Social Penetration Theory
Encyclopedia
Social penetration theory was formulated by psychology
professors Irwin Altman
and Dalmas Taylor as their attempt to describe the dynamics of relational closeness. They 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 relationships such as communications. 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. This means the theory is not subjective by personal feelings or bias. The theory is based solely on facts instead of opinions.
Self-disclosure is the voluntary sharing of history, preferences, attitudes, feelings, values, secrets, etc., with another person; transparency. Self-disclosure is the act of revealing more about ourselves, on both a conscious and an unconscious level. Self-disclosure facilitates developing close relationships and mutual trust. 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.
analogy. Self-disclosure is referred to in terms of breadth and depth, the latter of which is described in units of layers. This analogy is used to describe the multilayered nature of personality
. When one peels or penetrates the outer skin from an onion, another skin is revealed. When the second layer is removed, a third is exposed, and so forth. According to social penetration theory, penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are reached. Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal.
The outer layer of personality contains the public self, which is accessible to anyone who wants to look. The public self layer has a myriad of details which help to describe who one is, such as height, weight, gender, and other public information which takes little questioning to discover. Below the surface layer, however, the personality holds more private information like beliefs, faith, prejudices, and general relationship information. Held within the inner core are values, self-concept
, and deep emotion
s. The inner core is the unique private domain of individuals, which, although invisible to the rest of the world, has a profound impact on the areas of life which lie closer to the surface. While the amount revealed can vary according to culture
, peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information. Self-disclosure tends to be reciprocal, especially in the early stages of relationship development.
The core way to social penetration is through sharing a wide variety of topics (breadth) and personally revealing things about yourself, which is at the center of one’s self-concept (depth).
Depth of penetration is known as the degree in which someone is intimate with someone else. This does not necessarily refer to sexual activity, but more to the idea of how open and close someone can become with another person despite their anxiety. This could be through friendship, family relationships, peers, and even romantic relationships with either same-sex or opposite-sex individuals.
There are four thoughts within the process of depth of penetration (2009). These are known as:
1) “Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information.”
2) “Self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially in the early stages of relationship development.”
3) “Penetrations is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are reached.”
4) “Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal.”
Breadth of penetration is just as important to the theory as the depth of penetration. Breadth refers to the different segments of a person’s life. For instance one segment can be family while another could be a romantic relationship or even academic studies could be thought of as another type of segment. Each of these segments or areas is not always accessed at the same time. One could be completely open about a family relationship while hiding an aspect of a romantic relationship for various reasons such as abuse or disapproval from family or friends. It takes genuine intimacy with all segments to be able to access all areas of breadth at all times.
It is possible to have depth without breadth and even breadth without depth. For instance, depth without breadth could be where only one area of intimacy is accessed. “A relationship that could be depicted from the onion model would be a summer romance. This would be depth without breadth.” On the other hand, breadth without depth would be simple everyday conversations. An example would be when passing by an acquaintance and saying, “Hi, how are you?” without ever really expecting to stop and listen to what this person has to say is an everyday instance.
and Kelley's
Social exchange theory
in order to describe the relation of costs and rewards of relationships. Thibaut and Kelley's key concepts of relational outcome, relational satisfaction, and relational stability serve as the foundation of Irwin and Taylor's rewards minus costs, comparison level, and comparison level of alternatives.
Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who lived around Aristotle’s lifetime defined the good life as getting as much pleasure as possible. Would this be thought of as being egotistical? Epicurus thought that “no pleasure is in itself evil, but the things which produce certain pleasure entail annoyances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.” This philosopher was noted on how he believed in the idea of telling lies. There was one rule though. The only way someone should tell lies is if he or she knows there is no way he or she will get caught in their lie. He also believed that there was no way a person knew for sure and without a questionable doubt that he or she will not get caught and since there is no guarantee then being dishonest and lying would not be smart and is not recommended.
Since then there have been several other philosophers who like and believe in Epicurus’s ideas about deceit and lies. A couple philosophers in particular are Thomas Hobbes, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Ayn Rand. All four of these men and women believe in the impression of self-benefit. Their words speak to the ideas about how to get ahead and how to benefit themselves, not to give an advantage the lives of others. Selfishness is thought of as a good thing instead of a corrupt or immoral sense of well being.
Computer-Mediated Communication or also known as CMC can be thought of as another way in which people can develop relationships. Internet has thought to broaden the way people communicate and build relationships. By opening up a new window in which people could be open-minded and unconventional communicators and partners from traditional limitations like time and place. (Yum & Hara, 2005)
Barriers:
Some theorists find this concept impossible and there are barriers to this idea. Since there are risks and there is usually more uncertainty about whether the person on the other side of the computer is being real and truthful, or deceitful and manipulative for one reason or another there is no possible way to build a relationship. A lack of face-to-face interaction can cause heightened skepticism and doubt. Since this is possible, there is no chance to make a long lasting and profound connection.
Social Networking sites:
Self-disclosure is fundamental when it comes to building and growing within relationships. Some theorists say self-disclosure goes through cycles. What this means is relationships will have certain times where there intimacy levels, due to openness of information, will be high. Then within the relationship there will also be times when either too much disclosure or not enough disclosure can happen. This would be a low part within the relationship. Every relationship has rotations and progressions but these are usually normal. Self-disclosure has been studied when it comes to face-to-face interactions. Since the ideas of social networking sites are new phenomena there are not as many studies done about how people disclose information over a computer compared to a one-on-one interaction. There are still a couple surveys done about how social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, LinkedIn, hi5, myyearbook, or Friendster effect interactions between human beings.
There was a study done about the connection on how couples or other romantic relationships have trust, commitment, and affection towards each other and the amount of self-disclosure each person gives to the one another. There are several criteria to the study. One important is how the couple met. If they met before talking over the Internet they are more likely to reveal personal information due to trusting someone easier. According to Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna the best way to be able to trust someone is to be able to foretell or calculate how another person will act or react to any given information. (1985) In other words, we are more probable to release information about ourselves if we can expect the behavior of the other person.
“The hyper personal perspective suggests that the limited cues in CMC are likely to result in over attribution and exaggerated or idealized perceptions of others and that those who meet and interact via CMC use such limited cues to engage in optimized or selective self-presentation”. (Walther, 1996) What this author means is there could be deceitful or dishonest intents involved from people on the Internet. There are possibilities that someone could mislead another person because there are more opportunities to build a bigger and better identity without much worry for persecution. If there is no chance of ever meeting the person on the other end of the computer, then there is a high rick of falsifying information and credentials.
Other theorists such as Rubin and Bargh say that because of the blockade of the computer, it increases how likely people are to be true and honest about themselves. There is also the idea that there will not be any fear of consequences for less than respectable decisions made in the past. Computer mediated communication has also been thought to even speed up the intimacy process because computers facilitate individual communication to be more, rather than fewer, open and accommodating about characteristics of the person or persons involved. Both idea and types of theories can be proved and disproven but it all depends on how an individual uses and or abuses computer mediated communication.
Relationships can eventually reach:
Psychology
Psychology is the study of the mind and behavior. Its immediate goal is to understand individuals and groups by both establishing general principles and researching specific cases. For many, the ultimate goal of psychology is to benefit society...
professors Irwin Altman
Irwin Altman
Irwin Altman, also known as Irv Altman, was born on July 16, 1930 in New York City, New York. Altman is a social psychologist who earned his B.A. degree from New York University in 1951, his M.A. degree from the University of Maryland in 1954 and his Ph.D. from the University of Maryland in 1957...
and Dalmas Taylor as their attempt to describe the dynamics of relational closeness. They proposed that closeness occurs through a gradual process of self-disclosure
Self-disclosure
Self-disclosure is both the conscious and subconscious act of revealing more about oneself to others. This may include, but is not limited to, thoughts, feelings, aspirations, goals, failures, successes, fears, dreams as well as one's likes, dislikes, and favorites.Typically, a 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 relationships such as communications. 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. This means the theory is not subjective by personal feelings or bias. The theory is based solely on facts instead of opinions.
Self-disclosure is the voluntary sharing of history, preferences, attitudes, feelings, values, secrets, etc., with another person; transparency. Self-disclosure is the act of revealing more about ourselves, on both a conscious and an unconscious level. Self-disclosure facilitates developing close relationships and mutual trust. 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.
Beginning Stages of Onion Layer
Social penetration is perhaps best known for its onionOnion
The onion , also known as the bulb onion, common onion and garden onion, is the most widely cultivated species of the genus Allium. The genus Allium also contains a number of other species variously referred to as onions and cultivated for food, such as the Japanese bunching onion The onion...
analogy. Self-disclosure is referred to in terms of breadth and depth, the latter of which is described in units of layers. This analogy is used to describe the multilayered nature of personality
Personality psychology
Personality psychology is a branch of psychology that studies personality and individual differences. Its areas of focus include:* Constructing a coherent picture of the individual and his or her major psychological processes...
. When one peels or penetrates the outer skin from an onion, another skin is revealed. When the second layer is removed, a third is exposed, and so forth. According to social penetration theory, penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are reached. Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal.
The outer layer of personality contains the public self, which is accessible to anyone who wants to look. The public self layer has a myriad of details which help to describe who one is, such as height, weight, gender, and other public information which takes little questioning to discover. Below the surface layer, however, the personality holds more private information like beliefs, faith, prejudices, and general relationship information. Held within the inner core are values, self-concept
Self-concept
Self-concept is a multi-dimensional construct that refers to an individual's perception of "self" in relation to any number of characteristics, such as academics , gender roles and sexuality, racial identity, and many others. Each of these characteristics is a research domain Self-concept (also...
, and deep emotion
Emotion
Emotion is a complex psychophysiological experience of an individual's state of mind as interacting with biochemical and environmental influences. In humans, emotion fundamentally involves "physiological arousal, expressive behaviors, and conscious experience." Emotion is associated with mood,...
s. The inner core is the unique private domain of individuals, which, although invisible to the rest of the world, has a profound impact on the areas of life which lie closer to the surface. While the amount revealed can vary according to culture
Culture
Culture is a term that has many different inter-related meanings. For example, in 1952, Alfred Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn compiled a list of 164 definitions of "culture" in Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions...
, peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information. Self-disclosure tends to be reciprocal, especially in the early stages of relationship development.
Breadth and Depth
Both depth and breadth are related to the Onion Model.The core way to social penetration is through sharing a wide variety of topics (breadth) and personally revealing things about yourself, which is at the center of one’s self-concept (depth).
Depth of penetration is known as the degree in which someone is intimate with someone else. This does not necessarily refer to sexual activity, but more to the idea of how open and close someone can become with another person despite their anxiety. This could be through friendship, family relationships, peers, and even romantic relationships with either same-sex or opposite-sex individuals.
There are four thoughts within the process of depth of penetration (2009). These are known as:
1) “Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information.”
2) “Self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially in the early stages of relationship development.”
3) “Penetrations is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are reached.”
4) “Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal.”
Breadth of penetration is just as important to the theory as the depth of penetration. Breadth refers to the different segments of a person’s life. For instance one segment can be family while another could be a romantic relationship or even academic studies could be thought of as another type of segment. Each of these segments or areas is not always accessed at the same time. One could be completely open about a family relationship while hiding an aspect of a romantic relationship for various reasons such as abuse or disapproval from family or friends. It takes genuine intimacy with all segments to be able to access all areas of breadth at all times.
It is possible to have depth without breadth and even breadth without depth. For instance, depth without breadth could be where only one area of intimacy is accessed. “A relationship that could be depicted from the onion model would be a summer romance. This would be depth without breadth.” On the other hand, breadth without depth would be simple everyday conversations. An example would be when passing by an acquaintance and saying, “Hi, how are you?” without ever really expecting to stop and listen to what this person has to say is an everyday instance.
Rewards and costs
Social penetration theory states that humans, even with out thinking about it, weigh each relationship and interaction with another human on a reward cost scale. If the interaction was satisfactory, then that person or relationship is looked upon favorably. But if an interaction was unsatisfactory, then the relationship will be evaluated for its costs compared to its rewards or benefits. People try to predict the outcome of an interaction before it takes place. Coming from a scientific standpoint, Altman and Taylor were able to assign letters as mathematical representations of costs and rewards. They also borrowed the concepts from ThibautJohn Thibaut
John Thibaut was a social psychologist, one of the last graduate students of Kurt Lewin. He spent a number of years as a professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and was the first editor of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology....
and Kelley's
Harold Kelley
Harold Kelley was an American social psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles...
Social exchange theory
Social exchange theory
Social exchange theory is a social psychological and sociological perspective that explains social change and stability as a process of negotiated exchanges between parties. Social exchange theory posits that all human relationships are formed by the use of a subjective cost-benefit analysis and...
in order to describe the relation of costs and rewards of relationships. Thibaut and Kelley's key concepts of relational outcome, relational satisfaction, and relational stability serve as the foundation of Irwin and Taylor's rewards minus costs, comparison level, and comparison level of alternatives.
Outcomes: rewards minus cost
This means that people want to maximize their rewards and minimize their costs when they are in a relationship with somebody. If your costs are not greater than your rewards, the relationship could be beneficial to you.Comparison level (CL)
The first standard that we use to evaluate the outcomes of a situation is comparison level. As defined by Thibaut and Kelley, comparison level is the standard by which individuals evaluate the desirability of group membership. A group is defined as “two or more interdependent individuals who influence one another through social interaction” (Forsyth, 1990). In this instance, the group refers to a dyadic relationship, but it can really be extended to any type of group. "A person's comparison level (CL) is the threshold above which an outcome seems attractive" (Griffin, p. 149). That is, when groups fall above the CL they are seen as being satisfying to the individual, and when they fall below the CL they are seen as being unsatisfying (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). We take an average of outcomes from the past as a benchmark to determine what makes us happy or sad so that we may develop the threshold, or comparison level, in which an outcome appears attractive. Our past experiences really do shape our thoughts and feelings about developing relationships with people, and in this way, an individual’s CL is very much influenced by these previous relationships.Comparison level of alternatives (CLalt)
Comparison level only predicts when we are satisfied with membership in a given relationship, or group. Therefore, Thibaut and Kelley also say that people use a comparison level for alternatives to evaluate their outcomes. Basically, CLalt is determined by "the worst outcome a person will accept and still stay in a relationship" (Griffin, p. 149). As such, comparison level for alternatives is a better predictor for whether or not a person will join or leave a relationship, or group. However, even if a relationship is unhealthy a person might choose to remain in it because it is better than what they perceive the real world to be.Ethical Egosim
Altman and Taylor define ethical egoism or also referred to as psychological egoism as the belief that individuals should live their lives so as to maximize their own pleasure and minimize their own pain. What this section is going to investigate is how many theorists believe people are motivated by self-interest and making sure number one is taken care of and happy first. Egoist’s, known as the theorists who study egoism; think we should be selfish on our actions and thoughts. Most think we live in a world where everyone is selfish so therefore in order to get “ahead” in the world, we as a society need to be self-centered.Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who lived around Aristotle’s lifetime defined the good life as getting as much pleasure as possible. Would this be thought of as being egotistical? Epicurus thought that “no pleasure is in itself evil, but the things which produce certain pleasure entail annoyances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.” This philosopher was noted on how he believed in the idea of telling lies. There was one rule though. The only way someone should tell lies is if he or she knows there is no way he or she will get caught in their lie. He also believed that there was no way a person knew for sure and without a questionable doubt that he or she will not get caught and since there is no guarantee then being dishonest and lying would not be smart and is not recommended.
Since then there have been several other philosophers who like and believe in Epicurus’s ideas about deceit and lies. A couple philosophers in particular are Thomas Hobbes, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Ayn Rand. All four of these men and women believe in the impression of self-benefit. Their words speak to the ideas about how to get ahead and how to benefit themselves, not to give an advantage the lives of others. Selfishness is thought of as a good thing instead of a corrupt or immoral sense of well being.
Communication Privacy Management Theory
Two founders of this theory, Taylor and Altman, beieve that in order for someone to openly exchange personal information depends on his or her “personal boundary rules”. When the information is therefore disclosed, the person who is listening to the information given then uses the same boundary rules as the first person to reveal something to another person; a third party. It is hard for people to willingly give out information about themselves but it is important for the relationships at hand. In order to have good and open relationships a person needs to be vulnerable and talk to others about deep aspects of his or her life.Computer Mediated Communication
Benefits:Computer-Mediated Communication or also known as CMC can be thought of as another way in which people can develop relationships. Internet has thought to broaden the way people communicate and build relationships. By opening up a new window in which people could be open-minded and unconventional communicators and partners from traditional limitations like time and place. (Yum & Hara, 2005)
Barriers:
Some theorists find this concept impossible and there are barriers to this idea. Since there are risks and there is usually more uncertainty about whether the person on the other side of the computer is being real and truthful, or deceitful and manipulative for one reason or another there is no possible way to build a relationship. A lack of face-to-face interaction can cause heightened skepticism and doubt. Since this is possible, there is no chance to make a long lasting and profound connection.
Social Networking sites:
Self-disclosure is fundamental when it comes to building and growing within relationships. Some theorists say self-disclosure goes through cycles. What this means is relationships will have certain times where there intimacy levels, due to openness of information, will be high. Then within the relationship there will also be times when either too much disclosure or not enough disclosure can happen. This would be a low part within the relationship. Every relationship has rotations and progressions but these are usually normal. Self-disclosure has been studied when it comes to face-to-face interactions. Since the ideas of social networking sites are new phenomena there are not as many studies done about how people disclose information over a computer compared to a one-on-one interaction. There are still a couple surveys done about how social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, LinkedIn, hi5, myyearbook, or Friendster effect interactions between human beings.
There was a study done about the connection on how couples or other romantic relationships have trust, commitment, and affection towards each other and the amount of self-disclosure each person gives to the one another. There are several criteria to the study. One important is how the couple met. If they met before talking over the Internet they are more likely to reveal personal information due to trusting someone easier. According to Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna the best way to be able to trust someone is to be able to foretell or calculate how another person will act or react to any given information. (1985) In other words, we are more probable to release information about ourselves if we can expect the behavior of the other person.
“The hyper personal perspective suggests that the limited cues in CMC are likely to result in over attribution and exaggerated or idealized perceptions of others and that those who meet and interact via CMC use such limited cues to engage in optimized or selective self-presentation”. (Walther, 1996) What this author means is there could be deceitful or dishonest intents involved from people on the Internet. There are possibilities that someone could mislead another person because there are more opportunities to build a bigger and better identity without much worry for persecution. If there is no chance of ever meeting the person on the other end of the computer, then there is a high rick of falsifying information and credentials.
Other theorists such as Rubin and Bargh say that because of the blockade of the computer, it increases how likely people are to be true and honest about themselves. There is also the idea that there will not be any fear of consequences for less than respectable decisions made in the past. Computer mediated communication has also been thought to even speed up the intimacy process because computers facilitate individual communication to be more, rather than fewer, open and accommodating about characteristics of the person or persons involved. Both idea and types of theories can be proved and disproven but it all depends on how an individual uses and or abuses computer mediated communication.
Taking stock
Social penetration theory that the interpersonal economy in which we live allows us to take stock of the relational value of those we meet. The questions of What can you do for me? and What can you do to me? are supposedly often weighed in taking stock. Janas & Parker have also noted the widespread use of intimate metaphors in the discussion of social penetration theory.Stages of social penetration
- 1. Orientation stage. Here, we play safe with small talk and simple, harmless clichés like ‘Life’s like that’, following standards of social desirability and norms of appropriateness.
- 2. Exploratory affective stage. We now start to reveal ourselves, expressing personal attitudes about moderate topics such as government and education. This may not be the whole truth as we are not yet comfortable to lay ourselves bare. We are still feeling our way forward. This is the stage of casual friendship, and many relationships do not go past this stage.
- 3. Affective stage. Now we start to talk about private and personal matters. We may use personal idioms. Criticism and arguments may arise. In romantic-type relationships there may be intimate touching and kissing at this stage.
- 4. Stable stage. The relationship now reaches a plateau in which personal things are shared and each can predict the emotional reactions of the other person.
Relationships can eventually reach:
- Depenetration. When the relationship starts to break down and costs exceed benefits, then there is a withdrawal of disclosure which leads to termination of the relationship.
Other resources
- Thibaut, J. W. & Kelley, H. H. (1952). The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
- Altman, I., Vinsel, A., & Brown, B. (1981). Dialectic conceptions in social psychology: An application to social penetration and privacy regulation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14. p. 107–160.
- Berg, J. (1984). Development of friendship between roommates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46. p. 346–356.
- Griffin, Em. (2009). A first look at communication theory. NY, Ny: McGraw-Hill. p. 114.
- Petronio, S. (2002). boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. SUNY Albany.
- Shafer, M. (1999, November 18). Social penetration theory.
- Taylor, D. & Altman, I. (1975). Self-disclosure as a function of reward-cost outcomes. Sociometry, 38. p. 18–31.
- VanLear, C. A. (1987). The formation of social relationships: A longitudinal study of social penetration. Human Communication Research, 13. p. 299–322.
- VanLear, C. A. (1991). Testing a cyclical model of communicative openness in relationship development: Two longitudinal studies. Communication Monographs, 58. p. 337–361.
- Werner, C., Altman, I., & Brown, B. B. (1992). A transactional approach to interpersonal relations: Physical environment, social context and temporal qualities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9. p. 297–323.
- Yum, Y. K., & Hara, K. (2005). Computer-mediated relationship development: A cross-cultural comparison . Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, . Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/yum.html
- Pennington, N. (2008). Will You Be My Friend: Facebook as a model for the evolution of the social penetration theory. , , . Retrieved from http://citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/6/1/1/0/pages261101/p261101-1.php
- Sheldon, P. (2009). "I'll poke you. You'll poke me!" Self-disclosure, social attraction, predictability and trust as important predictors of Facebook relationships . Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 3(2), article 1
- Paul DiMaggio, Eszter Hargittai, W. Russell Neuman and John P. Robinson, annual review of sociology, vol. 27, (2001), pp. 307-336