Social Penetration Theory Altman & Taylor chapter 9, Em Griffin (4th ed.)

CLICKER QUESTION TRUE___A.___ FALSE__B.____ Social Penetration theory teaches that you can become intimate with people quickly if you tell them all your secrets soon after meeting them. TRUE___A.___ FALSE__B.____

Social Penetration Theory Explains how relational closeness develops; Altman and Taylor compare people to onions; The onion metaphor represents the multi-layered nature of personality; The outer layer contains the public self that is viewable by anyone; The inner layers progressively contain more and more about our attitudes, values, self-concept, unresolved conflicts and deeply felt emotions;

Closeness Through Self-Disclosure By allowing others to penetrate beneath the surface, we can draw close to one another; There are many routes to vulnerability or allowing the other in, but the main route to deep social penetration is through self-disclosure;

The Depth and Breadth of Self-Disclosure The depth of penetration is the degree of intimacy; The theory is not limited to romantic relationships, it is equally about friendship; The process of developing intimacy: peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information; Self-disclosure is reciprocal; new acquaintances will reach roughly equal levels of openness;

The Depth and Breadth of Self-Disclosure Penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are reached; Instant intimacy is a myth; Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal; -- relational retreat is a taking back of what has earlier been exchanged--a movie shown in reverse--a gradual cooling off;

The Breadth of Self-Disclosure Breadth is equally important to depth; Breadth refers to the range of topics;

Regulating Closeness on the Basis of Rewards and Costs Cost benefit-analysis: pluses and minuses or perceived benefits and costs of the relationship Social Exchange Theory (Thibaut & Kelley)

Outcome: Rewards Minus Costs Social exchange theory (Thibaut and Kelley) attempts to quantify the value of different outcomes for an individual; A number represents the rewards minus the costs of a course of action; Just imagine that the benefits of a relationship equal +14 and the costs (what you imagine to be costs) equal -6, the outcome equals +8 [14-6 = 8];

Outcome: Rewards Minus Costs This idea of calculating the rewards and costs goes back to John Stuart Mill; The principle is that people seek to maximize their rewards and minimize their costs; So, the higher the relational outcome number, the more attractive that outcome;

Outcome: Rewards Minus Costs Social exchange theorists assume that we can accurately guage the payoffs and that we can choose the action that gives the best results; Bottom line:We base our decision to open up with another person on the perceived benefit-minus-cost outcome; What we see as benefits and costs changes over time in a relationship;

Satisfaction--Comparison Level (CL) A relational outcome number, say, +8 only has meaning when compared with other outcome values; Social Exchange Theory offers 2 standards of comparison: relative satisfaction: how happy or sad an interpersonal outcome makes a person--the comparison level;

Satisfaction--Comparison Level (CL) [to repeat]Social Exchange Theory offers 2 standards of comparison: relative satisfaction: how happy or sad an interpersonal outcome makes a person--the comparison level; Satisfaction depends on expectation: if you expect a +8, the +6 is below (sad) the CL and +10 is above (happy);

CL So, CL is the threshold, above it you are happy, below it you are disappointed; Our CL is determined by past history--what we have experienced before and has influenced our expectations; A second standard by which we evaluate the outcomes we receive, the comparison level of alternatives (Clalt);

CLalt Clalt is anchored by the best payoffs available outside the current relationship; Put another way, Clalt could be thought of as the worst outcome you will put up with and still stay in a relationship; As more attractive alternatives exist outside the relationship or a current outcomes slides below the Clalt , relational instability increases;

CL and CLalt Whether or not a person is willing to become vulnerable by self-disclosing depends on whether the outcomes in the current relationship are above or below the CL (expectations) and Clalt; Ideally, Outcome > Clalt > CL

Critique What are some of the critiques or problems with the theory? You list them, please (pp. 133-134).