Chp. 8: Social Penetration Theory

Chapter 8, entitled Social Penetration Theory, is portrayed by social psychologists Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor and is described as a process that explains how relational closeness develops (119). Altman and Taylor compare people to onions, depicting the multilayered nature of personality.

As soon as I began to read this chapter, I immediately began to think of the relationship I have with my boyfriend, Rick, and the many discoveries I have made about his personality that could not be seen on his "outer layer." To properly understand Social Penetration Theory, I had to really think about its two core concepts, breadth and depth. Breadth describes many different aspects of one's personality, while still remaining on their outermost layer, while depth refers to more of the inner feelings and characteristics that make up a person (Kleman, class notes). When I first met Rick last summer, all I knew about him initially was that he was a six-foot, brown haired, brown eyed, soccer player who went to my high school and was three years older than me. I knew the breadth of him, but it took us spending time with each other and building a strong relationship to really get to know the depth of him.

With the two core concepts of breadth and depth, there are also four main assumptions when dealing with Social Penetration Theory and relationships. The first is that peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information. This rings very true in my experience with Rick. When we first met, the only information we shared was "surface information." I shared with him my interests, my age, introduced him to my family, and made him aware that I had previously been in a 5 year relationship. He shared the same with me, and also that he had been in a 3 year relationship prior to dating me. Although we shared information with each other, it was still on the surface, and no major details or characteristics about our lives were discussed. The second assumption is that self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially at the beginning stages of a relationship. When Rick and I first started dating, he would not tell me any more than I would tell him. I did not dig any deeper than he would, because we were both unsure when the right time would be to "break the boundary" and peel away the second layers. The third assumption is that penetration is rapid at the start, and slows down as the relationship progresses. I actually feel that I disagree with the assumption because of how it has been applied to my life and my relationship. It took Rick and I a few months before we started getting into the nitty-gritty of each other's lives. We did not share much about our inner feelings until we got to know each other well, and now that we have been together for almost 10 months, it seems we cannot shut up when it comes to telling stories. Once he and I opened up about our views on religion, politics, and especially our past relationships and what went wrong, our penetration process became very rapid, and still is as we learn more about each other. The forth and final assumption is that depenetration is a gradual, layer-by-layer withdrawal. I can apply this assumption to my previous relationship before Rick. When my ex-boyfriend and I ended our relationship, we tried to stay in touch as much as possible and keep each other in our lives as friends, however, it did not work out that way. Our "layers" seemed to re-peel and close up, and we eventually lost all contact with each other because we were not frequent in each other's lives any longer.

Social Penetration Theory also deals with what is called Reward/Cost Analysis. This is when, as Thibaut and Kelley suggest, "people try to predict the outcome of an interaction before it takes place" (123). The mimimax principle claims that people seek to maximize their benefits and minimize their costs. When I was deciding if I should date Rick or not, I weighed my pros and cons. I knew he was a great guy (by reputation) and that he loved family, friends and animals. He was athletic, smart, goal-oriented and also, 23, which made him more appealing to me because I felt he would be more mature than any other guy I had ever dated. The only con was that he would be moving away for his new job, which I decided would be bareable. He and I had too much in common for me to let him go. I rated Rick on a high relational outcome, and that is exactly what I got.

The last major points in this Chapter was that of Comparison Level and Comparison Level of Alternatives. Comparison level deals with relative satisfaction, "how happy or sad an interpersonal outcome makes a participant feel" (124). For example, I see Rick about every two weeks. We are both used to this amount of time without each other, and it works for us. However, if we had to wait three or four weeks to see each other, we would most likely be disappointed. We have developed expectations with each other and if those expectations are not met, our reltaive satisfaction might decrease. Comparison level of alternatives "shows the relative stability of a relationship" (124). It asks the question, "Would I be better off with someone else?" and "What is the worst outcome I would have to put up with and still stay in this relationship." Comparison level of alternatives can explain why some women stay in abusive realtionships (125), and why they cannnot imagine better alternatives. My relationship with Rick is one where I feel, and I believe he would agree, that our stability is very strong, and neither of us are looking for something better. There is nothing I have seen that is more attractive or more appealing than Rick. He and I have a very equal relationship and we reciprocate as much as possible, which I am sure is what keeps our relationship strong.