Social Penetration Theory
Altman & Taylor
chapter 9, Em Griffin (4th ed.)
CLICKER QUESTION
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 SelfDisclosure
• 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 selfdisclosure;
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-bylayer 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).