CHAPTER
Theories of
Communication
in
Developing Relationships
The concepts of communication and relationcial penetration theory because it is the more
ships are inextricably enmeshed. It is through
general and wide ranging of theoretical statecommunication that our relationships are forged,
ments about relational development. This theand it is within the context of relationships that
ory tracks the development and dissolution of
relationships through a series of interconnected
the conversations of our lives-both
mundane
and profound-are
played out. It is little surprise,
stages. The second theory we examine-uncerthen, that the study of interaction in developing
tainty reduction theory-periscopes
our attention on relational development in two ways.
relationships is a topic that has interested comFirst, uncertainty reduction theory calls
munication scholars for many years.
This interest began to flourish
our attention to the very early
"It
is
stages of relational developin the late 1960s and during
ment, the period of initial
the 1970s, when the sothrough communication that our
interaction. Second, this
cial culture
in the
relationships
are
forged,
and
it is within
United States (and in
theory concentrates on
the context of relationships that the
one
specific
process
many other parts of the
within
relational
develworld) was moving toconversations of our lives-both
opment,
that
of
reducing
ward a philosophy of
mundane and profound-are
uncertainty about the indiopenness and relational
played
out.
".
freedom. The 1960s were
viduals with whom we interact.
known as a time of sexual revolution, and a great deal of value was placed on "rapping" and "letting it all hang out." Formality and
'"SOCIAL PENETRATION THEORY
adherence
to rationality
were often being
As each new semester starts, you begin a new set
usurped by casual attitudes and a value for emoof classes with new professors and classmates.
tion. These social movements served as the societal backdrop for the genesis of the theories we
You might already know students in some of your
discuss in this chapter.
classes. Perhaps you have had them in other
In this chapter, we consider two general theocourses, or perhaps you have decided with
friends to take classes together. There are probaretical approaches to the study of developing
bly many others in the class whom you have
relationships: social penetration
theory and
uncertainty reduction theory. \Y./ebegin with sonever met. Some of these students will remain
166
CH A PH R lOT
heories of Communication
relative strangers, others will become acquaintances you chat with during class or when you
see them on campus, and still others may become longtime friends. Thus, in this small microcosm of a new class, you can see the variety of
relationships that can exist-strangers,
acquaintances, friends, enduring friends-and
the idea
that these relationships will ebb and change over
time. But how does this happen? Why does one
person remain a stranger and another become a
dose friend? Why do some relationships click
and progress quickly, whereas others move more
-lowly toward increasing levels of intimacy?
.~uestions such as these motivated Irwin Altman
and Dalmas Taylor to propose their social penetration theory in the early 1970s.
Altman and Taylor developed their theory
~'1 the field of social psychology. Thus, many
..f the processes seen as central to relational
.~c\'elopment are psychological in nature. How:\'er, Altman and Taylor also laid out a number
·f communication processes in their theory.
-.:ot surprisingly, social penetration theory has
-een embraced (and adapted) by many theorists
,~1communication
studies and has played a
·.:rorninent role in our ideas about comrnunica:,on as Cl central process in the development of
.elationships.
Original Statement
,f Social Penetration
Theory
- -cial penetration theory has gone through a
, ,:;-amount of theoretical development over the
.~HS, though
much of this development has
"ken place in a rather patchwork fashion. Thus,
.:~ understanding the theory, it is useful to con..Jer some of the original concepts at its core, as
-veloped by Altman and Taylor in the early
,YiOs. We therefore look at adaptations of the
theory, both by the original theorists and by
scholars in the field of communication.
The Process of Relational Development
Altman and Taylor's original statement of social
:,enetration theory is laid out in their book Social
Penetration:
The Development
of Interpersonal
in Developing
Relationships
1 67
Relationships
(Airman & Taylor 1973). Their
theory is a processual one that highlights the development, maintenance, and deterioration of
social relationships. The most central aspect of
the theory is the conceptualization of relational
development as a process. More specifically, Altman and Taylor specify that relationships go
through sequential stages as they develop. In the
original explication of social penetration theory,
four stages are defined:
• In the earliest stage, orientation, individuals are cautious and tentative in their interaction, and these interactions are ruled
by social conventions and formulas. Little
information is shared during the orientation stage.
• In the second stage, exploratory affective
exchange, the individuals begin to relax
their guard a bit and share some information beyond the socially approved small
talk of the orientation stage. In this stage,
interactants are more relaxed and friendly
with each other.
• In the third stage, affective exchange,
many barriers have been broken down, and
a great deal of open exchange occurs. Altman and Taylor see this stage as the one
that would often characterize close friendships and romantic relationships.
• Finally, the stable exchange stage is characterized by continued openness and richness
in interaction. Interactants understand
each other very well, and communication
can often occur at the nonverbal level.
Several aspects of these stages are worth noting. First, although Airman and Taylor (1973)
acknowledge that the social penetration process
is complex and may involve "ebbs and flows"
(p. 135), these theorists see movement through
the stages as primarily linear and sequential.
That is, individuals in a relationship begin at
the orientation stage and then move through
subsequent stages as time goes on. Second, Altman and Taylor see relationship dissolution as
1 68
PART 2
Theories of Communication
Processes
Breadth of communication topics
during relational development
Depth of communication on specific
topics during relational development
Figure 10.1
The Onion Model of Social Penetration
following the same stages, though in reverse.
That is, "once set in motion, the exchange
processes that occur in the dissolution of an interpersonal relationship are ... systematic and
proceed gradually, this time from inner (intimate) to outer (nonintimate)
levels of exchange" (D. A. Taylor & Altman, 1987, p. 260).
Thus, both relational development
and relational disintegration
occur as a linear progression through these varying stages of intimacy.
Breadth and Depth of Communication
The
preceding discussion of stages alludes several
times to the notion of exchange between participants in a relationship.
But what is being exchanged as people move into more or less
intimate relationships?
What is the medium
through which interpersonal
relationships
develop? According to social penetration
theory,
relationships develop as overt interpersonal behaviors move from the superficial to the intimate, and the most central of these behaviors is
communication.
Altman and Taylor propose an "onion" model
to describe the ways in which communication
shifts as relationships
move through varying
stages of intimacy. The onion is an apt metaphor
in social penetration theory, because it includes
both clear layers through which communication
in relationships can travel and a round surface
that suggests varying points of entry for moving
to the center of the onion. This metaphor highlights the notion that as relationships develop,
they are characterized
by increasing depth of
communication
(e.g., moving toward inner areas
of the onion) and increasing breadth of communication topics (e.g., as more surface area of the
onion is explored). This onion metaphor is represented in Figure 10.1.
According to social penetration theory, relationships develop as communication
(and hence
knowledge and understanding
of the relational
partner) increases in both depth and breadth.
For example, during the orientation stage, communication
is characterized
by Low levels of
depth and breadth. That is, YOLl talk about only
a few topics (e.g., academic major, hometown)
and don't go into much detail on even these. In
contrast, a relationship that has progressed all
the way to the stable exchange stage would be
characterized by high levels of both breadth and
depth. For example, with a spouse or a very close
friend, you feel comfortable talking about a wide
range of topics and feel comfortable revealing a
great deal about these issues. The intervening
stages of exploratory affective exchange and affective exchange would be marked by varying
levels of breadth and depth as the relationship
develops. For example, in exploratory affective
exchange, you may have talked about a fair
CH A PTE R 10
Theories of Communication
number of topics (e.g., school, sports, music,
television) but not about others (e.g., politics,
religion).
Thus, there would be moderate
breadth in this relationship.
It is also possible
that you've talked in depth about a few topics
(e.g., school and sports). As the relationship
moves from exploratory to affective exchange,
more topics are considered and greater depth is
explored in each topic, leading to a more developed relationship.
Self-Disclosure
and Reciprocity
The behav.oral process through which this breadth and
.iepth of interaction
is achieved
is selfdisclosure. Self-disclosure involves, quite simply,
comrnunication about self and can include both
intimate and non intimate topics. That is, state.uents such as "I was born in Michigan," "I used
.o dream of being an actress," "When it comes to
~'.)litics, I guess you'd call me a liberal," and "It is
::ifficult for me to establish close friendships" are
-xamples of self-disclosure, though they repre.ent varying levels of intimacy. According to so~:al penetration
theory, the communicative
_'TOcess of self-disclosure
enhances both the
-readth and depth of relational sharing and
.ience moves the relationship through various
-~ages of the theory's trajectory. Though there
~dve been many studies of the self-disclosure
~-:-ocess(see, e.g., Dindia, 1994, for review), sev-ral overall patterns are particularly important to
:1 understanding
of social penetration theory:
• There is a general norm of reciprocity in
self-disclosure processes. That is, when one
person reveals something about himself or
herself (e.g., academic major), the other
person will tend to reply with similar information. Reciprocity is a norm, though, not
a universal law. As Derlega, Metts, Petronio, and Margulis (1993) point out, reciprocity "is a common and expected
occurrence but is not invariant or automatic." Further, self-disclosure is not always reciprocated on a tit-for-tat basis but
might involve the acknowledgment of disclosure at one point in time and reciproca-
in Developing
Relationships
1 69
tion at a later point in time (Dindia,
1994).
• Information that is public or peripheral
will tend to be exchanged before private
information (see, e.g., Berger, Gardner,
Clatterbuck, & Schulman, 1976). That is,
in initial stages of the relationship, individuals will talk about issues such as demographics, background, and hobbies. Later,
interactants will move on to more personal
information such as attitudes, beliefs,
hopes, and fears.
• The rate of exchange changes as individuals
move through relational stages. That is, during early stages of the relationship there is a
great deal of disclosure on largely public
topics. However, as interactants push
through the layers of the onion, social
norms and individual reluctance will slow
down the extent of self-disclosure. Indeed,
in social penetration theory, this reluctance
helps explain why many relationships never
move past the orientation or affective exploratory stages.
Motivational
Force: Social Exchange
Social
penetration
theory proposes that individuals
move through
relational
stages of varying
breadth and depth as information is exchanged
through processes of self-disclosure. However, it
is clear from our experiences that very few relationships reach the stable stage or even the stage
of affective exchange. Furthermore, we clearly
have preferences with regard to these relationships. There are a few relationships
that we
value highly and want to keep at an intimate
level. At other times, our desire is to keep a relationship at a superficial level. We also have preferences for movement among relational stages,
as we talk about our desire to move a relationship to a new level or get some distance in a
friendship. What is the motivational force that
drives these desires and that pushes and pulls relationships from one stage to another? According to social penetration
theory, it is the
important process of social exchange.
1 70
PART
2
Theories of Communication
Processes
Social exchange is not a singular theory but a
family of theories that proposes that individuals
place varying values on aspects of relationships
and make decisions about relationships based on
those values. The particular approach to social
exchange that is most compatible with social
penetration theory is the social exchange theory
proposed by John Thibaut and Harold Kelley
(e.g., Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). According to social exchange theory, individuals evaluate relationships in a relatively rational manner akin to
an economic analysis. This analysis involves an
assessment of the rewards derived from a relationship, the costs of a relationship, and the rewards and costs that are perceived from past
relationships and possible future relationships.
These concepts come together in defining relational outcomes, comparison levels, and comparison levels of alternatives.
An assessment of the outcomes of a particular
relationship involves a consideration of both the
rewards derived from the relationship and the
costs of the relationship. For example, in evaluating a long-distance romance, you might be rewarded by the ability to share thoughts and
feelings, enjoyment in being together, shared interest in the theater, and similarity in background.
However, you might also see costs in the relationship such as travel and phone expenses in maintaining the relationship,
inability to share
everyday activities, and dissimilarity in life and
career goals. These costs and rewards are often
highly complex and dynamic. A social exchange
perspective, however, argues that these costs and
rewards can be assessed in assigning an overall rating to the outcomes of a particular relationship. A
relationship with many rewards and few costs
would have high outcomes; one with few rewards
and many costs would have low outcomes.
On the face of it, it would seem that we would
always stay in relationships with high outcomes
and get out of relationships with low outcomes.
However, social exchange theory argues that it's
not so simple. Instead, we compare our outcomes
in current relationships to past relationships and
to possible future relationships. These comparisons help determine our satisfaction with the
current relationship
and our motivation
to
change the status of relationships. Our assessment of past relationships is known as our comparison level (CL). If we have had many fine
and satisfying friendships in the past (and present), we would have a high CL for this kind of
relationship. Our assessment of possible future
relationships is known as our comparison level
of alternatives
(CLALT). That is, if we believe
there are "lots of fish in the sea," or if we've had
a first date that is highly promising, we might
have a high CLAn.
These concepts serve as a framework for understanding why individuals are motivated to either escalate or deescalate relationships in the
social penetration
framework. As Taylor and
Altman (1987) argue, "In social penetration
theory the concept of reward/cost assessment is
viewed as the motivational basis for relationship
growth through the various stages of development" (p. 265). In essence, individuals make
psychological assessments of their current relationship and compare those assessments to past
relationships and potential future relationships.
Consider, for example, the four scenarios laid out
in Figure 10.2.
In situation A, outcomes are higher than both
the CL and the CLALT. That is, an assessment of
rewards and costs led to the conclusion that this
relationship was more rewarding than both past
relationships and potential future relationships.
An individual in this situation will likely want to
maintain the relationship and perhaps move the
relationship to more intimate levels. In contrast,
situation B portrays a case where outcomes are
lower than both CL and CLALT. In this case, it is
likely that the relationship will de escalate and
potential alternative relationships will be explored. The situations portrayed in C and Dare
not so straightforward. In situation C, outcomes
are higher than those in past relationships (leading to relative satisfaction with the relationship)
but not as high as potential alternatives. In situation D, current outcomes are lower than those in
past relationships (leading to relative dissatisfaction with the relationship), but there are no viable alternatives on the horizon. In these cases,
CH A PT ER 10
Theories of Communication
in Developing
Relationships
1 71
Social Exchange Situations
Situation B
_s~t\latiol1 C
Situation D
CL
Figure 10.2
CL
outcomes
outcomes
CL
outcomes
Four Social Exchange Situations
decisions about movement among the social penetration stages are not so straightforward and may
depend on other situational and psychological
factors.
Meanwhile, in the Field
of Communication ...
,-\s noted in the preceding discussion, social
~'enetration theory was developed in the field of
social psychology. However, it is clear from our
.liscussion that the process of communication
is
central to social penetration
theory. Indeed,
:::lerlega (1997) points out that before the theory
came along, most psychologists looked at rela.ionships in terms of psychological
variables
-.rch as liking and attraction and that "a major
: .mrribution of social penetration theory is to fo:-J5 attention
on the nature of social exchanges
.etween individuals as personal relationships
.evelop, including the role of self-disclosure in
'timate relationships" (p. 102). Given the the:T'S communicative
focus, it is instructive to go
'.ck to the time period in which the theory was
.uroduced in order to explore how the concepts
- social penetration-and
similar ideas-were
,-apted or independently developed in the field
- .::ommunication. Here we consider two books
.tten by professors in the communication
dis-line during the same time period as Altrnan
.1Taylor's seminal work.
iapp's Social Intercourse
Five years after
"'1<1n and Taylor's book was published, Mark
:'P published Cl book entitled Social Inter-
course: From Greeting to Goodbye (Knapp, 1978).
The relationship of this book to Altman and
Taylor's work is apparent in several ways. First,
the concept of social intercourse is obviously
similar to the metaphor of social penetration,
though the former highlights the communication exchange
process that is central to
relational
development.
Second, Knapp acknowledges in the first chapter of his book that
he is taking an approach that owes some degree
of intellectual debt to social penetration theory.
However, Knapp also adapted Altman and
Taylor's work in important ways. First, Knapp redefines the stages of the relational development
process. One set of stages incorporates
the
processes of developing relationships
and includes initiating (when people first come together), experimenting
(when people begin to
try to discover the unknown through processes
such as small talk), intensifying (when intimacy
increases through mutual self-disclosure and enmeshed behavior), integrating (when the relationship takes on a quality of fusion or being "a
couple"), and bonding (when public rituals
make relational commitments formal and institutionalized). A second set of stages characterizes the relational dissolution process. These
include differentiating
(becoming distinct and
increasing interpersonal distance), circumscribing (decreasing the breadth and depth of information in a relationship),
stagnating (marking
time in the relationship),
avoiding (increasing
physical separation from the other), and terminating (ending the relationship).
Like Airman
and Taylor, Knapp conceptualizes these stages as
172
PART
2
Theories of Communication
Processes
being generally sequential, but he also highlights
that not all relationships advance to the same
degree and that steps can be skipped or "approached from differing initial conditions and
through a variety of paths" (Knapp, 1978, p. 33).
In addition to Knapp's reconfiguration of the
relational development stages, his work was important in emphasizing communicative
aspects
of the social penetration process. His book highlights interaction patterns, such as small talk,
forms of address, communicative
norms, selfdisclosure, and nonverbal behavior, that mark
the movement among various relational stages.
In short, Knapp (1978) argues for the centrality
of communication
in relational development,
stating that "relationships are created, sustained,
moved, and killed by messages" (p. 51).
Miller and Steinberg's
Between People
A
second relevant book published in this same
time period does not have a direct connection to
social penetration theory (indeed, Altman and
Taylor's book is not even cited), but the parallels
between them are notable. Between People, by
Gerald M iller and Mark Steinberg (1975), also
advocates a processual approach to relational development. Indeed, Miller and Steinberg argue
that a relationship should not even be defined as
"interpersonal"
until it is well along the relational development continuum. Their conceptual framework, then, highlights the ways in
which communicative relationships mayor may
not move along the developmental
continuum
to become interpersonal in nature.
One of the crucial distinctions
made by
Miller and Steinberg is in the nature of information people have about each other. Some of this
information is cultural in nature, or based on
the dominant norms, beliefs, values, and behaviors of a cultural group. An example of this kind
of information is the statement "Of course Angela likes pasta, she's Italian, isn't she?" Some information is sociological, or based on a person's
membership
in groups (e.g., college student,
mother,
republican).
For example,
"Fred
wouldn't want to go to the ballet-you
know
how men are." Finally, some information we
have about each other is psychological, or wh«:
you know about a person as a unique individua.
For example, "A lot of girls like Barbies, bu
[anie would much rather play with trucks."
Several points related to these three levels .:
information are important in Miller and Steinberg's developmental
theory. First, Miller an,
Steinberg believe that our communication
ienhanced by our ability to make predictionabout another person and that we will be able t,:
make much better predictions if we are usiri,
psychological rather than cultural or sociologica.
information. Second, Miller and Steinberg argue
that self-disclosure serves as a way of moving
from a reliance on cultural and sociological information to a reliance on psychological information. Finally, Miller and Steinberg make the
concept of trust central to their conceptualization of developing relationships,
arguing that
only when trust is person specific rather thar.
generalized can a relationship be clearly labelec
as interpersonal.
Developments and Tests
of Social Penetration Theory
Social penetration theory presents a view of relationships that is processual and multifaceted.
By the early 1980s, the development of the theory could be summarized as follows: Relationships develop as individuals provide increasing
breadth and depth of information through the
self-disclosure process. Motivation
for movement from stage to stage is predicated on current
relational outcomes, past relational experiences,
and future relational possibilities. As relationships become more developed, factors such as
trust, intimacy, and ability to predict the other's
behavior will be enhanced. Relationships
can
also fall apart and move backward through the
stages of social penetration.
Like relationships,
however, theories grow
and develop (and sometimes disintegrate). So it
has been with social penetration theory. In this
section, we highlight some of the key areas of
support for the theory and review critiques and
recent developments of the theory.
CH A PT ER 10
Theories of Communication
Empirical Support for the Theory
Because
social penetration theory is a theory of long-term
~clational development, few studies have tested
:he whole of the theory. The rigors of the research process and ethical concerns about fol.owing intimate relationships as they develop
snd dissolve make such tests difficult if not im:'c)ssible. Instead, tests have considered a truncated model of the theory, in which shorter
'pans of relational development are examined.
:=orexample, D. A. Taylor (1968) conducted an
early study in which he followed college roommate relationships for 13 weeks. As Taylor and
AItman (1987) note, "His findings confirmed
several hypotheses derived from social penetration theory: progressive development in exchanges over time, with less rapid development
in intimate than non intimate ones, and a general slowing down of the process at later time
t'eriods" (p. 261). Other studies that have connrmed these basic properties of relational development are reviewed by Taylor and Altman
\ 1987).
Other empirical investigations have exam.ned specific processes that are central to social
penetration theory. Foremost among these is the
t-rocess of self-disclosure (see, e.g., Derlega et al.,
1993, and Dindia, 1994, for reviews). Though
:his work is complex and multifaceted, it has
zenerally found that self-disclosure tends to be
reciprocated, enhances attraction, and plays a
:-ole in the development of interpersonal rela:ionships. These conclusions certainly support
:he theory's claims regarding self-disclosure.
Jther investigations have looked at the social
-xchange process as a motivator for relational
.hange. Taylor and Altman (1987) review re.earch indicating that individuals do, indeed, as.ess rewards and costs in making relational
_ecisions and the importance of considering
-oth context and alternatives in a social ex: .iange framework.
'::ritiques of the Theory
In spite of this gen:al support for both the social penetration
.ocess and some of the underlying mechanisms
social penetration theory, there have been
in Developing Relationships
1 73
many critiques of the theory since its inception.
Some of these critiques have been on philosophical grounds and have taken several directions.
For example, some scholars question the value of
an economic model in the realm of relational
development because such models make relational development and choice a purely rational
decision. For example, Wood (1997) argues that
"relationships are not governed by and cannot
be explained by economic principles or costbenefit considerations" (p. 234; see also Wood &
Duck, 1995). In line with this critique of the relational development as a rational or economic
process, Planalp (2003) has recently argued for
the importance of considering emotion in theories of relationships. She considers the ways in
which emotions could contribute to the economic model of social exchange:
With feelings as currency, people would not audit
the relational books; they would register the feelings they get from other people. Relationships
would not be assessed by computing rewards, ...
but rather they would result from experiencing
things that promote or detract from well-being,
resulting in positive or negative emotion .... For
example, love can be a reward received from another, but it is more fundamentally a feeling that
one gets from being with another. (Planalp, 2003,
pp. 80-81)
In addition to this concern about the rational
and economic basis of social penetration theory,
other scholars question the ideological basis of
the theory. Recall that social penetration theory
was developed in a period when openness and
candor in relationships was a highly valued standard. The ideology of total openness, and the
related value for self-disclosure and relational intimacy, have been questioned in the years since
the theory's development. For example, Parks
(1982) and Bochner (1984) have argued that
there are many times when we should value
non intimate relationships and downplay the importance of self-disclosure in interaction.
Social penetration theory has also been criticized because of the linear structure proposed in
the theory. To many, it seems intuitively clear
that relationships are not on a direct march
1 74
PART
2
Theories
of Communication
Processes
toward intimacy. Rather, our personal experiences tell us that relational development can
move backward and forward, can stall at certain
stages, and can skip stages. As noted earlier, Alrman and Taylor (1973) recognize this possibility
in their early theorizing, stating that "the process
ebbs and flows, does not follow a linear course,
cycles and recycles through levels of exchange"
(pp. 135-136). However, in spite of this cautionary note, most discussions of social penetration
theory conceptualize relational development as a
linear process. Indeed, Knapp's elaboration of the
theory in communication argues that a sequential process should be expected because (a) each
stage contains presuppositions for the next stage,
(b) following a linear sequence allows interactants to forecast the future of the relationship,
and (c) skipping stages is risky for individuals.
However, our experiences and empirical evidence do not support this notion of a linear and
predictable progression in relationships.
New Models of Relational Development
In
response to these critiques, and particularly concerns about the overly linear nature of social
penetration theory, both the original theorists
and scholars in communication have suggested
revisions to the social penetration model. Some
of these adaptations are based on the idea that
relational development is influenced by "dialectical tensions" that emerge through communication. We talk much more about dialectics in
Chapter 11 when we discuss communication in
ongoing relationships. In the context of social
penetration theory, however, a dialectical approach suggests that relational development is
not an inevitably linear one but is, instead, a
process marked by tensions in relational development. These tensions include the contrasting
desire for openness and closedness and the tension between dependency and autonomy. Further, a dialectical approach suggests that these
tensions will lead to cyclical patterns in relational development.
An initial dialectical revision of the theory
was proposed by the original theorists in the
early 1980s (Altrnan, Vinsel, & Brown, 1981).
However, the notion of dialectics in social penetration has been more thoroughly developed by
communication theorist Arthur Van Lear (e.g.,
Van Lear, 1987, 1991). Van Lear has used sophisticated statistical techniques to assess the cycles of openness and closedness that could be
observed in developing interpersonal relationships. His research has demonstrated that patterns of openness and self-disclosure do exhibit
cycles, both within conversations and across the
trajectory of the relationship. Furthermore, his
research indicates that relational partners generally match each other in these cycles, supporting
the contention that "the dialectical tension between openness and closedness, revelation and
restraint, is relational" (Van Lear, 1991, p. 356).
In addition to this dialectical revision, some
theorists have argued that shortcomings of the
social penetration model can best be dealt with
by moving our consideration from events in the
relationship (e.g., increasing self-disclosure) to
perceptions of the meanings of those events for
relational participants (Honeycutt, 1993). By
moving to a consideration of meaning and interpretation in relationships, these theorists (see
Wood, 2000, for overview) de-emphasize the
idea that relationships
set out on straight
courses, but argue instead that relationships can
take a wide array of trajectories depending on
the interpretation of events by relational participants. For example, in one relationship a disclosure about past sexual experience might be seen
as an intimate disclosure that enhances understanding to deepen the relationship. In another
relationship, that same disclosure might be perceived as a violation of assumptions about an individual and could lead to relational problems.
In still a third relationship, such a disclosure
might be perceived as unimportant and would
have no impact on the relationship. By concentrating on perception and meaning, then, the
consideration of relationships can look at how
different turning points (Baxter & Bullis, 1986)
mark the development of relationships in unique
ways.
CH A PH R lOT
heories of Communication
Sumrnarv and Evaluation
)f Social Penetration Theory
~once its inception, social penetration theory has
>1d a great deal of influence both in social psy.nology and in communication. This influence
.:lS been largely heuristic in nature. The social
,-enetration model provides a compelling way to
.escribe the development of interpersonal rela.:__
rnships, and to a large extent it resonates with
.rr individual experiences as processes' of self.:.~5closurepropel our relationships forward or as
c close up when relationships are ending. Thus,
~:-,etheory has been widely used as a model in
.eaching about interpersonal relationships and as
.:1 overarching framework for considering rela::.:mal development.
Social penetration theory does not fare quite
. :, well when we consider other criteria for the~\-in the post-positivist tradition. It certainly
:,res well in terms of scope: Modeling the entire
:dational development process encompasses a
.reat deal of territory in interpersonal behavior.
:"'::l)WeVer,
in part because of this large scope, the
'.-,cory does not meet the criterion of accuracy
""early so welL These weaknesses in accuracy
..ern from three areas. First, the linear develop.ient of relationships posited by the theory does
,':>t seem to hold true in empirical tests. Second,
: is difficult to even assess the theory's accuracy
'c:cause of the ethical and procedural dilemmas
:-, conducting research on relational develop',ent. Most researchers do not have the time or
-~'ources to follow a large number of relation"ips, and many would question whether doing
would violate the privacy of those being stud:J. Third, some of the processes in the theory
·ffer from problems with falsifiability. For ex.nple, the social exchange component posits
':,at relationships move forward because of as-ssments of relational costs and rewards and the
-mparison of those outcomes to past and po'~ntial relationships. These assessments can lead
problems in falsifying the theory. For example,
'.\ relationship doesn't move forward, we could
nply reason that the individual evaluated re-
in Developing
Relationships
1 75
wards and costs in an idiosyncratic way or that
he or she saw alternatives that we didn't know
were available.
, UNCERTAINTY
THEORY
REDUCTION
Uncertainty reduction theory has perhaps had
more influence in the field of communication
than any other theory in the post-positivist tradition. Although proposed as a narrow theory of interpersonal communication, it has been adopted
in many other fields and changed substantially to
meet the theoretical needs of a variety of scholars .
Thus, it is not surprising that the theory has also
generated a great deal of controversy. In our discussion we consider the original statement of the
theory and the extensions made by the original
theorists; and we examine ways in which the theory has been critiqued, revised, and adapted by
others in the communication discipline.
Original Statement
of Uncertainty Reduction Theory
Scope and Goals of the Theory
Uncertainty
reduction theory was proposed by Charles Berger
and Richard Calabrese (1975) as a first effort
to model the process of interaction
during
the initial stage of relational development. In
considering only the entry stage of relational
development, Berger and Calabrese are clearly
narrowing the longitudinal focus from the longterm frame considered in social penetration theory. Berger and Calabrese also narrow the
theoretical focus from the wide path cut by social penetration theory. Specifically, the theory
begins with the guiding assumption that, in the
initial stage of interaction between strangers,
people are driven by their desire to reduce uncertainty about each other. This uncertainty can
be both cognitive and behavioral in nature.
With cognitive uncertainty, we are unsure about
the beliefs and attitudes of the other. With
behavioral uncertainty, we are unsure about how