Talk:Social penetration theory

It is requested that an image or photograph of an onion model diagram be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2014 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Hull/Psychology of Internet Behaviour (Spring 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Untitled

I would like to add an onion model diagram to this page. b_cubed 05:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yc609.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 May 2019 and 2 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marissamweaver.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 22 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jackyyacosta.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 8 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aen4662066. Peer reviewers: Lyjslife, ZLyuLililalawawa.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph under "Breadth and Depth"

The last paragraph under "Breadth and Depth" either needs to be pervasively edited for clarity and citations or cut out altogether. It contains figures of speech, grammar mistakes, and statements inconsistent with the clearer part of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.201.103.196 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on this section to make it better in terms of clarification. --Rosiesievers20 (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outcomes heading under "Rewards and costs assessment"

Under the outcomes section of the "Rewards and costs assessment" has been edited to remove the math markup as it seemed to be unnecessarily used. now is shown within normal type face using stardard markup system LaurenOldroyd (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements needed to this article

I'm glad to see that sections of this article are being worked on by students. Here are some suggestions for improvement, which are probably obvious, but I hope they're helpful. I don't know the topic so I'm just writing from the point of view of Wikipedia style. This isn't meant to be an exhaustive list of problems.

Lead

The fourth paragraph of the lead is grammatically weird.

Assumptions

This should be continuous prose instead of a list.

Onion Metaphor

A lot of this lacks citations of sources. If a book is being cited, the ISBN for that edition (if there is one) and page number should be included in the citation, so that other people can verify the source for themselves.

The onion metaphor diagram would benefit from a diagram to represent the different stages allowing a visual representation to be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shague90 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia should not use second-person language ("you"). Although people might get beneficial information for themselves from the article, it should not be written like a self-help book.

Rewards and costs assessment

Fascinating stuff, but this is crying out for citations of reliable sources so that readers can check for themselves.

An encyclopedia should not use second-person language ("you"). It is not a manual. If the topic is about people, then say "people".

"A major factor of disclosure is an individual calculation in direct relation to benefits of the relationship at hand." It's really hard to discern what this sentence is trying to say. It needs to be rewritten.

The obscure word "dyad" appears before "dyadic relationship" is defined.

Extensive research and applications

The term "extensive" is not encyclopedic tone. It sounds like a WP:PEACOCK term.

"Without doubt, the value of Social Penetration Theory initially lie into the area of interpersonal communication." As well as poor grammar, this is vague and promotional. An encyclopedia should be precise and factual. References should be created using the Cite button on the toolbar, not by writing "(Yum & Hara, 2005)".

There are lengthy examples in computer-mediated communication. Should there also be some in non-computer communication?

Criticism

This should be continuous prose instead of a note-form list.

I don't even think there should be a "criticism" section: at each stage that an aspect or application of Social penetration theory is discussed, the arguments and evidence for and against should be considered. It would be more in line with other psychology articles to have an "Evidence" or "Research" section in which the favourable and critical arguments are set out.

Notes

The "Changing Minds" ref and "McDaniel" ref need more detail. Who wrote these sources, what works are they part of. Is there a date of publication? If they are web site references, you need the date accessed in case the site changes in future.

Further reading

A "further reading" section is for books and papers that are not cited in the text but which further illuminate the topic. It looks like these are works which are actually cited in the text, in which case this section should be headed "Sources".

MartinPoulter (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have set to sorting the references and notes section to make them more detailed. I found that note 6 and 7 are the same external website but under different names. It is an extract from a published book "Changing Minds" but gives no details on publication on the website itself.

LaurenOldroyd (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's going in the right direction, but watch out for unreferenced paragraphs. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Onion Metaphor Imagery Change

Hello!

I have created an image using the Social Penetration metaphor with the use of the onion & layers. I deleted the previous 2 images on the page as I feel they did not have substantial relevance or add much to what was been mentioned. I used a credible source for the images information & made it clear as possible for readability.

Nick. J. Austin (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yc609 (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)== Communication Theory and Framework Peer Review ==[reply]

Hello, I am yc609. I'm a student working on improving this page. I think that the overview section is long and cover a great detail on self-disclosure. I think it is better to downsize the section by just briefly introduce the theory. What do you think? I also notice that the page has a whole section dedicated to Social Exchange theory. Although Social Penetration Theory(SPT) and Social Exchange Theory (SET) are closely related to each other, I feel it is better to only address the key ideas most relevant to SPT. Do you feel the same way, or do you have any suggestion regarding how to deal with section on SET? In addition, I want to add " stranger-on-the-train" phenomenon, which can be deemed as the spontaneous self-disclosure rather than strategic one, to the page. However, I am sort of unsure how to integrate it to the page, and under which section it is more suitable for. Do you have any thoughts on this? Finally, as you may also notice, the extensive research and applications part seems to be unproportionally long compared to other sections. Do you think it is OK to add more to this section, or should I focus on deliberating the key ideas in SPT more instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yc609 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review from Young

Hey Yin-Ying! I think you made great points in your questions and I totally feel the same! I will respond to them one by one below:
1. Regarding the overview, I absolutely feel the same. Overview should be brief and consist of key takeaways for readers. You can definitely extend the rest of the explanation in a new "definition" section.
2. For the SPT and SET, I think the length of the SET is ok. It's just the other parts are not fully developed thus making the related theory intro seems too long. I think you can either shorten this section to balance the structure or explore other derivation of SPT and add more reference into it.
3. I think the strangers on the train is a great idea! I personally like the example very much. Yet I feel the same struggle of yours that there isn't the perfect place to put it. My advice is either create a new section called phenomena observed, or introduce the example after some related definition /explanation.
4. About the application section-YES!! Mine is ridiculously long too. Especailly the last one-Computer-mediated communication is way too long. There are so many application we can't put everything into it. I think it is better if you can find a way better organize and arrange this section, than adding more materials into it. For example, combining some overlapping research into one field, or dimply shorten some redundant ones.
5. Finally I have a advice regarding the first section- Assumptions. Because there is barely explanation of individual assumption and you may want to improve it by adding a little more description.
In short, you did a great job on detecting those problems and offer suggestions! Can't wait to see the big difference you would make!
Yy362 (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review from Leyi

Hi Ying-Ying!! Your Wikipedia page looks really clean and clear (I'm not doing any advertisement here). It is a very user-friendly page, the subtitles are well-organized and the theory in good structure. As to your question, I do think the first part is a bit too long. Given that the first part is a summary of the whole theory, it would be better to offer one paragraph take away than a small essay. As a little suggestion, maybe you can put the self-disclosure part into the overview so that the first part won't be too long. And you can provide tiny examples to explain the self-disclosure in the overview section. I love the examples!! I always love this part. It's the place that academic and real world link together. Great job Ying-ying!

Peer Review from Amanda

Hi Yin-Ying! You have posted some great questions and observations. Social penetration theory is certainly a fascinating (and relatable!) theory, but WOW there's a lot of content on this page! It is all very helpful, but I think that some of your ideas will definitely help to strengthen this page along with helping to organize it a little better! I will answer your points one-by-one below:

1. I agree with you. I think that the overview section is quite long, and if you don't know much about SPT, it is also very overwhelming, especially considering how much content follows on the rest of the page. I think that shortening the overview section could also strengthen it! It seems as though you could even put some of the content from the overview section just right down below, under the assumptions section? The assumptions section is pretty short, and it seems like some of the content in the overview section would actually be able to back-up some of the assumptions. Anyways, I think that shortening the overview section by either deleting some content, or just writing it in a more succinct manner, could really benefit that section in particular, and the page as a whole. It's a lot to cover for just the first "intro" part of the theory!!

2. I agree that there is a lot of content regarding the Social Exchange Theory. I think it's important to keep some information regarding that theory since the two theories relate to one another. However, I think that having the Wikipedia link to SET is the most important aspect - that way, if someone wants to learn more about SET, they can just go to that page instead of reading it on the SPT page. I'm not sure how much information I'd actually take out of the section, but I probably wouldn't add too much more to the section. I do wish, however, that there was a little more (1 or 2 sentences) written about how SPT and SET relate to one another. If I had never read about either theory, I think that I would be pretty confused. I think a more basic, introductory sentence at the beginning of the SET section would be quite helpful.

3. I think that adding a "Stranger on the Train" concept section would really enhance this page, because it's a very interesting concept. I'm wondering if there's any research on the concept? If so, it would be very interesting to read about it and you could incorporate it into the research section. Otherwise, I would maybe create a new section and place it under the "Onion metaphor" section... I was looking at the organization of the different sections, and it seems as though, after reading about the onion metaphor, a reader/learner might be able to understand/comprehend a new idea such as the "Stranger on the Train" idea. That is just my opinion. But I think you should definitely add it, because it serves as a great and enriching addition to the theory as a whole.

4. I think it is OK to add more to the "extensive research and applications" page. In my opinion, you can never have too much research! And I personally learn best when I can read how a theory is applied in real life. However, I see what you mean when you say that it is long. I notice that the "social networking" part of the section is especially long. Perhaps if you added some research to the sub-sections, the section as a whole might even out a little bit? Or, if you added a new sub-section, I do not think that would be a bad thing, either. I say, if you have some good research or application findings, don't hesitate to add them! I think the page already contains some interesting points on research, but it could still be added on to and improved.

Great job, Yin-Ying! This is a big page to edit, but I think you'll make it even better and I look forward to seeing the changes that you make! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amm564 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review from Ai-Ling

Hi, Yin-Ying! The general structure of the page is well organized and easy for me to follow the flow. I think your imagery change on the page is great and improves its credibility. As for your questions, I think the introduction of the theory is a little overwhelming for me, especially the second paragraph which includes too many information. You can separate them into two parts. One part for explaining self-disclosure and another part for the objectivity of the theory.

In terms of the social exchange theory, I think you are right about addressing the key ideas of the theory. More importantly, you can write about the relevance between the SET and the rewards and costs assessment at the beginning of the first paragraph to make reader understand why the page includes another theory to explain the concepts of social penetration theory.

In my opinion, you "strange-on-the-train" phenomenon can be added as a subsection under the self-disclosure part. It is easy for readers to understand the phenomenon after gaining the meaning and stages of self-disclosure. I think the phenomenon will be valuable and interesting for readers to understand the process of social penetration theory in a practical way.

It is totally good for you to add more information to the application section, especially to the application in organizational communication. Besides, I think the criticism part needs more credible sources.

Hope my suggestions will help you edit the page. I believe your editing will make the page more attractive and useful for readers. I am looking forward to your final work. Aw1014 (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parasocial Relationships

Due to the ever-changing world of relational communications, I wonder if this article could benefit from the addition of parasocial relationships to the applications area. I think your current sections 4.3.1 and 4.4.1 could easily be worked in to this application. JRMcCumber1 (talk) 04:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Depenetration Section

The Depenetration section being separated from the other stages comes across as a bit awkward. Why is it important in this article to have this section separated? I feel the article would be more clear without this information. Eghensler (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes

I plan to edit this article to include more references to research done about this theory as well as remove/edit some of the talking points that seem to make the article sound bias, also include more linked articles to relevant information pertaining to this theory.Marissamweaver (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

Braithwaite D., & Baxter, L.. (2008). Metatheory and Theory in Interpersonal Communication Research. [PDF] In D. Braithwaite & L. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 1-15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Donald Baack, Christine Fogliasso, & James Harris. (2000). The Personal Impact of Ethical Decisions: A Social Penetration Theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 24(1), 39. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.libdata.lib.ua.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.25074265&site=eds-live&scope=site

Berberoglu, B. (2017). Social Theory : Classical and Contemporary – A Critical Perspective. New York: Routledge. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.libdata.lib.ua.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1449724&site=eds-live&scope=site

Exploring horizontal communication of matrix-structured organization with social penetration theory. (2017). 2017 International Conference on Applied System Innovation (ICASI), Applied System Innovation (ICASI), 2017 International Conference On, 1911. https://doi-org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/10.1109/ICASI.2017.7988324

critique?

Is there really no critique of that theory? (It seems to me highly critiquable!) denis 'spir' (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review from MichaelNW

Hi, I am a graduate student from Georgetown University who is editing the Social Penetration Theory article as part of an assignment for class. I made the following changes:

For the sake of consistency, I wrote social penetration theory as SPT.

In the self disclosure section, I removed the sentence, "In other words, penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are reached” because it was repetitive.

In the part on De-penetration theory, I reworded “termination of relationship” to “causes the relationship to end.”

In the Breadth and Depth section, the Depth subsection started off with a question. I removed this because I thought it was unnecessary.

Under the Rewards and Costs Assessment section, I combined the Social Exchange Theory and Outcomes subsections.

I removed the following paragraph:

"In addition, the relationship between nonverbal behavior and the social penetration process has been of interest. A study conducted among university drama student actresses discovers that casual acquaintances discussing intimate topics tended to use more intensive nonverbal behaviors than good friends do (Keiser & Altman, 1976)."

I felt that this did not add anything new to the article and the citation did not have a link. MichaelNW (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CCT Peer Review 2019

Hi, I'm a graduate student from the CCT program at Georgetown University. Here are my comments on the page.

1. The page didn’t write references for some examples it stated, so I can’t judge whether the examples are from academic research or just made up by the writer. Actually, they should come from academic articles. See “Disclosure reciprocity”.

2. The way the onion metaphor shows the relationship and the depth of the numbers is not accurate. The onion is cut into wedges. Each wedge is the breadth of the topics in the disclosure. The rising of the numbers should not represent different topics; instead, they are the depth of the same topic. For example, one man can talk about his family and his relationship at the first meet. He might introduce how many family members he has a girlfriend. As the self-disclosure goes deeper, under the same topics of family and relationship, he might tell you the one in his family he hates most, and he actually has divorced before.

3. How about adding a section for critiques? The theory may meet some challenges because the traditional face to face communication is being replaced by online interaction. The writer mentioned some of this point in the application section. I expect to see more content focusing on this point.

Extra references:

Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-Presentation in Online Personals: The Role of Anticipated Future Interaction, Self-Disclosure, and Perceived Success in Internet Dating. Communication Research, 33(2), 152–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205285368

Nicole Ellison, Rebecca Heino, Jennifer Gibbs, Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Volume 11, Issue 2, 1 January 2006, Pages 415–441, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x Fanwang0912 (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review from MichaelNW

Hello, I am a graduate student at Georgetown University who is editing the Social Penetration Theory article as part of an assignment for class. I made the following edits:

I added a part to the introduction about de-penetration. This new additions reads as, "SPT also examines the process of de-penetration and how some relationships regress over time and ultimately end.”

In the disclosure reciprocity subsection of the self-disclosure section, there was an example about the rising cost of rent in New York City. I removed this example because it did not have a citation and replaced it with one that did. The new example reads as, "For instance, if someone was to bring up their experience with an intimate topic such as weight gain or having divorced parents, the person they are talking to could reciprocate by sharing their own experience.” The citation for this example is below:

Jiang, L. Crystal; Bazarova, Natalya N.; Hancock, Jeffery T. (2013). “From Perception to Behavior: Disclosure Reciprocity and the Intensification of Intimacy in Computer Mediated Communication.” Communication Research. 40. 125-143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211405313. MichaelNW (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]