Social Penetration Theory by Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor aims to explain how closeness in a relationship is developed through social penetration process. They used a multi layered onion to explain a person’s personality structure. To be able to penetrate through the layers, the other party has to disclose and make himself vulnerable. A wedge starts to cut through its layers revealing the individual’s personality. As the wedge cuts deeper the onion skin becomes tighter. In addition, if the wedge penetrates the same area of the onion skin there will have little resistance. Altman and Taylor have outlined four observations in what is achieved when an individual can develop closeness:
1. Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information,
2. Self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially in the early stages of relationship development.
3. Penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are reached
4. Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal.
Let's say it the first day of class. You decided to start a conversation with a girl sitting silently in the corner. you both decide to disclose yourselves, penetration stars. First you talk about your biographical data, preferences, aspirations, and so on. Our decision of disclosing depends on our own perceived benefit-minus-cost-outcome.
Closeness also depends on the cost-benefit analysis. An individual calculates if the benefits overshadow the amount of being more vulnerable. The key concepts of social exchange are relational outcome, relational satisfaction, and relational stability. John Stuart Mill adds that, 1 “people seek to maximize their benefits and minimize their costs”. Our decision of opening up depends on our expected benefit-minus-cost outcome.
If, for example, that gurl is too talkative and you feel that she may spill the things you'd say then you'd probably decide no to open up anymore. If, however, you's see her as a trust worthy person who knows how to keep things then you'd open up the other layers to her. the cost of disclosing worth the benefit.
This perceived outcome would only be useful if we compare it with other possible outcomes and weigh which one is better. Social exchange theory offers two standards of comparison. First, it deals with our satisfaction or what John Thibaut and Harold Kelley calls comparison level or CL which is built up by our relational history, people we usually talk with. Experiences and sequence in our conversation, both past and present, or what the person expect on their conversation play a big role in the CL. The second is what Thibaut and Kelley calls the comparison level alternative or CLalt. It shows the relative stability of the relationship of both parties. 2“As more attractive outside possibilities become available, or as existent out comes slide below an established CLalt relation instability increase”. If you meet someone who'd offer better benefits, say one who listen more to you and give you good pieces of advice, then you'd likely choose that over the silent girl.
But Altman thought that the previous ideas he has written would be counteracted so he proposed a dialectical model which assumes 3“that human social relationships are characterized by openness or contact and closeness or separateness between participants.”
It is the same with Sandra Petronio‘s Communication Privacy Management Theory. The theory aims to comprehend how we handle the pressure of revealing and / or concealing private information. It uses rules based on 5 criteria: culture, gender, motives, context of the conversation, and risk-benefit reaction. If a person decides to reveal information to the receiver, how can we tell if he won’t say it to other people? Petrio says it depends on the boundary linkage, the strength of their relationship; boundary ownership, partner’s willingness to keep the information; and boundary permeability, the thickness of the privacy values that parties have built.
If, however, one of them could not keep himself from spreading the information, boundary turbulence arises. If both parties aren’t on the same page or aren’t the same level of confidentiality they’d start revealing the shared private information to other creating discord, confusion, or chaos in their relationship.
Reference:
1 Griffin, Em (2006) A First Look at Communication Theory 6th ed. (p. 123) Boston, MA: McGraw Hill
2 Griffin, Em (2006) A First Look at Communication Theory 6th ed. (p. 124) Boston, MA: McGraw Hill
3 Griffin, Em (2006) A First Look at Communication Theory 6th ed. (p. 125) Boston, MA: McGraw Hill
1. Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information,
2. Self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially in the early stages of relationship development.
3. Penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are reached
4. Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal.
Let's say it the first day of class. You decided to start a conversation with a girl sitting silently in the corner. you both decide to disclose yourselves, penetration stars. First you talk about your biographical data, preferences, aspirations, and so on. Our decision of disclosing depends on our own perceived benefit-minus-cost-outcome.
Closeness also depends on the cost-benefit analysis. An individual calculates if the benefits overshadow the amount of being more vulnerable. The key concepts of social exchange are relational outcome, relational satisfaction, and relational stability. John Stuart Mill adds that, 1 “people seek to maximize their benefits and minimize their costs”. Our decision of opening up depends on our expected benefit-minus-cost outcome.
If, for example, that gurl is too talkative and you feel that she may spill the things you'd say then you'd probably decide no to open up anymore. If, however, you's see her as a trust worthy person who knows how to keep things then you'd open up the other layers to her. the cost of disclosing worth the benefit.
This perceived outcome would only be useful if we compare it with other possible outcomes and weigh which one is better. Social exchange theory offers two standards of comparison. First, it deals with our satisfaction or what John Thibaut and Harold Kelley calls comparison level or CL which is built up by our relational history, people we usually talk with. Experiences and sequence in our conversation, both past and present, or what the person expect on their conversation play a big role in the CL. The second is what Thibaut and Kelley calls the comparison level alternative or CLalt. It shows the relative stability of the relationship of both parties. 2“As more attractive outside possibilities become available, or as existent out comes slide below an established CLalt relation instability increase”. If you meet someone who'd offer better benefits, say one who listen more to you and give you good pieces of advice, then you'd likely choose that over the silent girl.
But Altman thought that the previous ideas he has written would be counteracted so he proposed a dialectical model which assumes 3“that human social relationships are characterized by openness or contact and closeness or separateness between participants.”
It is the same with Sandra Petronio‘s Communication Privacy Management Theory. The theory aims to comprehend how we handle the pressure of revealing and / or concealing private information. It uses rules based on 5 criteria: culture, gender, motives, context of the conversation, and risk-benefit reaction. If a person decides to reveal information to the receiver, how can we tell if he won’t say it to other people? Petrio says it depends on the boundary linkage, the strength of their relationship; boundary ownership, partner’s willingness to keep the information; and boundary permeability, the thickness of the privacy values that parties have built.
If, however, one of them could not keep himself from spreading the information, boundary turbulence arises. If both parties aren’t on the same page or aren’t the same level of confidentiality they’d start revealing the shared private information to other creating discord, confusion, or chaos in their relationship.
Reference:
1 Griffin, Em (2006) A First Look at Communication Theory 6th ed. (p. 123) Boston, MA: McGraw Hill
2 Griffin, Em (2006) A First Look at Communication Theory 6th ed. (p. 124) Boston, MA: McGraw Hill
3 Griffin, Em (2006) A First Look at Communication Theory 6th ed. (p. 125) Boston, MA: McGraw Hill
No comments:
Post a Comment