SOCIAL

PENETRATION

THEORY

By Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor, 1973

Comm 22:

Introduction to Communication Theories

Virginia B. Bautista

Key Names and Terms

– Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor

– Social Penetration

– Personality Structure

– Self-Disclosure

– Orientation, Exploratory Affective, Affective, Stable,

Depenetration

– Depth of Penetration

Key Names and Terms (con’td)

– Law of Reciprocity

– Breadth of Penetration

– Social Exchange

– John Thibaut and Harold Kelley

– Outcome

– Minimax principle of human behavior

– Comparison level (CL)

– Comparison level of alternatives (CLalt)

The Vow (Official Trailer)

Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor

Social Penetration

Process of developing deeper intimacy with another person through mutual self-disclosure and other forms of vulnerability

Personality Structure: A Multilayered

Onion

Personality structure

– Onion-like layers of beliefs and feelings

about self, others, and the world

Onion Metaphor: Social Penetration Theory

Closeness Through Self-Disclosure

Voluntary sharing of personal history, preferences, attitudes,

feelings, values, secrets, etc. with another person

Stages of Self-Disclosure

OrientationExploratory

AffectiveAffective Stable Depenetration

The Breadth and Depth of Self-Disclosure

Depth of penetration – degree of disclosure in specific area of an individual’s life

Breadth of penetration – range of areas in individual’s life over

which disclosure takes place

Breadth of Self-Disclosure

The Breadth and Depth of Self-Disclosure:

4 Observations

1. Peripheral items exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information

2. Self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially in early stages of relationship development.

3. Penetration is rapid at start but slows quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are

reached

4. Depenetration is a gradual process

of layer-by-layer withdrawal

Breadth without depth describes

casual relationship.

True intimacy has multiple wedges inserted

deeply into every area.

How do we regulate

closeness?

Social Exchange Theoryby John Thibaut and Harold Kelley (1959)

Relationship behavior and status regulated by

parties’ evaluations of perceived rewards and

costs of interaction with each other

Minimax principle of human behavior –

people seek to maximize benefits and minimize costs

If the costs outweigh the rewards, the process of social

penetration will not proceed.

OUTCOME = Rewards – Costs of Interpersonal Interaction

OUTCOME

Comparison Level (CL)—Gauging Relational

Satisfaction

Outcome seems attractive.

Comparison Level of Alternatives (CLalt)—Gauging

Relational Stability

Best outcome available in other relationships.

Regulating Closeness on the Basis of Rewards and Cost

Happy-ever-after relationship

“The grass is greener on the other side.”

“I’d rather be in a miserable relationship

than no relationship at all.”

Leaving a relationship for something more

promising.

Thank you!