ cost assessment have
a strong impact on the relationships reactions and involvement. When you have
expectancies in a relationship regarding the future it plays a major role on
the outcome in the relationship.
Social penetration theory is made for explaining the
level of intimacy and interaction between people. There are various degrees of
how someone could respond to decisions about ethics or personal challenges. The
reactions to problems regarding ethics and challenges are also based on
personal characteristics, reward/cost assessments and situational factors.
Social
Penetration Theory Development
Social Penetration Theory portrays relationship
development as like an onion—suggesting that when individuals "peel
off" one layer of information about a relational partner, there is always
another layer. Altman and Taylor noted that as people become acquainted, their
relationship becomes broader and deeper. When individuals first meet, they exchange
very impersonal information and limit the number of different topics they
discuss. As they come to know and trust one another more, they will explore
more topics (breadth) and share more intimate information about those topics
(depth). An enduring romantic relationship would be marked by both breadth and
depth. A "spring break fling" typically is one that has great depth
but little breadth. Long-term neighbors might share much breadth but little
depth.
How do people decide to move from acquaintanceship
to an enduring, deep relationship? Drawing from Social Exchange Theories
(Burgess and Huston 1979; Homans 1961; Thibaut and Kelley 1959), Altman and
Taylor tell us that people move further into a relationship as long as the
perceived rewards associated with the relationship exceed the costs.
Individuals first meet. If the exchange is pleasing, they continue the
relationship. If it is not, they stop. People are constantly calibrating their
ratio of rewards and costs. In some relationships, one or both partners may
reach a point where they say "that's far enough; this is fun, but if we
get any closer, bad things might happen." At that point, partners will not
move to deepen or broaden their relationship any further. According to Social
Exchange Theories, in addition to assessing how rewarding their relationships
are, individuals also consider what other alternative relationships might be
available to them and how those potential relationships compare to their
current one.
In 1975, Charles Berger and Richard Calabrese
expanded Altman and Taylor's notion of social penetration. Berger and Calabrese
suggested that during acquaintanceship people try to reduce their uncertainty
about one another. When individuals first meet, they discuss relatively
innocuous items—the weather, where they are from, what they do for a living
(Berger et al. 1976). Normally, people do not discuss highly charged personal
matters such as their fears, anxieties, or fantasies. As their relationship
progresses, individuals begin exchanging more intimate information because they
have come to "know" each other. Their uncertainty about each other
has faded.
Gerald Miller and Mark Steinberg (1975) added to
these ideas by suggesting that in relationships individuals make predictions
about each other based on three types of information: cultural, sociological,
and psychological. Cultural information typically provides only a very general
level of prediction: People anticipate how an individual will act based upon
his or her culture. There is still a great deal of uncertainty at this level.
Sociological information emphasizes a person's group memberships. Someone may
make predictions about a person based on the knowledge that the individual is a
college freshman, came from a large city, is majoring in mathematics, and plays
the violin. Sociological information offers better predictability than cultural
information, but it is still stereotypic. Most people who are acquaintances
know each other at the sociological level. When individuals know someone at the
psychological level, they know him or her so well as to understand how that
person differs from the groups he or she belongs to. Thus, for example, someone
might know that one of his or her friends plays the violin, loves math, and
comes from a big city, but also that the friend is only happy when he is hiking
in the wilderness. The fact that the friend is devoted to hiking shows how he
is unique or different from individuals in most of the social groups he belongs
to. People know relatively few individuals at the psychological level because
to know someone at this level requires a great deal of communication. It is
important to note that relationships, over time, can exist at different levels
of prediction. A college senior may discover that her parents really only know
her at the sociological level when once they knew everything about her (i.e.,
they knew her at the psychological level).
The theories of Altman and Taylor, Berger and
Calabrese, and Miller and Steinberg are helpful in understanding the underlying
processes involved in relationship development. People meet and try to reduce
their uncertainty about each other; they continue to get to know each other as
long as their interactions are more pleasurable than punishing, and as long as
the alternatives available to them are not as palatable as what they currently
have.
Example
(Business Environment)
You are new to a position and your supervisor has
been in his or her role for a number of years. Some people at your same level
within the organization enjoy a level of knowledge and ease of interaction with
your supervisor that you lack. They may have had more time and interactions
with the supervisor, but you can still use this theory to gain trust and build
a healthy relationship. Recognize that you are unknown to your supervisor and
vice versa. Start with superficial conversations that are neutral and
nonthreatening, but demonstrate a willingness to engage in communication. Silence
early in a relationship can be a sign of respect, but it can also send the
message that you are fearful, shy, or lack confidence. It can be interpreted as
an unwillingness to communicate, and may actually discourage interaction. If
the supervisor picks up the conversation, keep your responses short and light.
If not, keep an upbeat attitude and mention the weather.
Over time, the
conversations may gradually grow to cross topics beyond the scope of the
office, and a relationship may form that involves trust. To a degree, you and
your coworkers learn to predict one another’s responses and relax in the
knowledge of mutual respect. If, however, you skip from superficial to intimate
topics too quickly, you run risk of violating normative expectations. Trust
takes time, and with that comes empathy and understanding. But if you share
with your supervisor your personal struggles on day one, it may erode your
credibility. According to the social penetration theory, people go from
superficial to intimate conversations as trust develops through repeated,
positive interactions. Self-disclosure is “information,
thoughts, or feelings we tell others about ourselves that they would not
otherwise know.” Taking it step by step, and not rushing to self-disclose or
asking personal questions too soon, can help develop positive business
relationships.
Example
(Team Environment)
We have all experienced this theory many times
throughout our lives. All of our closest
friends were strangers at one point. For
example, my senior year of high school I tried out and became a member of the
NC State Dance Team. I sat in a room
full of 29 other girls of which I knew nothing about, besides maybe their
name. It is hard to believe that only
two short years later one of these girls is now my best friend and
roommate. As with all relationships we
had to start at the beginning. In this
case it was first day of practice and we all sat in a big circle and told
everyone our name, our hometown, and what we were planning to major in. From that point, we saw each other nearly every
day for practice and we became more and more comfortable with one another
talking and laughing about things such as school, relationships and
family. As we learned to love and
respect each other’s personalities and interests we grew even closer and began
hanging out outside of practice time. We
would go to dinner, rent a movie or head downtown on college night. As I
mentioned before we are now roommates and best friends. We greet each other
with hugs and talk openly about everything. While we have had our differences
over the past two years they are far outweighed by the fun times we’ve shared
together.
Example
(Love Story)
The most iconic love story, of Romeo and Juliet from
Shakespeare, could be considered as typical illustration of the Social
Penetration Theory. This romantic relationship between the two characters
started when they first met. Initially, Romeo, who belonged to the Montagues family, was
in love with a woman named Rosaline as he wanted to gain the benefit of a
romantic relationship. However, the woman did not love him back, as she saw no
potential interest in him.
It was not until that he met Juliet, who was a member of the Capulets family, that he would seek a mutual relationship. The problem was that Juliet's family was the enemy of Romeo's own. Despite this fact, he believes that the gain (Juliet's love and the fact that the feeling was mutual) exceeds the costs (Both families' hatred for one another). Due to their mutual benefits, the social penetration went from two people to lovers leading to marriage in secrecy. Their intimacy was so deep, that not even misunderstandings between the families nor death would tear them apart. It can be seen for them, the cost (living without their beloved) was too much for either to bear for their relationship.
Sources
and Additional Information:
