Social Penetration Theory: a Summary

When we meet someone, and then we are very eager to make friends with that person, we need first to undergo some processes to know him or her deeply.

Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor proposed an assumption and named it the Social Penetration Process. It states that as relationship develop, person’s communication topics become deep, and as penetration goes on it could possibly reach its inner core and know a public person’s identity well.

“It is also considered to be a cyclical and dialectical--relationships have normal ebbs and flows”.

In order to understand their theory, they compared people to onions-a multilayered nature of personality. (Griffin) The outer layer (your outside appearance), the way people judge you based on your actions. The inner core serves as your sensitive part (where the inner beliefs, faith, values as an individual took place).

We have personal things to keep within our own selves and served as secrets, and in some instances it can hinder in creating a social relationship with others. But if we allow self-disclosure or open up to others, that would be the chance for a new friendship to grow.

According to Griffin, “the depth of penetration is the degree of intimacy”. When we dig and exert effort to know him/her better, we have to understand these four observations outlined by Taylor and Altman first.

1.Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information- the percentage of talk a person give may affect. But if there’s further penetration, and the sharing of true feelings may occur--it’s just a matter of when and how.

2.Self-disclosure is reciprocal especially in the early stages of relationship development- a give-and-take exchange in which both of you is sharing personal feelings towards each other in order to understand both companies.

3.Penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are matched- telling more about you in just a short while may affect the situation. There’s a tendency that the other person may lose interest on you. We need to have that “sharing of positive and negative reactions” for a better outcome in a slower tempo yet we have to be sure on it.

4.Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal- when there’s no enjoyment and satisfaction with each other anymore, a possibility in terminating the relationship may occur.

The two theorists also talked about the possible outcome which regards to the penetration process. It has something to deal with the rewards minus costs issue. For personal gain--the larger the reward the more self-disclosure may happen.

Next, is the comparison level (CL)-Gauging Relational Satisfaction. We tend to evaluate our actions in mingling with others. The sharing of most common experiences may affect; thus making as happy or sad and simply satisfied.

The last one is the comparison level of alternatives (CLalt)-Gauging Relational Stability. This time some advocates label social exchange as a “theory of economic behavior”. (Griffin) It is somehow complicated, but the two theorists put it this way; and that it has nothing to do with the self-satisfaction issue anymore. It’s more on the stability of the relationship, how it will last despite the certain dilemmas that may occur. And on how we can stand longer a person’s attitude whether it’s good or bad. “Mutual vulnerability will begin and reciprocal self-disclosure will draw them close”.

But Sandra Petronio (a communication theorist at the University of Indiana) questioned the work of Altman and Taylor. First, there are private information’s from each individual that he/she may not likely to share, and from that we should respect them. He or she merely speaks up and the other person may de disappointed and turned off making the social penetration end.

Another is the comparison of a person’s personal information’s to a fixed layering of an onion. She believes that a person’s private concerns may gradually change and seem to have a series of twists and turns.

The reward-cost issue also puzzled other scholars. Certainly, we don’t have to depend on the best interest we gain from being friends and socializing others, that could be a self-centered intention or action.

Altman and Taylor’s theory seems to pertain to real world experiences. They had just explained how people establish relationships and have just stated several factors which affect relationship of people to others--as to being open to one another. However, there are still gaps and lapses on the proposed assumption.