socialpenetrationresearch
COMMUNICATION IN INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS:
Social Penetration Processes
Dalmas A. Taylor and Irwin Altman
Index of Research Article on Social Penetration Theory
Development and Dissolution
Four Stages of Interaction
Rewards and Costs
Reciprocity and Intimacy
Cari's Take
Links
Interpersonal Processes: New Directions in Communication Research; Chapter 11 by Michael Roloff and Gerald Miller, reviewed the status of social penetration theory by using some literature that has emerged since its publication to.
In a study of couples who had high levels of positive communication before they decided to marry were more likely to have enjoyable marriages after five years had passed than couples who had failed to establish positive levels of communication prior to marriage. Good communication, or "openness" has been associated with good mental health. (Markman, 1981)
These studies suggest that making the self assesible to others through self-disclosure is gratifying. The gratification leads to the development of positive feelings for the other person.
Research by Levinger and Senn (1967) on married couples revealed a positive connection between marital satisfaction and self-disclosure. The more recent study by McAdams and Vaillant (1982) reanalyzed the data from the 50's and 60's. Men high in intimacy motivation early in life were more likely to report happiness and stability in their marriages at midlife than men who were low in intimacy motivation. (pp. 257)
In their theory, Altman and Taylor explicate the role of self-disclosure, intimacy, and communication in the development of interpersonal relationships. Their theory describes further the role of these variables in the dissolution of relationships, depenetration.
Social Penetration theory focuses on relationship development. The theory proceeds gradually and orderly from superficial to intimate levels of exchange as a function of both immediate and forecast outcomes. Forecasts are estimates of potential outcomes in areas of more intimate exchange. This causes relationships to move foward in the hope of finding new and potentiallly more satisfying interactions. People generally move only gradually from discussions of work situations to those concerning their fears, or from comparable superficial issues to details of their sexual problems.
It was concluded that people make decisions about the nature of their relationship early, and their relationships early, and there is insignificant change over time. At the begining of a relationship and at the end people who were satisfied with their relationships stated a greater number of social exchanges concerning the relationship, problems-solving behaviors, and self-disclosure.
THERE ARE FOUR STAGES OF INTERACTION TO GO THROUGH:
- Orientation
- Exploratory Affective Exchange
- Affective Exchange
- Stable Exchange
The orientation stage is the what occurs during the intial encounters, when individuals make only a small part of themselves accessible to others. The exploratory affective exchange is and expansion of the aspects of our personality that are normally guarded and less emphasis is placed on caution. Close friends and romantic relationships are the affective exchage stage. There is little resistance to open communication and intimacy. The importance of this stage are the barriers that are being broken down and the great deal of information that is being learned between the dyad. The final stage is the stable exchange. This is continuous openness across all layers of personality. Dyad members are comfortable enough with each other that they can effectively predict the feelings and probable behavior of the other.
The dynamics that are discussed for Social Penentration Theory are verbal, nonverbal, and environmentally oriented behaviors, all of which have emotional components. Environmentally oriented behaviors include the use of personal space and physical objects. The further toward a friendship and love relationship the dyad gets, the intimate distance will be more experienced. As for nonverbal communication, they also have different meanings in close relationships than in superficial ones.
There are also stages for the deterioration of a relationship, depenetration or dissolution. Once set in motion, they are the opposite of the stages occuring in the development phase of the relationship. They proceed gradually from the intimate levels back out toward the nonintimate levels of exchange. Depenetration is seen in some senses as a failure of conflict management since most depentration occurs after a crisis or other stresses on a relationship. The issue of dissolution(depenetration) has gathered less attention than the development of relationships. Only one study was uncovered that attempted to tackle the dynamics of relationship dissolution. In depenetration, as intimacy decreases, self-disclosure breadth and depth would decline and the valence of self-disclosure would become more negative. The pain and anger that accompany the loss of an intimate relationship may engender self-disclosures of considerable depth.(Tolstedt & Stokes, 1984)
A study of college roommates and a dating couple confirmed predictions about the final outcomes of relationships, because the later measures were no better predictions for how the relationship developed than the initial predictions. (Berg, 1983 & 1984)
In yet another study, new students were asked to chose two same-sex others whom they had not known but with whom they thought they might become good friends during the school year. Overall behavior exchange (intimate and nonintimate) increased over time among pairs rated as "close" and none of them by the end of the semester were rated as "not-close".(Hays 1984, 1985)
Interpersonal rewards and costs are motivational in that rewards form the basis for maintaining or continuing a relationship to deeper levels of exchange, whereas costs lead to a winding down or dissolution of relationships (pp.263) These theories are under the assumption that social exchanges are for the sole purpose to maximize gains and to minimize losses. Since all relationships carry a great amount of cost and risk, many times the only cost that is evaluated is that relative to the rewards that may be gained. The greater the investments, the greater the profits.
Altman and Taylor molded their defintion of rewards and costs, somewhat, from the social psychology of Thibaut and Kelley (1959):
By rewards, we refer to the pleasures, satisfactions, and gratifications the person enjoys. The provision of a means whereby a drive is reduced or a need fulfilled constitutes a reward...By costs, we refer to any factors that operate to inhibit or deter a performance of a sequence of behavior...Thus cost is high when great physical or mental effort is required, when embarrassment or anxiety accompany the action, or when there are conflicting forces or competing response tendencies of any sort. (pp. 263)
Homans (1950) also offers some additional insight from an economic-based idea of profit and loss. According to Homans, rewarding interaction involves a positive exchange of objects, symbolic signs, attitudes, and feelings. Costs come from negative experiences deriving from an aversive stimulus, or from the withdrawal of a pleasant one.
The combination formed by Thibalt & Kelley (1959) and Homans (1950 - 1961) have been put into five propositions:
- Rewards/Cost Ratio refers to the balance of positive and negative experiences in a social relationship. The greater the number of rewards and costs and consequently, in psychological characteristics.
- Absolute Reward and Cost Properties involve the absolute magnitude of postive and negative experiences in a relationship.
- Immediately Obtained Rewards & Costs refer to the set of rewards and costs that accrue from a finite, temporally bound, releatively immediate social interaction.
- Forecast Rewards and Costs are projections to future rewards and costs. Such forecasts play an important role in propelling relationships foreward or in slowing them down and even reversing their growth.
- Cumulative Rewards and Costs refer to the cumulation of rewards and costs throughout the history of the dyad. (pp. 264)
Rewards and costs are consistently associated with mutual satisfaction of social and personal needs. Relationship - outcomes are not neccessarily the equivilant as satisfaction with a relationship, and in order to predict how pleased a person will be in a relationship their experiences and expectations must be taken into consideration. Past experiences are many times critical to knowing and understanding the kinds of outcomes expected in the future. Losses and gains from an interpersonal relationship cover a large area, from anxiety and security to status and power, group identification, and other sociopsychological phenomena. (pp. 264) The greater the ratio rewards to costs, the more rapid the penetration process.
The early exchange theorists (Homans, 1950; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) were more concerned with the information prior to the relationship; not development. The motivation for growth in relationships through various stages of development is thought to be the reward/cost analysis. Exchanges remain continuous as long as there is a mutual experience of favorable reward/cost balance. If exchanges increase over-time the individuals must be gaining something or "profiting" from the relationship.
People prefer aggreement in conversations, especially new one, and an attempt is made to maintain harmony in conversations. When this doesn't work for a particular topic, the topic is dropped or there is some sort of change in conversation.
Rosenfeld (1979) explored cost factors in communication by examining self-disclosure has many potential benefits (rewards) and is essential to relationship development, it appears to be a small part of the communication process. Rosenfeld found that males avoid self-disclosure to maintain control over their relationships, and women avoid disclosing themselves to prevent personal hurt or other problems. In both situations, disclosure seems to be seen as more or a cost than a reward. Once again, we must take into consideration the experiences prior to the relationship at hand. Premature and/or inappropriate disclosure intimacy is often costly, but disclosure intimacy that is synchronized with target and stage of development can have beneficial effects for a relationship.
A final topic of importance to the social penetration framework concerns the reciprocity of exchange between persons in a relationship. If one person discloses, does that effect the probability that the other person will disclose? Social Penetration theory states that there is an organizing principle for communication in first encounters, the norm of reciprocity. (Goulder, 1960) The norm conveys, that we feel obligated to return disclosure that are received. The second question that must be asked is, do we like the other person because they have disclosed, or are we disclosing to them because we like them. Social Penetration theory says this exists, but it is not the sole reason that social penetration occurs. Reciprocity is a set of behavioral events, not necessarily an explanation of those events. (pp. 268)
To expound on the theory, Altman used the concept of reciprocity by proposing a model that incorporates the norm of reciprocity and social rewards as motivating to mutual disclosure. Obligation to reciprocate disclosure is more important in early stages of a relationship. At the early stages, diclosure is said to occur independent of social consequences. Reciprocity is seen as a way to establish trust, and once trust is established there is little concern since unilateral disclosure carrys little risk. Nonintimate disclosure probably operates more in accordance with a norm of social reciprocity than do highly intimate disclosures. Disclosure is predicted to reach a peak in the middle stages of a relationship. At early and late stages reciprocity of intimate disclosures will be minimal or nonexistent. Personal disclosures hold more value than disclosures shared with others. Jones and Archer, therefore, personal disclosure leads to liking because the person feels that he/she has been singled out as trustworthy and is in the running for an intimate relationship.
In this chapter was a review of literature relevant to social penetration theory and how the theory is developmental in it's concern with the growth and dissolution of interpersonal relationships. (pp. 272) Four stages of interpersonal exchanges and communication were explained: (1) orientation, (2) exploratory affective exchange, (3) affective exchange, and (4) stable exchange.
The most important conclusion from this review, is that many researchers have been influenced byt he ideas from social penetration theory, but few have directly tested propositions from the theory. (pp. 272) The conclusion from most of the studies is that close relationships develop quickly rather than gradually. Berg cites that measuring attraction early on in the relationship is almost as good as predicting later in the relationship.
The article was facinating. The information about the levels to which a relationship progresses is so true, and I could relate in many situations with my friends. Recently, a conflict came up with my roommate, whom I have only known for six months or so, about the fact that I hang out and am much closer with my best friend from high school who happens to live in our apartment building. I told her that a relationship like my best friend and I have has been building since we were in the sixth grade and people do not connect and get that close in only knowing each other for six months. Altman and Taylor are, I feel, are humanistic in their social penetration theory. Even though they are studying and evaluating data, it is conversations. They talk about how emotions and such things play a part in connection and the amount of information we disclose.
The only thing about the article I did not like is that is seemed very repetitive. As soon as I read about one study, the next seem to be exactly the same. I think they could have established the point of validity with fewer examples and with the same effect.
Take a look at a web page about by Ben Zimmer.
Take a look at a brochure concerning
Now go back to our
This site on which explains that humans act toward people or things in a certain way on the basis of hte meanings they assign to those people or things. This could be a factor in the level of disclosure that is achieved.
Dalmas Taylor and Irwin Altman, "Communication in Interpersonal Relationships: Social Penetration Processes," Interpersonal Processes: New Directions in Communication Research, Michael Roloff and Geral Miller (eds.), Sage, Newbury Park, Calif., 1987, pp. 257-277.
This page was created by Cari Porter :)