Social psychologists Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor proposed the theory of social penetration to explain how relational closeness develops. According to Social Penetration Theory, interpersonal relationships develop “systematically, with interpersonal exchange progressing gradually from superficial, non-intimate areas to increasingly intimate areas of interaction” (Altman & Taylor, 1973). They predict that two people will end up as best friends only if they proceed in a “gradual and orderly fashion from superficial to intimate levels of exchange” (Altman & Taylor, 1973). Social Penetration believes that an intimate relationship can only be formed through two types self-disclosure: depth and breadth. Revealing areas in the breadth category is easier and happens much quicker than the depth category; the deeper the layer, the more personal the information. Without this deep disclosure, the theorists say true intimate relationships cannot exist.

The purpose/objective of this assignment is to interview a couple of people to gain a better understanding of the social penetration theory as well as to demonstrate its practical application in real life. To carry out this observation, I interviewed Mrs. Rachel Mayo, Mrs. Erika Yifante, and Mr. Andrew Kimbo. I applied unstructured or semi-structured interview format to explore various issues in depth where the condition permitted or only as away to clarify the purpose of the question but mostly to set up an instructional pattern. However, where I got simple yes or no or “I guess so” answers, I probed further by asking, "What did you mean by that?" etc. The interview was carried out using both face-to-face meeting and by phone.

When I first met Mrs. Mayo for the interview, were very formal and there was a lot of doubt as to whether I can do this, but Mrs. Mayo broke the tension with a smile. That nonverbal expression made me feel better about the situation at hand. Her nonverbal expression made me smile too and our conversation started off on a lighter note, which reduced tension on my side. This is like the orientation stage; we played it safe with small and simple talk spiced with harmless clichés while keeping the tone within socially acceptable norms. We talked about life in general; the weather, the hurricane aftermath in the south, sports, and employment issues. Erika was cool too but she had a doubters facial expression. Mr. Kimbo whom I spoke to on phone was just cracking jokes about life.

As the interview progressed, we started to reveal ourselves, expressing personal attitudes about moderate topics such as lack of quick government response to Hurricane Katrina. Mrs. Mayo was quite upset about the situation and reiterating the fact that if the government can go and aid another country during crisis, why are they so slow with helping their own? A couple of racial and social class jabs were thrown as a reason for government delay but I thought it was a slow bureaucratic decision; I played along however.  Mrs. Mayo mentioned that she has two daughters and a son about my age and two grand children from her eldest daughter. Ericka talked more about her children’s education, what grades they are in and what academic challenges her youngest daughter is facing i.e. reading and mathematics. She talked about her children’s education after I mentioned that I’m a student. She also mentioned that her husband is in the construction business and how much he earns. She likes Mexican food while Mrs. Mayo is all about eating healthy and Caesar salads are her favorites. We were still feeling our way forward but there was casual friendship building at this stage; the ladies were not quite comfortable with me yet and so I could sense that we were holding something back.

Likewise at this second stage, I didn’t get much from Mr. Kimbo and the relationships didn’t develop further especially when he said, “with me, what you see is what you get.” As the theory states, individuals who choose to self-disclose will determine if the perceived benefits outweigh the costs of greater vulnerability, and if the costs are too great social penetration will not occur. I think Mr. Kimbo thought that it was not worth it and me neither. Using Petronio’s risk and benefit analysis, I knew I had to cut my losses. However, at this stage, I achieved some part of my goal, i.e. to gain knowledge, or information about the interviewees, as well as myself through self-disclosure.

As we further progressed deeper into the interview, we started talking about private and personal matters. This is when we engaged in more self-disclosure through the norm of reciprocity. I realized the more one self-discloses to the other in the interview, the more one is able to gain feedback from that individual. This created some sense of trust that deepened in the conversation and allowed each person to understand one another somewhat accurately.  The ladies were quite inquisitive as to why I’m still single, what my sexual preference is, gay or straight, and whether they can hook me up with their single friends. That’s when some of my fears, dreams, and fantasies came out. We had some fun arguments about what marriage means today, the divorce rates, types of families, and why I don’t want to rush in to marriage. And of course, I am straight. 

Erika is totally into family living together and its benefits especially the financial support from her spouse, lovely family affair and unity, and being a mother of two precious and lovely daughters.  Mrs. Mayo is divorced and supports some of my views about marriage life. Religiously, Erika and I clicked because we are both Catholics and talked about church issues. Erika and I are both Catholics but she is more devoted than I am. You can observe that passion exuding from her expressions. Mrs. Mayo is a Protestant and our views positively clashed here and there. The criticism and arguments at this stage were very constructive. I could sense however that they were not very open and I think I over exposed myself.  At the same time, the interviewees kept drifting back to general world issues and I knew then I wasn’t going to get more than what they had disclosed.

In general terms, success or failure at interview, and the overall behavior of both interviewer and interviewee are in part determined by differences in aspects such as race, religion, age and gender. This interview revealed a number of differences mentioned in their patterns of self-disclosure, and it is important to acknowledge such differences where they do exist and particularly so in the case of religion. For example, Erika  & I being Catholics disclosed more about our faiths than Mrs. Mayo did about hers. Its like when I mentioned that I’m a Catholic, her gestures showed lack of interest in what I had to say but being an elder lady in mid fifties, I respected her views. But I felt vulnerable for letting out too much about my faith yet she held back on hers. In addition, one of Sandra Petronio’s criteria of personal rules, that men have a greater difficulty in self-disclosing than women came into play. Altman and Taylor do not provide any concrete evidence to support this idea but it would be helpful if they include statistics to measure the level of social penetration that occurs between males and females, males and males, or vice versa.

I consider this experience about social penetration theory to be very educational and relatively truthful. The concept of comparing the human personality with the layers of the onion is a good contrast and related very well with the theory itself but the concept of self was very hard to achieve at this time. The notions of self-disclosure and vulnerability hold true as well and are essential ingredients for social penetration to take place. This is really a theory we use daily without even knowing that it’s in effect. Being equipped with this theory we can achieve and maintain close but meaningful relationships throughout our lives. It also increases our understanding of how and why some relationships become close and others do not. And gives us a way to think of and categorize the content of interpersonal communication and to relate that content to the character or nature of interpersonal relationships.

Reference:
Griffin, E. (2005). A First Look At Communication Theory (6th Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Altman, Irwin and Dalmas Taylor. Social Penetration: The Development of Personal Relationships. New York, NY: Holt, 1973.

Berg, John. Development of Friendship between Roommates. Journal of Personality
And Social Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 346-356, 1984.

(R. Mayo, personal communication, September 19, 2005)

(E. Yifante, personal communication, September 21, 2005)

(A.    Kimbo, personal communication, September 23, 2005)