User:Marissamweaver/sandbox

Article Evaluation: Social Penetration Theory

1. The article appears at first glance to be well organized, has a couple cited sources and also begins with the topic of the article in bold letters as specified throughout the training modules. While reading through the first paragraph it looks as though the author should have given credit to others for some of the definitions used.
2. There was a statement in the article that read "Self-disclosure is the major way to bring a relationship to a new level of intimacy". This statement sounds more like a personal opinion than a scientifically researched fact, leading me to believe there may some bias in the article.
3. The bias throughout the article is represented by the authors word selection as well as the referenced philosophers.
4. Not every fact is referenced and I believe this contributes to the feeling of bias, if those words were cited/referenced in the context of the reading I think it would have just sounded like factual information that had been researched but instead it sounds like an opinion.
5. The conversations in the talk section are predominantly about the lack of citations throughout the article, as well as the grammatical errors, and requests for more detail. The article also has been added too or edited since 21 May 2019 with minor grammatical corrections being the most recent change.
6. This article was part of wikiprojects for the University of Hull/Psychology of Internet Behavior and the article is rated Start-Class /Mid Importance.
7. I haven't specifically heard Social Penetration Theory discussed in class yet, but I know it could apply in arguably everyone's daily lives.

Topic selected for editing: Social Penetration Theory

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.

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

Wikipedia Article Draft Work: 14 JUNE 2019

The social penetration theory states that the relationship development occurs primarily through self-disclosure, or intentionally revealing personal information such as personal motives or desires, feelings, thoughts, and experiences to others. Knapp & Vangelisti explain how moving through the stages of forming a relationship generally follow a linear pattern because each step builds on the previous. Due to the linear nature of this theory, people may find it is easier to predict the other persons next move. This theory is also guided by the assumptions that relationship development is systematic and predictable. Through self-disclosure, relationship development follows particular trajectory, moving from superficial layers of exchanges to more intimate ones.^[1] Self-disclosure is pivotal when it comes to forming and maintaining new relationships. Self-disclosure is an ever evolving process that transforms alongside the relationship, as people grow in relationships their self-disclosure follows in line.

Social penetration theory is based on four basic assumptions.^[3]

1. Relationship development moves from superficial layers to intimate ones.

   For instance, on a first date, people tend to present their outer images only, talking about hobbies. As the relational development progresses, wider and more controversial topics such as political views are included in the conversations.

   Interpersonal relationships develop in a generally systematic and predictable manner.

   This assumption indicates the predictability of relationship development in a linear function. Although it is impossible to foresee the exact and precise path of relational development, there is certain trajectory to follow. Relationships also run have the potential to cycle through the same stages in a cyclic manner.

   Relational development could move backward, resulting in de-penetration and dissolution.

   For example, after prolonged and fierce fights, a couple who originally planned to get married may decide to break up and longer define their relationship as an intimate one.

   Self-disclosure is the key to facilitate relationship development.

   Self-disclosure means disclosing and sharing personal information to others. It enables individuals to know each other and plays a crucial role in determining how far a relationship can go, because gradual exploration of mutual selves is essential in the process of social penetration.^[1]
   

Self-disclosure

The self-disclosure is a purposeful disclosure of personal information to another person.^[4] Disclosure includes sharing both high-risk and low-risk information as well as personal experiences, ideas, attitudes, feelings, values, past facts and life stories, and even future hopes, dreams, ambitions, and goals. In sharing information about themselves, people make choices about what to share and with whom to share it as it serves their privacy concerns. Self-disclosure is viewed as a vital factor in developing/forming, maintaining, and the deterioration of relationships. Not only does SD function as a process in forming and processing of relationships but it also a forms a means to negotiate a relationship. An example of this type of negotiation may take place by offering someone a piece of intimate information about yourself and waiting for the response of the person, if the person responds with support and acceptance this means they have accepted the means by which you define the relationship, if the response is negative or a form of rejection they have not accepted the definition of the intimate relationship you had originally proposed.

Self-Disclosure Stages

1. Orientation Stage

During this stage individuals will find themselves "small talking" and forming their first impressions of each other. The interactions that take place in this stage usually conform to social norms discloses general information about one another leaving out major intimate details.

2. Exploratory Affective Stage

Communicators will begin to disclose more information about themselves to include noncontroversial personal opinions. Some examples of what might be shared during this stage include opinions about one's favorite sports team, or musical artist.

3. Affective Stage

During this stage communicators will begin to disclose personal and private matters pertaining to their lives. Their "corks" will begin to shine through in their speech. It is also at this time that communicators will begin to let their guard down, feelings of comfort start to emerge mutually with one another and communicators also become willing to voice unpopular opinions, argue, and also even criticize each other in a confrontational manner.

4. Stable Stage

Stability has been reached in this stage, communicators have generally entered some form of relationship, they are comfortable in this stage, and are able to predict reactions from one another.

5. Depenetration

This final stage is best described when both communicators perceive that the cost of self-disclosure outweighs its benefits, this is also termed Social exchange theory. The communicators tend to stop self-disclosure by closing themselves off emotionally. They stop self-disclosing in this stage and this ends the relationship.

Social exchange theory ADD CITATIONS TO INFORMATION

Further information: Social exchange theory

Social exchange theory has become a theoretical principal perspective of communication studies. Social exchange theory helps us to understand how and why humans weigh each and interaction with another human on a reward cost scale, this is often done without being thought about. If the interaction was satisfactory in ones opinion, then that person potentially sees the other person as fun, enjoyable, and may also feel Social support from them. On the other hand if an interaction has gone in a negative or unsatisfactory manner then the relationship may be viewed as a costly one and not provide any benefit or positive value; you can also consider someone giving it a negative value which subtracts from the likely hood of ongoing communication. People try to predict the outcome of an interaction before it takes place, we do this by evaluating our perceptions of what put into a relationship, considering what kind of relationship we deserve, and what the chances are finding a better relationship with someone else CITE. 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 Thibaut and Kelley's 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.

A major factor of disclosure is an individual calculation in direct relation to benefits of the relationship at hand. Each calculation is unique in its own way because every person prefers different things and therefore will give different responses to different questions.

An example of how rewards and costs can influence behaviour is if an individual were to ask another individual on a date. If they say 'yes', then the first individual has gained a reward, making them more likely to repeat this action. However, if they reply with 'No', then they have received a punishment which in turn would stop them from repeating an action like that in the future. The more someone discloses to their partner, the greater the intimacy reward will be. When the individuals involved in the relationship hold positive values in this calculation, intimacy proceeds at an accelerated rate. In the relationship, if both parties are dyad, the cost exceeds the rewards. The relationship then will slow considerably, and future intimacy is less likely to happen. The basic formula in which some can process this in most situations is: Behaviour (profits) = Rewards of interaction − costs of interaction.