A Critique of Social Penetration
By: Shannon Curtis
Irwin Altman, a distinguished Professor of Psychology at the University of Utah and Dalmas Taylor, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Texas, compared people to a multi-layered onion. They believe that each opinion, belief, prejudice, and obsession is layered around and within individuals. As you get to know someone, the layers of the "onion" shed away to reveal the core of a person. Altman and Taylor refer to this "shedding" as the Social Penetration Theory. I feel that Altman and Taylor's comparison of an onion to that of Social Penetration is lacking in some areas. I hope to present these areas in the following paragraphs.
Altman and Taylor defined a public self as what most people see; the outside layer of the onion. In reference to one's public self, Altman and Taylor felt that self-disclosure peaked during the exploratory stage of an interaction. In contrast, Arthur VanLear found that self-disclosure is most apparent in the initial stages of an encounter. In other words, a first impression is a lasting one. Therefore, what we initially perceive as one's public self is what we base many of our opinions about a person on.
Now imagine a layer of Altman and Taylor's onion is being removed. Any realizations about a person are due to that person self-disclosing information. Self-disclosure consists of both breadth and depth. Breadth is the outer, less revealing information. Depth is the more intimate substance of disclosure. When refering to disclosure in terms of an onion, gender is eliminated. Why is gender an important factor that needs to be addressed? Gender may increase or decrease the rate of self-disclosure. For example, from personal experience, I have known women to reveal information (peal away layers of their onion) at a much faster pace. On the contrary, men would take a more cautious approach in order to first absorb the breadth of an individual. Why is there a difference due to gender? If I knew the answer to that, I would be able to understand why it is so hard to get men to talk about themselves and women to stop talking in general. I think that it was a big mistake on Altman and Taylor's part to exclude gender in the Social Penetration Theory. (To see a brief list of the differences in male and female speech acts click here.) Along with gender, race and ethnic background were also excluded. Another mistake, I think, that should have been avoided. Just as gender may determine rate of self-disclosure, as would ethnicity and racial upbringing.
Now imagine that you have reached the center of Altman and Taylor's onion. Now that you have reached the center, or core, how do you react? Your reaction is dependent on two issues. According to Altman and Taylor, these two issues are costs and rewards. By weighing the positive and negative aspects of a relationship you are determining whether you will choose to persue that person and a relationship with them, or keep any encounter as meerly encounters. Altman and Taylor make the weighing of cost and rewards easier said than done. There are many issues that cannot be given a value. For example, it may be very difficult to compare the great times that you have with your best friend on the weekends to the fact that he/she just revealed that he/she is gay. Even if the two were comparable, many may chose the friendship. However, a homophobic may very well choose to end the friendship because of the recent revalation. In other words, it is imposssible to pre-determine any outcomes as a result of self-disclosure.
Conclusion
The Social Penetration Theory, developed by Altman and Taylor, can be described in many ways and applied in even more. It is up to the participant to decipher whether or not a particular aspect of this theory applies to his or her relationship. Whether it be an onion, or any other clever comparison, relationships are complicated. However, the onion comparison helps to reiteriate the idea the we are not one-dimensial beings. Instead, we are made of many coatings that make up both us and the relationships that we are involved in. Relationships take time, attention, and most importantly, work. By eliminating the work aspect of relationships, I personally feel that Altman and Taylor miss a big point to developing friendships. In general, Social Penetration presents self-disclosure, breadth, depth, and the weighing of costs and rewards as a technical and predictable part of life. Experiencing such things as sharing a room with a younger sister, moving into a dorm room with a perfect stranger, and working in small groups with unique classmates, I can contest to the fact that relationships are more than far from technical and predictable. (To read about dorm life and how extreme an adjustment it is click here.) Click here for reading on a similar theory called Social Judgement which deals with attitude change based on latitudes of acceptance, rejection, and noncommitment. A person can determine one's latitudes via peeling away at Altman and Taylor onion.
Return Home
