Social Penetration Theory – Altman and Taylor

• Theories about the development of relationships

Social Exchange theory

• People as highly rational accountants
• Economic model, people as accountants.
• Informs both EVT (communicating reward valence, how rewarding an individual is to talk to) & Social Penetration Theories.
• Three main concepts.
• Who is the better investment of your time and energy?
• We’re all little accountants tabulating costs and rewards and investments.

Key Concepts

• Outcome: rewards minus costs
  • How you evaluate that current situation. What do you compare the outcome against?
  • Use it to think whether people would join the ski club or an accountants firm
  • If you’re going to become friends with someone and not another. The first choice you make is the outcome. How rewarding is this relationship? What’s rewarding and what’s costly.
• Outcome is compared with Comparison level (CL)
  • The threshold above which the outcome seems attractive/satisfying.
  • Comparison level is oftentimes high and depends on the person. Others have a really low level.
• Comparison Level of Alternatives (CL-alt)
  • It’s the best choice outside of your current outcome. Your current outcome is your relationship, your current friend, the comparison level is your best choice besides what you have. What is your second choice?

They work independently

Satisfied and stable because the best alternative isn’t as good as the outcome.  Left (Outcome), Right (Alternative) = Satisfied, Stable. The LINE is the comparison level!

Dissatisfied, and unstable. When the outcome does not meet the CL, the result is to look for an CL-alt:

You decide whether it is satisfying or dissatisfying and you can do it in the long term and shot term. Depends on the individual

Satisfied, unstable.

Dissatisfied, unstable. You believe that your outcome as compared to the CL.

The reason why we make decisions is that we’re practical and we decide. You’re best friends with that person because they can offer you something and vice-versa. Says that people are essentially selfish that we are only in it for our gain.

If you’re in a close relationship with someone and they had done something crappy to you, why wouldn’t you retaliate? Because if you do, the outcome would significantly alter. People find it costly to have an argument and don’t bother.

Social Penetration Theory

• The more time we spend with others, the more likely we are to self-disclose more initmate thought and details of our life.
• Altman & Taylor
• People AS onions
• Is a process of peeling away and sharing parts of yourself to another person.
• With more and more layers peeled away, you’re getting into the heart of the onion. The process of sharing is building the foundation of intimacy for relationship, we build trust. With some, we share more than others.

Self-Disclosure / onions = metaphor

• Metaphor for self-disclosure. Is when you chose to share something about who you are to another person. I choose to share a part of myself to another person.
• Is choosing to share something about who you are with another person.
• NOT things already known
• NOT confession
• Disclosure is voluntary, unlike confessions or the use of coercion to get information.
• NOT revolution (Pearce & Sharp)
• NOT lying. We don’t spend a lot of time about our feelings. It’s not common, very rare. According to SPT, it does help to build relationships

Breadth is the array or variety of topics that have been incorporated into individuals’ lives.  Depth is the amount of information available on each topic.

Ideally this theory would say that it’s good to have depth and breadth!!!

Criticism

• Inaccurate account of depenetration
• Altman no longer supports this theory
• He fits it with Relational Dialectics (ch. 11)

Application

• Connects talk and relationship quality
• Self-disclosure & intimacy
• Complete an onion for yourself in one relationship (bring to seminar)
• (optional) have your relational partner complete one also.