Social Penetration Theory Paper

The Social Penetration Theory explains why as relationships develop, communication moves from less intimate levels to more intimate, more personal levelsI can apply this theory to my professional as well as personal

The Social Penetration Theory is an explanation by two communication theorists, Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor. This theory attempts to explain how relational closeness develops. Since we all have hundreds of different relationships, with thousands of different people during our lifetime, it is an important theory to study and understand.

In A. L. Evangelista & D. Perlman, Cambridge handbook of personal relationships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-82617-9

In this paper I will examine the social structure theory, along with its definition and how the different types of theories make up the social structure theory. I will also attempt to discuss the strain, culture conflict, and social disorganization theory all of which make up the social conflict theory. I also wish to discuss the video “Tent City, Arizona” and answer the following questions, “How does the video you selected support a social structure theory? What is the primary subject or content of the video? What social issues are raised in the video? What major principles of sociological theory are addressed in the video? What might be some possible ramifications for social policy change?”

Social Penetration theory attempts to explain the differences in communication in relation to the depth of interpersonal relationships. “Irwin Altman and Dallas Taylor, the theory states that relationships begin and deepen through self-disclosure. In the beginning, people establish

A variety of relationships and other forms of human interaction As we know, relationships are an important feature in our lives. It can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on the type of the relationship the person is involved in. Many of the authors, such as Updike “Separating”, Brooks, “The Mother” and O, Connor, "The Life You Save May Be Your Own” all revealed some type of relationship that affected their daily lives. In “Separating” we saw how a marriage and a divorce affected a family relationship.

There are many different theories in criminology that explain the reasons why people commit a crime. Such as the social structural theories, the social process theories, and the developmental theories. While going through these theories in class, many of them were relating too many of my friends past life. For the purpose of this paper, I am going to write about one of my close friend Danny. Danny has done a lot of things throughout his life, both bad and good and he is a good example for some of the theories that we have discussed in class.

According to Knapp’s model of Relational Development, he described the stages in which a relationship goes within the make up and break up steps of coming together and coming apart. This blog will discuss each stage with examples.

Mark Knapp developed a theoretical model to which identifies the stages of interpersonal relationships which explains how relationships begin and grow, as well as how they deteriorate and end. This model defines ten separate stages of relational development under three different interrelating categories; Coming Together, Relational Maintenance, and Coming Apart. An analysis of a personal relationship through the use of Knapp’s stages of relational development leads to a better understanding of that relationship and our role within it. In this essay I will be analyzing a personal relationship of my own using Knapp’s stages as a guide. However, these stages are subjective to each individual’s unique situation. Therefore, I will only be examining my relationship in the “coming together” stages. Furthermore, it is possible to pass over or amalgamate stages, as these stages are closer to a guide rather than set rules. For this analysis I will be breaking the “coming together” stages into initiating, experimentation and intensifying, integration, and bonding.

In other words Social Penetration Theory is a process in which a person reveals themselves to another person. The theory is that people reveal themselves in layers of bits of information. Disclosing things such as; layer one- age, job, hometown; layer two- musical interest, hobbies, religion; layer three- fears, values, self-esteem. The speed at which people do this depends on a variety of factors including your attachment style (pg. 61). The attachment test tells me I'm dismissive, I agree. I am often told I have no emotions. It doesn't bother me to hear that because it is somewhat true. I am not the type to be very forward or lay all my cards on the table. People have to pull off a lot of layers to get to know the real me. I put up a guard because I was hurt once. In the time it took to get over it I believe I lost all feelings towards emotional relationships. I do have feelings I'm just not willing to open up to people and let them see. I hardly ever cry (ever) and if I do

Meeting new people is a nerve wracking and undesirable situation for many people. Everyone is completely different and unique in their own way and invite interaction at their preferred frequency. Finding people who share common hobbies, desires, values etc. is a long and gradual process. How people build interpersonal relationships and develop a bond to each other is laid out in a proposed theory by Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor called the social penetration process. Social penetration can be defined as the process of developing deeper intimacy with another person through mutual self-disclosure and other forms of vulnerability (Griffin 97).

The subject of moral codes and CSR solidifies numerous social difficulties. At the one extraordinary are the individuals who, similar to Milton Friedman (1970/2001), advocate the controlling standard of shareholder esteem boost as the sole determinant of administrative choices. At the other extraordinary are the individuals who explain a charitable generosity in view of philosophical convictions concerning widespread morals, for example, those identified with human rights.

In recent years, social penetration theory has been the focus of many online studies,and has been applied to, or adapted, in the context of online relationship studies, such as sexual self-disclosure, online friendships, and online social networks. (Tang & Wang, 2012) The social penetration theory as Joseph DeVito writes in The Interpersonal Communication Book is a theory not of why relationships develop but of what happens when they do develop (DeVito, 2016, p. 237). While there are a few concepts that are encompassed in the definition of social penetration theory, there are two prominent parts and they are, breadth and depth. The breadth of a relationship refers to the amount of topics you and your partner talk about, and depth refers to the degree to which you penetrate the inner personality—the core—of the other individual (DeVito, 2016). In simpler terms, “how do you let people in,” and “how much and how in depth do you go into a topic?” Let it be known, however, that there is such thing as a withdrawal between the amount of breadth and depth communicated between individuals in a relationship. Such a concept is known as depenetration. While there will be a fairly low amount of attention paid to this concept, it’s important to understand that this contrast of social penetration exists.

Two big pieces of this social penetration theory puzzle are depth and breadth of self-disclosure. The depth of self-disclosure is how deep someone can penetrate the layers of the onion or how deep your self-disclosure goes. The more intimate someone is in the relationship the more depth of self-disclosure that relationship will have. Where-as the breadth of self-disclosure is the range of topics in which disclosure takes place within a relationship. Younger people tend to have more breadth where-as the older generation tends to take part

Context is defined as, “Everything that affects a relationship outside of the couple and their interactions; includes side of couple and their interactions; includes physical, social, cultural, and historical elements” (Ch.11 Bradbury, T. N. & Karney, B. R. (2014). In relation to intimate relationships, these interactions can have a greater impact on the relationship than a platonic friendship. The Bradbury and Karney describes the implementation of these ideals by focusing on the couple’s environments, those that are closely aligned with the couple directly. Living conditions being closely involved with the couple, versus global conditions, which may or may not a have a direct effect on the couple, the interactions that have an immediate impact on a couple can determine the satisfaction or success of the relationship. Relationships are the foundation of human interaction, the content and dynamics of a relationship and the individuals involved depicts human nature and an understanding of human life and conflict.