User:Rachelvc55/Interpersonal Communication: Social Penetration Theory (SPT)

Interpersonal Communication: Social Penetration Theory (SPT)

I. History
The Social Penetration theory was developed to explain the evolution of interpersonal relationships. It is based on the research of two theorists, Irvin Altman and Dalmas Taylor. The 1960’s to the 1970’s were when early discussion of this theory first began. During this time, being direct and open was considered an important part of relational development. It was not until 1973 that the theory was fully introduced when Altman and Taylor published their book, Theory of Social Penetration. They conducted extensive research through studies by examining closely social bonding and intimate relationships. They were interested in how intimate relationships were developed and how physical environments, self-disclosure, and the roles of social contexts affected them.

II. Definition
Social penetration explains a process of relationship bonding through which individuals move from superficial to intimate communication. Intimate relationships are developed and based on verbal behaviors such as conversation and the words we speak, nonverbal behaviors such as body language and environment such as the physical space between individuals.

III. Stages of Social Penetration Process
Before this theory was established there was no clear steps or processes to explain how interpersonal communication functions and develops. These theorists established that it is a linear model, which contains different stages of development, which range from non-intimate to intimate communication through the use of verbal and non-verbal behaviors.

1. Orientation: this stage occurs when individuals engage in contact for the first time, or have only known each other for a short period of time. Information revealed in this stage is very general and limited. There is no disclosure of any deep or personal information, just public knowledge such as biographical and personal preference information. It can be a superficial type of disclosure in which only the small bits of personal information that the individual wants the other individual to know is disclosed.

2. Exploratory Affective Exchange: we start to reveal more about ourselves in a casual way. We are not completely comfortably to fully disclose ourselves but our personalities start to emerge as topics such as government, politics or religion can be discussed. There is more comfort in self-disclosure at this stage but it is still a casual friendship that is being explored and sometimes doesn’t turn into a relationship.

3. Affective Exchange: when intimacy and closeness takes place. Private and personal matters are disclosed and arguments may arise. There are close relationships intimate partners and commitment take place in this stage.

4. Stable/Social Exchange: when things sort of stabilize in the relationship and two people become very close. Personal things and emotions are shared and people become so close they can predict ones behavior.

5. Depenetration: is the last stage, which does not necessarily occur in all relationships. It is when the relationship starts to break down which leads to termination.

IV. Evaluation of the Theory

After conducting research, and studying what theorists have concluded about the social penetration theory I have come to my own understanding of the definition. I have defined the theory as the study of how relational closeness develops and evolves based on self-disclosure and intimacy. The definition can be evaluated using Littlejohn’s three points of “critical conceptual differentiation.

According to the first point of “critical conceptual differentiation”, which is the level of observation, the definition is somewhat broad and inclusive. It states that the theory explains how relationships develop and how individuals become close, but it doesn’t explain specifically how this happens. According to the second dimension, which is intentionality, the definition does not impose the limitation of only purposeful messages; it is more of a broad definition. According to the third dimension, the definition presumes that communication is successful, and that relationships will evolve and people will become intimate. The theory is defined somewhat broadly and generalized but through the explanations of the process, it can be better understood.

V. Dimensions of the Theory

The Social Penetration Theory relates to the ontological perspective. Ontology is the branch of philosophy that deals with nature of being. It deals with the nature of human existence, how one communicates and it is centered on the nature of human social interaction. There are four issues that are important in ontology. The first being, to what extent do humans make real choices. Although many people would agree that people perceive choice, the question of whether real choice is possible is and always will stand in question. The term social penetration became used to identify the process of increasing disclosure and intimacy within a relationship which is why this theory has an ontological perspective. People plan their behavior to meet their future goals and we see these people as active, decision makers. They are the ones that make their own choices and affect their own destinies. The second issue is whether human behavior is best understood in terms of traits or states. Traits are stable dimensions while states deal with more temporary issues that affect people. The third issue dealing with ontology asks the question, is human experience primarily individual or social. Many studies have been done dealing with this issue and scholars have found that we as humans cannot be understood apart from our relationships. Whether it is with other groups, cultures, family, or friends, we as individuals tend to be defined by how we interact. To what extent is communication contextual, is the last issue dealing with ontology. This asks the question of whether or not our behavior is governed by a set of rules or is based off of situational factors. This theory refers to a bonding process in which the relationships of individuals move from a superficial stage to a more intimate stage. Relationship, as a communication process, is dynamic and always changing which is why ontology is best used for this theory. As a relationship progresses, it moves from non-intimate to intimate and ontology centers on the nature of social interaction.

The Social Penetration Theory can be seen as a nomothetic theory, which is defined as seeking general or universal laws. The goal of this theory is to understand how social life works which is what SPT does. It is important to remember that the nomothetic theory is based on four processes: developing questions, forming hypotheses, testing hypotheses and formulating theory. Theories tend to assume that one’s behavior is basically determined by biology and the environment. Concepts and explanations help define a particular position of the object of interest. The nomothetic theory reveals how things appear and work just as the social penetration theory reveals how human social interaction works. Nomothetic theories tend to operationalize research in ways that all variables in a hypothesis should be stated to explain exactly how to observe them. Control and manipulation are two operations that were designed to eliminate any outside influences and include those that are necessary. These concepts are precise and measurable which can help lead to ways of explanation. The detection of differences for a nomothetic theory can be evaluated by validity and reliability. Validity is the degree of which an observation measures or what it is supposed to measure. Reliability is the degree of which the construct is measured not only accurately but consistently as well. Explanations test a linear relationship between cause and effect and represents and explains objects in the world.

VI. Traditions

Of Robert Craigs Seven Traditions, the Self Disclosure Theory fits into the Sociopsychological Tradition as well as the Sociocultural Tradition. This theory fits into the Sociopsychological Tradition because the tradition is mostly the study of the individual as a social being. This tradition is broken into three parts, including; the behavioral, the cognitive and the biological. It looks at the relationship between communication behavior. It foregrounds the individual. The Self Disclosure Theory fits into the Sociocultural Tradition because this tradition emphasizes the “social interaction” part of a relationship. Looking at the self disclosure theory, or watching two people meet and get to know each other, both traditions can be applied easily.

VII. Evaluation using Comparative Criteria

The Self Disclosure Theory is comprehensive yet not too inclusive. It is not generalized too narrowly. It is a good theory because it deals with a narrow range of events while still applying to a large amount of situations. Relating this theory to validity, it is simple enough to see that this theory has value and that the concepts and relations can be observed.

VIII. Research Tested

The Taylor Study (Altman & Taylor)

• 13 week longitudinal study of college roommates and investigated developmental changes in social penetration process
• observed the progression of self-disclosure over time and the influence that individual differences had on the process
• 4 questionnaires administered to male college roommates at certain intervals of the semester
• First: measured information exchanged, by asking subjects to indicate what they told roommates about themselves
• Second: behavioral aspects of penetration and social activities engaged with roommate
• Third: interpersonal exchange of a biographical demographic nature (both subjects asked to answer this one twice, one for himself, other for roommate- in order to see how well they knew each other)
• Fourth: modified version of an interpersonal familiarity questionnaire which dealt with values and attitudes about certain topics
• Revealed increase of social penetration processes over time
• Disclosure at all levels of intimacy increased gradually over time, but at different rates
  

Social Penetration in Japanese-North American dyads (Gudykunst, Nishida & Chua, 1987)

• Researched to see if the theory could be extended to intercultural relationships
• Earlier studies by theorists revealed that social penetration theory is generalized across cultures
• Japanese students at a large university were asked to find a north American student he/she knew to participate in the study (didn’t matter the relationship)
• Given questionnaire (in English) to complete independently, each partner was asked to label the relationship with the other person
• Relationships labeled low intimacy in both
• Relationships labeled high intimacy in both
• Relationships which were mixed
• Perceptions measured by the 30-item instrument (eight relationship dimensions based on amount of intimacy in the interaction: uniqueness, depth, breadth, difficulty, flexibility, spontaneity, smoothness, and evaluation) developed by Knapp, Ellis, and Williams (1980) asked respondents to rate each statement for different relationships (lover, best friend, friend, pal, colleague, and acquaintance)
• Study was consistent with social penetration theory research
• A few differences in perceived personalization, synchronization, and difficulty of communication
  

Three levels of self-disclosure (public, semiprivate, private-personal) in the social penetration process; C. Arthur Vanlear, Jr. (1987)

• Three questions in this study (1) What is the nature of changes in the three levels of disclosure over time?, (2) Is self-disclosure reciprocated at the three levels of intimacy? (3) Does reciprocity vary over time and if so, how does it vary?
• Important to view the social penetration process as a system
• 6 week longitudinal study with same-sex dyads who had no history together before the experiment
• Results support the social penetration process
• Results showed (1) a convex quadratic trend for private-personal disclosure over time (2) reciprocity at the same level of intimacy as an interactional norm (especially at the beginning and end of the relationship (3) a cyclical fluctuation of reciprocal interact over time
  

IX. Developing the Theory
Altman & Taylor developed one unified theory, which provides a stable base from which researchers could study. They hoped to set the stage for future research and theory about social relationships. Much of the research concentrates on the relationship between 2 people and the way they create a relationship. Altman & Taylor explained social penetration theory with two hypotheses:

1. Interpersonal exchange gradually progresses from superficial, non-intimate areas to more intimate, deeper layers of the selves as social factors
2. People assess interpersonal rewards and costs, satisfaction and dissatisfaction, gained from interaction with others, and advancement of the relationship is heavily dependent on the amount and nature of the rewards and costs
   

Onion model

• Altman & Taylor make general comparisons between levels of communication and the layers of an onion
• Layers of an onion represent the many stages in someone’s personality
• Outer layer is seen as how public views a persons personality (physical appearance & basic knowledge)
• As new layers are revealed, breadth & depth of ones personality are unveiled
• Breadth: the number of topics, and subtopics within that subject, that are made available to another person as a relationship develops
• Depth: the level to which topics are revealed (layers of onion)
• Inner layers of the onion are the more personal and detailed values and emotions that make up ones identity
  

Rewards & Costs

• Rewards: pleasures, satisfactions, and gratifications the person enjoys. When a drive is reduced, or a need is fulfilled

ex.) gain friendships by communicating and revealing information about yourself

• Costs: factors that reduce or deter a performance of a sequence of behavior; the greater the deterrents, the greater the cost of the act

ex.) lose a possible relationship by not revealing information or communicating

Self-Disclosure

• The sharing information with others that they would not normally know or discover. Self-disclosure involves risk and vulnerability on the part of the person sharing the information
• The Johari window is the most efficient way of viewing self-disclosure

The Open Pane includes information such as hair color, occupation, and physical appearance.

The Blind Pane includes information that others can see in you, but you cannot see in your self. You might think you are poor leader, but others think you exhibit strong leadership skills.

The Hidden Pane contains information you wish to keep private, such as dreams or ambitions.

The Unknown Pane includes everything that you and others do not know about yourself. You may have hidden talents, for example, that you have not explored.

Through self-disclosure, we open and close panes so that we may become more intimate with others and further social penetration

X. Similar Theories
Social Exchange Theory

Being another interpersonal communication theory, the Social Exchange Theory is similar to the Social Penetration Theory. They both have to do with the exchanging of information in social behavior to create relationships. SPT deals with self-disclosure and the process of going from superficial to intimate relationships, while the Social Exchange Theory proposes that social behavior is the result of a process of exchange. They are both similar in the aspect that they have to do with rewards or benefits versus costs. The basis of Social Exchange Theory is that people weigh the potential benefits against the potential costs of their relationships which have an impact on whether or not they will abandon their relationship in the future. This is somewhat similar to the Social Penetration Theory because this states that people evaluate their relationship compared to rewards and benefits which is very similar to the basis of the Social Exchange Theory.

XI. Competing Theories
Two criticisms of Social Penetration Theory:

1. Rational action theory- people only engage in relationships to receive exchange

2. The theory's model is too linear, must go through stages

Relational Dialectics developed to attempt to address these criticisms of SPT. It is about capturing the messy nature of ongoing relationships, and recognizing that relationships are constantly negotiating. It is also a varied exchange of emotions.

SPT (first meetings) vs. Relational Dialectics Theory (the life of the whole relationship) more broad

XII. Current State of the Theory
The most “current” research on this theory was noted in 2006 by E. Griffin, in “A first look at communication theory. He had applied the “Onion” metaphor, describing how we disclose ourselves in layers (like an onion).

XIII. Future of the Theory

As far as a future, for this theory, what can be said basically has been said for the Social Penetration Theory. The theory might be heuristic in the way that it could perhaps generate new research questions. Theorists have broken the stages down so intrinsically that not much more could possibly be said to be claimed as “new research” for the Social Penetration Theory. 

XIV. Value of this Theory
This theory is very useful because it offers help for relationships in everyday life, which is very important to people. It provides guidance and knowledge about how friendships and relationships work from start to end. By understanding the process of this theory, it can give the communicator the upper hand in understanding self-disclosure for yourself, how people disclose information about themselves and how people become intimate in relationships.

References

Allensworth, Nicole J. "Social Penetration: A Descri[tion, Research, and Evaluation." ERIC. 28 Mar. 1996. Web. 20 Apr. 2011. <http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/PDFS/ED403615.pdf>.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ruh2Vfwxwg0C&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=dimensions+of+social+penetration&source=bl&ots=alsx2yzviE&sig=cHWYEGmi7w12KDLnv99_MaISbXE&hl=en&ei=R2K3Ta2LIIfdgQfDxc1e&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=dimensions%20of%20social%20penetration&f=false
http://smileworking.blogspot.com/2010/10/social-penetration-theory-based-on.html
Littlejohn, Stephen W., and Karen A. Foss. Theories of Human Communication. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2008. Print.

External links

• example.com