Introduction
Theories
are a set of statement or principles devised to explain a group of facts or
phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted
and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Here
I will discuss social penetration theory, its importance, its process, its
assumption and criticism. This theory proposes that relation development,
interpersonal communication moves from a relatively shallow, non-intimate level
to a deeper more intimate level.
Social Penetration Theory
Social
psychologist Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor came up with this theory that
explains how relational closeness develops. These two scholars believe two
people might end up being best friends if the two proceed gradually and in an
orderly fashion from superficial to intimate level of exchange as function of
both immediate and forecast outcome.
According
to Griffin (2000) Altman and Taylor compared people to onion. The two tried to
describe people as having layers just like onion. We have multilayered nature
of personality, on the outside people are tall, 20 years old male, a
communication major etc – when we look beneath we discover the semi-private
attitude of people.
People’s
inner core is made up of values self-concept, deeply felt emotion. For this to
be reveal you have to be closer to someone.
Closeness through Self Disclosure
According
to Griffin (2000) for t6his to happen someone becomes accessible to others if
he/she relaxes the tightened boundaries and makes oneself vulnerable. Altman
and Taylor believe it is only by allowing someone else to penetrate well below
the surface that someone can draw truly close to their friends. Ways of showing
vulnerability is by opening up to others by sharing your feelings, clothes etc.
non-verbal path of openness is eye contact, smiling. But the best route for
social penetration is through self-disclosure.
The
depth of disclosure represents the degree of personal disclosure. To get to the
centre you must slice through the outer layers. Altman and Taylor claim that on
the surface level this kind of biographical information takes place easily,
perhaps at first meeting. But they believe the layer of the onion skins becomes
tougher and more tightly wrapped as you go near the centre. But once you have
penetrated deeply, it is easy to share with little resistance and future
privacy will be difficult.
Depth and breadth of Self
Disclosure
Griffin
(2000) states that depth of penetration is the degree of intimacy. This analogy
applies equally to intimacy and friendship and romance. In their framework of
social penetration theory, Altman and Taylor outlined the following
observations about the process of depth of penetration:-
1. Peripheral
items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information. The
relationship is still at a relatively impersonal level.
2. Self
disclosure is reciprocal, especially in the early stages of relationship
development. The theory predicts that new acquaintances will reach roughly
equal levels of openness, but does not explain why.
3. Penetration
is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as they tightly wrapped inner
layers are reached. Instant intimacy is a myth. Not only is their internal
resistance to quick forays into the seal there are social norms against telling
to much fast. Most relationship stall before stable intimate exchange is
established. For this reason these relationship fades easily following
separation or slight strain. A comfortable sharing of positive or negative reaction is rare when
it is achieved, relationships becomes more important to both parties more meaningful
and more enduring.
4. Depenetration
is a gradual process of layer by layer withdrawal. A warm friendship will
deteriorate if the areas of people’s lives are closed that were opened.
Rational retreat is a sort of taking back of what has earlier been exchanged in
the building of a relationship. Surface talk still goes on long after deep
disclosure is silenced. Relationship is likely to terminate not in an explosive
flash of anger but in a gradual cooling off of enjoyment and care.
Regulating closeness on the basis
of rewards and cost
According
to social penetration theory, it all depends on the cost benefit analysis that
each one performs as he/she considers the possibility of a closer relationship.
From the first encounter people usually sort out the pluses and minuses of
friendship, a computing bottom-line index of relational satisfaction. When the
perceived mutual benefits outweigh the cost of greater vulnerability, the
process of social penetration will proceed.
Social
penetration theory discuss heavily from social exchange theory of John Thibaut
and Harold Kelley. They studied the key concept of social exchange theory,
relational outcomes relational satisfaction and relational stability.
The
idea of making potential benefit is issues to determine behaviour is not new.
Since philosopher John Stuart Mill stated his principle of utility. The minimax
principle claims that people seek to maximize their benefit and minimize their
costs so the higher we index a relational outcome the more attractive we find
the behaviour that might make it happen.
Social
exchange theory assures that we can accurately gauge the payoffs of a variety
of interactions and that we have the good sense to choose the action that will
provide the best result. Altman and Taylor are not sure that the input receive
is always reliable. What matters to them is that we base our decision to open
up with another on the perceived benefit cost-cost outcome.
Early
in a relationship we find to see physical appearance and mutual agreement as
benefit. Disagreement and deviance from the norm are negative. But as the
relationship changes so does the nature of interaction that friends find
reloading. Deeper friendship appreciates and we can even enjoy surface
diversity.
Criticism
Social
penetration theory is an established and familiar explanation on how closeness
develop but over 300 subsequent studies suggest that the path of intimacy
described I not completely accurate.
Contrary
to the initial prediction that reciprocity of self disclosure would be highest
in the exploratory stage of relationship, Vanhear found mutual sharing must
frequently in the semi-private middle range of penetration. The discrepancy may
be due to the unexpected speed of self revelation.
The
theory made no mention of thee gender difference in vulnerability but Altman and
Taylor latest research said men are less open than female.
The
theory describes the break-up of relationship as a reverse penetration process
in which both parties methodically seal off inner layers of their lines and
slowly drift apart. Betsy Tolstedt a Chicago psychologist analyzed the
conservation of long term romantic partners at the time when their
relationships were falling apart and discovered that feelings of pain and anger
caused the process of breaking up to be more chaotic than the theory said.
Assumption
This
theory is known as an objection theory in that it is based on data drawn from
experiment drawn from individuals and not conclusion. This theory is guided by
the assumption that relationship development is systematic and predictable I
and includes deterioration.
Altman
and Taylor are convinced that the process of Social penetration theory moves a
lot faster in the beginning stages of the relationship and then and slowly as
it continues.
Social
penetration theory is best known for its onion analogy – onion theory of
personality.
Relationship
progress from non-intimate to intimate.
Relational
development is generally systematic and predictable.
Relational
development includes depenetration and dissolution.
Self-disclosure
is at the core of relationship development.
Conclusion
Social
penetration theory deals with how relationship grows from the non-intimate
level to the intimate level. From the discussion it is true to say that Altman
and Taylor’s social penetration theory is not hundred percent correct on the
stages of developing a relationship. The stages of developing a relationship
vary from person to person and our culture and perceptive on the world also
play a key role.
References
Griffin,
E (2000). A First Look at Communication Theory, U.S.A. Quebecor Printing Book
Group.
Social
Penetration Theory. Retrieved on 2nd November, 2013 from
www.oregonstate.edu/spt.html.
