Holly Ziarko

Critical Essay
Social Penetration Theory
2/19/2019

The social penetration theory by Altman and Taylor explains how relational closeness is

a development that occurs overtime. It is a process in which deeper intimacy results from mutual

amounts of self-disclosure and forms of vulnerability. This theory is particularly useful when

attempting to understand an individual. Gender, norms and context also greatly have an effect on

self-disclosure. Altman and Taylor use the comparison of people to onions. The outer layer when

peeled reveals another layer underneath it. The outer layer represents ones “public self,” a layer

any other person can pick up on the surface. If someone is able to look beneath this surface, one

will find attitudes that are only revealed to a select few amount of people. The core layer is

where one will find ones values, emotions and sense of self concept. This theory is a good visual

representation of how humans are indeed multilayered, however it lacks in acknowledgment of

how certain aspects of life or “layers” affect one another (Griffin, chapter 8).

The book, A First Look at Communication, uses the example of investors choosing where

to put their money in the stock market, as one chooses how to put our time into friendships and

relationships. This is social exchange, “relationship behavior and status regulated by both of the

parties evaluations of perceived rewards and costs of interaction with each other” (Griffin, p.

100). This theory identifies with a mental calculator weighing out the benefits versus the costs.

As with many interactions in life, one must weigh out the options of keeping someone around.

For example, when entering a romantic relationship one considers how much effort one would be

putting in versus the effort the other person offers in exchange. Similar to the example in the
book, after considering these factors we decide whether the risk is worth the reward when

deciding who we spend our time with just like how we spend our money (Griffin, chapter 8).

Confirming social penetration theory, a study performed by Tang and Wang, searched to

find out what bloggers chose to disclose to readers on their blogs versus what they chose to

disclose to their best friends or parents. This study confirmed that the amount of disclosure on

topics such as money, feelings and interests varied dependent on what audience it was being

delivered to. While many past studies’ outcomes suggest that online outlets, such as social

media, offer a space for high levels of self-disclosure to transpire this study showed otherwise. It

was revealed that the majority of high levels of self-disclosure took place in real world

relationships, such as between a best friend and parent, versus online. Tang and Wang state in

their study, “Our findings, however, challenged these ideas, in that bloggers are more willing to

disclose to their real-life best friends deeply and widely, rather than on their blogs. The

interpersonal relationships in the real world seem irreplaceable” (Tang, p. 249). While social

media outlets offer a platform to disclose oneself to the fullest, the law of reciprocity is not being

put into play. This results in the user online not possessing the same emotional experience when

sharing this disclosure of information, as one would while having a conversation face to face.

The sense of “you tell me your dream and I will tell you mine” is lacking, therefore self-

disclosure reaches its peak online. There is only so much information that one can disclose

without receiving any in turn. That is just part of human nature, one continually seeks to gain

information.

Contrary to Altman and Taylor’s reward-cost breakdown of how we as individuals weigh

out the unforeseen risks and benefits of seeking or maintaining a relationship is theorists Sandra

Harding and Julia Wood. Harding and Wood’s standpoint theory takes into consideration of
“where” we are standing and how we view the world. Wood states, "the focus in exchange

theories is one's own gains and outcomes; this focus is incapable of addressing matters such as

compassion, caring, altruism, fairness, and other ethical issues that should be central to personal

relationships” (Wood p. 145). As Wood explains within the exchange theories, such as the

risk/benefits of social penetration theory, it does not take into consideration the values of human

life. Our minds do not always resort to a calculator-like way of thinking. In addition, social

penetration theory does not recognize that values dramatically differ from each individual’s

standpoint. Different genders, cultures or even socio-economic backgrounds all contribute to

how we communicate. Orbe and Kiesha states, “In explicit and implicit ways, our standpoints

affect how we communicate as well as how we perceive the communication of others. Part of

acknowledging diverse standpoints involves recognizing that different persons will perceive the

world differently based on their experiences living in a racialized and gendered society” (Orbe &

Kiesha, p. 55). Based on one’s standpoint, he or she may or may not perceive a means of

communication in the way it was intended on being received. The communication transmission

model of the sender and receiver is often interrupted by noise, and this “noise” can sometimes

result from differences in values, norms and cultural backgrounds.

In addition to social penetration theory’s reward-cost ratio is Sandra Petronio’s

Communication Privacy Management Theory. Petronio discusses throughout her theory that

privacy boundaries are created by the individual themselves and often change. This means ones

boundaries can also differ depending on context and whom in which one is conversing with.

Therefore, her theory of communication privacy management disagrees with Altman and

Taylor’s onion interpretation of personality structure. Petronio argues that personalities are not

always cut and dry nor follow an exact predictable map that one can navigate. She further
converses that information revealed by an individual could steam from needing to release stress

that the information may carry or even to simply express oneself. “Petronio (2002) recognized

that in addition to the risk-benefit ratio (Altman & Taylor, 1973), individuals’ disclosure

decisions were also motivated by cultural norms, gender, and context criteria” (Kennedy-

Lightsey, p. 675). Communication privacy management recognizes that factors such as norms,

gender and context affect disclosure, as social penetration theory lacks in seeing these factors

and how they affect self-disclosure. By recognizing this it gave further insight into a study done

by Carrie D. Kennedy-Lightsey, Matthew M. Martin, Michelle Thompson, Kimberly Leezer

Himes, & Brooke Zackery Clingerman, which examined self-disclosure and boundaries within a

close friendship. In a study done by VanLear he states, “There may be times when reciprocity is

unnecessary and possibly inappropriate. It is possible that something said in small talk by one

person will spur the disclosure of an opinion by another. Likewise, there may be disclosures

made by one party that do not call for disclosure by the other” (C. Arthur VanLear, p. 316).

Certain types of disclosure, for example hardening news such as someone being diagnosed with

cancer, does not call for reciprocity. There are moments that call for silence. A time to pause to

be able to further think and understand information instead of regurgitating information back can

be critical for a relationship. Having a loss for words and sitting in silence respectively can grow

a relationship and deepen one’s overall understanding for each other. Whereas reciprocating

information to simply fill an awkward silence can be damaging to a relationship.

Social penetration theory entails relationships, whether they are romantic or friendships,

they begin at a superficial level and build up into a deep connection. Social penetration theory is

a good overall view on how throughout our lives we come into contact with immense amounts of

individuals. Not every individual we come into contact with will result in a deep friendship or
connection, but they all have the potential to flourish. When we first engage with people whom

we do not know they are strangers to us. In the beginning of developing the relationship, it starts

at a basic level not knowing much about one another. Over time one attempts to gather as much

information as they possibly can. Relationships are a building block, learning about one another

leads to constructing a foundation to in which further build upon. Conversations are likely to

begin at a very basic level, for example, learning what one enjoys or dislikes. Maslow’s

hierarchy of needs, is a great visual on how each individual is structured. By understanding each

level within a structure of needs, one can better satisfy the needs of that person. The first level in

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is physiological, these are basic needs such as food and shelter. The

next level is safety followed by love/belonging and self-esteem. The peak level is self-

actualization. Khazan states, “We can’t do it (reach self-actualization) if we’re not spending the

time and the emotional energy to understand each other and help promote each other’s personal

growth” (Finkel). This is a great standard for investing one’s self into a relationship. One must

start at a superficial level, investing time and energy before moving onto what ones views and

underlying values are. For example, on a first date this is a time to gain basic information on the

other person. One may ask what their hobbies are or what their likes or dislikes are. After a

couple of dates, conversation will grow and dive deeper into each other’s values, beliefs and

traditions.

In the final analysis, the social penetration theory of Altman and Taylor helps one

understand how relational closeness develops over a period of time, in the same way that the

theory offers a good representation of how humans are indeed multilayered. On the contrary, it

lacks in acknowledgment of how certain aspects of life or “layers”, referring to the onion
analogy, affect one another. Social penetration theory outlines how relationships first progress in

beginning stages and then from there build overtime through concepts such as self-disclosure and

social exchange. However, the theory does not recognize the context within a relationship or a

given situation in which the conversation is taking place. Furthermore Altman and Taylor’s

theory does not consider ones cultural background or gender when applying said concepts. The

social penetration theory has set a way for relationship building and will continue to lead as a

model doing so. I believe with recognizing gender, cultural and contextual differences and how

they effect this theory, leads to a further and deeper understanding of relationships.
 References

C. Arthur VanLear, “The Formation of Social Relationships: A Longitudinal Study of Social

Penetration,” Human Communication Research, Vol. 13, 1987, pp. 313-314.

Griffin, Emory A, Andrew Ledbetter, and Glenn G. Sparks. A First Look at Communication

Theory. , 2015. Print.

Kennedy-Lightsey, Carrie D., et al. “Communication Privacy Management Theory: Exploring

Coordination and Ownership Between Friends.” Communication Quarterly, vol. 60, no. 5,

Nov. 2012, pp. 665–680. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/01463373.2012.725004.

Khazan, Olga. “We Expect Way Too Much From Our Romantic Partners.” The Atlantic, Atlantic

Media Company, 20 Mar. 2018, www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/09/we-expect

way-too-much-from-our-romantic-partners/541353/.

Orbe, Mark P., and Kiesha T. Warren. “Different Standpoints, Different Realities: Race, Gender,

and Perceptions of Intercultural Conflict.” Qualitative Research Reports in

Communication, vol. 1, no. 3, Summer 2000, pp. 51–57. EBSCOhost,

libproxy.trnty.edu/login/?url=https://search-ebscohost

com.libproxy.trnty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=10545672.

Tang, Jih-Hsin, and Cheng-Chung Wang. “Self-Disclosure Among Bloggers: Re-Examination of

Social Penetration Theory.” CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, vol. 15,

no. 5, May 2012, pp. 245–250. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0403.

Wood, Julia T., and Celeste M. Condit. “Ethics, Justice, and the `Private Sphere’.” Women’s

Studies in Communication, vol. 21, no. 2, Fall 1998, p. 127. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1080/07491409.1998.10162553.