SOCIAL PENETRATION THEORY

* Social psychologists Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor proposed a theorycalled "Social Penetration process" that explains how relational closenessdevelops.

Personality structure: A multilayered onion

* Altman and Taylor compare people to onions. This isn't their attempt atcomplementary on the human capacity to offend. It is their description of themultilayered nature of personality. Peel the outer skin from an onion, and

you'll find another beneath it. Remove that layer and you'll expose a third,and so on.

.1. The outer layer includes a mlriad of details that certainly help describe whohe is but are held in common with others at the school.

.1. The inner core is made up of his values, self-concept, unresolved conflicts.and deepll felt emotions.

Closeness through self-disclosure

.! One becomes accessible to others as one relaxes the tightened boundaries and

makes himselflherself wlnerable..1. Non-verbal paths to operutess include mock roughhousing, 6ye contact, and

smiling. But the main route to deep social penetration is thLrough self-disclosure.

* Level 1: Tastes, studies, worldview, biographical datatr Level 2: Preferences in clothes, food, and music* Level 3: Goals and aspirations.1. Level -l: Religious convictions.i. Level 5: Deeply held fears and fantasies.i. Level 6: Concept ofSelf

The depth and breadth of self-disclosure

{. The depth ofpenetration is the degree of intimacy'i' The analogy applies equally to intimacy in friendship and romance.i. Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private

information2. Self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially in the early stages of relationship

development3. Penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped

inner layers are reached. Instant intimacy is a myth.4. Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal. While depth

is crucial to the process of social penetration, breadth is equally important.

Regulating closeness on the basis of rewards and costs

If tr+'o could become friends. rvill depend on the cost-benefit anal-vsis that eachperson performs as he considers thc possibilitv of a closer relationship.Altman and 'laylor believe that principles of social exchange accuratelypredict rvhen people u ill risk self-disclosurc.

Satisfaction - Comparison level (CL)

{. Satisfaction depends on expectation. Sequence plays a large part in evaluatinga relationship.

Stability- Comparison level of Alternatives (CL alt)

{. As more attractive outsidc possibilities become available, or as existentoutcomes slide belorv an established CL alt- relational instabilitv incrcases

Critique

Social penetration is an established and familiar explanation of holv closencssdevelops, yet over 300 subsequent studics suggest that the path to intimacydescribed is not completell accuratc.The evidence shorvs friendships forrn by a quick thust ofthe disclosure bladerather than a measured insertlonMales are less open than the femalcs - a recent studv.Chicago ps-rchologists Betcv & Joseph Stokcs sludied some long termromantic partners at the timc $'hen their rclationships $ere falling apart. The)discovered that feelings of pain and anger caused the process ofbrealiing up tobe morc chaotic than the theon \rould predict.Altman has had second thoughts about his basic assumption that openness isthe predominant qualitr, of rclatiorrship development.Although Altman & Tavlor's rvholesale use of a rervard-cost analvsis tocxplain lh impetus for penetration raises at least hvo questions: l) Can aconplex blend of advantagcs and disadvantages be reliably reduced to a singlcnumbcr? 2) Assuming we do quantif] relational outcomcs- are \1e soconsistentlv selfish that we ahvays opt to do lvhat we calculate is in our ownbest interest?The rare kind of selfless love involves a relational transformation not justmore self-disclosurc. Altrnan's theor)'doesn't speak about thc transition from''me" to ''we" but it apparently takes place onll after an extended process ofsocial penetration.