AustinCountry.com | Social Penetration

Social Penetration:
The Developement of Interpersonal Relationships Among Roommates

Austin Helms
Mississippi College
2003

Many of communication theories focus on the question of the development of interpersonal relationships. Possibly the best explanation put forth, however, was the social penetration theory, proposed in the early 70’s by Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor. Since then, numerous researchers have tested and improved upon this theory.

The social penetration theory believes that each person’s personality is a succession of concentric rings (like an onion) ranging from public all the way to a private-personal core (VanLear, 1984). Development in a relationship comes from increased interaction and increasing depth of self-disclosure (penetration through the layers). The outer layers of a person must be penetrated before the inner ones, and the penetration slows as the inner layers are reached (Griffin, 2003). One decides on how much to reveal by analyzing the possible rewards and cost of such interaction. It is human tendency to minimize costs and maximize benefits. The great the ratio of reward to cost, the faster penetration takes place (Taylor & Altman, 1987).

Also, the issue of reciprocity is addressed in this theory. When one party discloses something about themselves, reciprocity asserts that the recipient of that information feels obligated to respond with disclosure of their own (Taylor & Altman, 1987). However, a lot of the research shows mixed responses the degree of reciprocity over time. Also involved in the theory is the idea of “depenetration” Taylor and Altman describe it as a reverse process, like a movie shown backwards, but little research has been done on the idea (Griffin, 2003).

Review of Literature

Communication in Interpersonal Relationships: Social Penetration Processes. Taylor and Altman’s (1987) theory concerns the growth and termination of interpersonal relationships. There are three aspects of the theory: stages of development in a relationship, reward and cost analysis, and the influence of reciprocity and intimacy (Taylor & Altman, 1987).

The four stages of development are: (1) orientation, (2) exploratory affective exchange, (3) affective exchange, and (4) stable exchange. The first stage, orientation, is described as cautious and tentative. There is very little evaluation going on and interaction is centered around conflict avoidance. Exploratory affection exchange, the second stage, is friendlier and less cautious. Aspects of personality are being more revealed than in the previous stage. In the next stage, affective exchange, barriers to inner layers are being broken down. This stage is characterized by close friendships. It is very casual and permissive. Finally, in the stable exchange stage, the relationship is continually open with healthy verbal and nonverbal exchange. Taylor and Altman believe that most behaviors demonstrated can be predicted in advance. (Taylor & Altman, 1987)

Reward and cost are considered the driving force of the relationship, which will only continue if the rewards exceed the costs. Rewards are seen as pleasures and gratifications that the person enjoys. Costs can be anything from embarrassment to a great physical or mental effort required. All of this balancing is done subconsciously, however. (Taylor & Altman, 1987)

Reciprocity is considered inversely related to the stages of development, e.g. it decreases as penetration increases. The idea is that as deeper relationships form, the need for equality is diminished. (Taylor & Altman, 1987)

The Formation of Social Relationships: A Longitudinal Study of Social Penetration. VanLear ran an experiment on seven dyads (pairs of people) who did not know each other prior to the experiment. The dyads met once a week for one-half hour sessions for six weeks. Those used in the study were university students from two large schools, one in the West, and one in the Midwest. The dyads were given no instructions on what to speak on, but their conversations were recorded. (VanLear, 1984)

VanLear divided self-disclosure utterances into four categories. The first was nonsubstantive utterances, which does not reveal anything of the speaker directly or indirectly. The next level was public accessible utterances, which are only superficial information about the speaker. The third level, semiprivate disclosure, involved information about the speaker that is neither superficial nor intimate, but in between. The final category was private-personal disclosure, info that is private and personal in nature. (VanLear, 1984)

The results of the experiment showed that in each conversation, utterances ranged from 184 to 549. VanLear found that 65 percent of the conversations were public accessible utterances and 19 percent was semiprivate disclosure. Nonsubstantive utterances made up 14 percent of the conversations and only 2 percent were private-personal disclosure. These results were consistent Taylor and Altman’s ideas for the distribution of disclosure. (VanLear, 1984)

Development of Friendship Between Roommates. Berg conducted an experiment based on the belief that reliable results can only be found through an experiment done over time. He examined 48 pairs of roommates at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), half of them male, half of them female. They were examined both in the fall and spring terms of their first year to share a dormitory. Perhaps the most important finding of Berg’s experiment was that the decision to continue in a relationship is made very early on in that relationship. (Berg, 1984)

Statement of the Problem

Thus, the research question for this study is: How well does the social penetration theory apply to roommates. The study will make use of the words dyadic effect, reciprocity, verbal behavior, and nonverbal behavior. The dyadic effect is the role of rewards and costs in the social penetration process. Reciprocity is the idea that a disclosure on one person’s behalf will prompt an equal disclosure on the other’s behalf. Verbal behavior includes self-disclosure and other communication process, while nonverbal behaviors involve body posture, gestures, and facial expressions.

The research question seems to justify the following hypotheses: (H1) The social penetration theory is an accurate measure of the development of relationships; and (H2) roommates actually follow the patterns of social penetration more rapidly due to forced and shared living quarters. All of the research points toward this conclusion since results of a relationship are largely based on the amount of interaction.

Significance of the Study

A search for a better understanding of a concept or process is a natural human action. Research into the idea of relationship building between roommates is important on both a personal level and at the administrative level of any institution with dormitories. Surely, a better understanding of how relationships build will help anyone with making a decision about whether to live with a person. Knowledge of the social penetration process could possibly lessen the guilt sometimes displayed when deciding to move out of a living arrangement with someone. The results of the study could also extend to couples thinking of marriage and those looking to get out of a relationship. Griffin (2003) even uses the social penetration theory to explain why people sometimes stay in an abusive relationship.

Communication scholars can also benefit from this information. Studies that utilize the social penetrations tend to lead to more studies, each building from the last one. This study was created in hopes that others will use it as a springboard to better understanding.

Institutions, such as universities or boarding schools, can also use the information given in this study to their advantage, perhaps in the questionnaires given to those students requesting admittance into a campus residence. Using the details of the social penetration process, questions that may reveal a person’s ability to “open up” may result in more successful roommate pairings. Of course, economic factors and career choice would have to be taken into consideration (Berg, 1984).

Scope of the Study

This study only looks at the application of the social penetration theory to roommates, specifically college roommates in a dormitory setting. The report will only be dealing with previous research and interviews with a freshmen pair of female roommates. There is only one pair evaluated because of the limited time that was available to the researcher. Freshmen were chosen due to the lack of a relationship history. Males were not used for the study due to their slow pace of disclosure. Females tend to disclose more in a shorter amount of time than males, partially because of social roles dictated by society (Taylor & Altman, 1987).

Methodology

For this study, one pair of female roommates was interviewed on their behavior in their natural settings. The method used to examine information was a case study. A case study is the findings of a study of people in their natural settings reported in the form of an explicit analysis of a single subject (Frey, Botan, & Kreps, 2000). The participants of this case study were freshmen at Mississippi College in Clinton, MS. The interviews consisted of one initial meeting together and one follow-up session for each roommate. Both sessions were around the middle of their spring semester.

Questions, designed to ascertain the relationship history of the participants, were written by the author and structured using previous research. Responses to inquiries were analyzed using the same resources and measured using the levels of interaction put forth by Griffin (2003). These levels, from most superficial to deepest, are: (1) biographical data, (2) preferences in clothes, music, etc., (3) goals and aspirations, (4) religious convictions, (5) deeply held fears and fantasies, and (6) concept of self.

Results

When the interview data is analyzed next to the levels of interaction (Griffin, 2003), relationship development definitely tends to follow the ideas of Taylor and Altman (1987). The stages of development put forth by them are very clearly defined in this relationship.

Orientation. This involved the gathering of biographical data, the avoidance of disharmony, and the observation of the other’s behaviors, whether consciously or unconsciously. Most profiling information was actually exchanged prior to moving in to the dormitory. The knowledge that the two women would be roommates at the start of the school year is the only reason this information was passed on, which supports the researcher’s hypothesis of increased rate of social penetration.

Exploratory affective exchange. Once the two women had grown accustomed to each other and the focus could be taken off of conflict avoidance, an increased flow of verbal and nonverbal exchange could occur. The roommates did not feel as if they had to “put on a mask,” so to speak. They had more freedom to be themselves.

Affective exchange. This stage is the one characterized by deep relationships (Taylor & Altman 1987). The roommates were very familiar around each other. As displayed from their joint interview, they had a nonverbal code that only the other could understand. This was developed during this stage. It is also very likely that the decision to stay together was made during this stage, even though neither woman could remember the specific moment when that occurred.

Stable exchange. The women, in this final stage, developed a continually open line of communication. As one of the roommates stated, she could tell the other anything, sometimes without even speaking at all. The penetration into deeper levels created an opening that could be revisited at any time.

Reciprocity was also displayed during the development of the relationship. As one roommate disclosed an intimate detail about herself, the other tended to do the same. Just like VanLear (1984), the participants in this study followed a decreasing pattern of amount of disclosure as levels grew toward deeper levels. Also, amount of interaction gradually increased, more second semester that the first.

The pair felt they had not really started developing their relationship until a certain point toward the end of their fall semester. Using the reward/cost analysis, one or both of the roommates perceived that the total costs outweighed the cumulative rewards. This, according to Taylor & Altman (1987), would cause that same roommate to close off areas of her life to protect herself from possible emotional harm. After one significant conflict between the pair, the relationship grew stronger and very rapidly. The participants began showing signs of good communication: more self-disclosure, more communication about the relationship, and more problem-solving behavior (Taylor & Altman 1987).

Discussion

The above-mentioned findings reinforce the Taylor & Altman’s theory. Behaviors could have been predicted prior to the start of the relationship. Because the roommates seemed to show the highest level of interaction in only the span of several months, the study shows that the social penetration process is possibly increased due to shared living quarters. This not only includes a rapid growth of a close friendship, but it also could be a speedy descent toward dissolution. This study found the belief of Berg (1984) about decision on future arrangements to accurate, more so than the decision to continue in other relationships. With these findings, the two hypotheses proposed by this study appear to be proven true.

The question of the validity of the social penetration theory is still in testing. A lot of previous research is based on self-reported data. As VanLear (1987) pointed out, this information can be useful, but a person may not be as aware of his or her own levels of self-disclosure as an outsider would be. The next step in this type of research would be a study similar to the one executed by Berg (1984), but over a longer period of time. Roommates should be reviewed more frequently than once a semester. Ideally, all conversations between roommates would be recorded, but neither the means nor the resources are available for such an extensive study. Perhaps the closest thing to this would just to tell participants to remember significant conversations. There is still a lot of work to be done in this field, but the task is far from impossible.

References

Berg, J. H. (1984). Development of friendship between roommates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 115-130.

Frey, L. R., Botan, C.H., & Kreps, G. L. (2000). Investigating communication: An introduction to research methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Griffin, E. (2003). A first look at communication theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Taylor, D., & Altman, I. (1987). Communication in interpersonal relationships: Social penetration processes. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Ed.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 257-277). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

VanLear, C. A., Jr. (1987). The formation of social relationships: A longitudinal study of social penetration. Human Communication Research, 13, 299-322.

Bibliography

Altman, I. & Taylor D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt.

Archer, R. L. (1980). Self-disclosure. In D. M. Wegner & R. R. Vallacher (Eds.). The self in social psychology (pp. 183-205). New York: Oxford.

Berger, C. R. & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-100.

Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Burgess, R. L. & Hutson, T. L. (Eds.). (1979). Social exchanges in developing relationships. New York: Academic Press.

Davis, M. (1973). Intimate relations. New York: Free Press.

Heiss, J. (1981). The social psychology of interaction. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Jourard, S. & Resnick, J. (1970). Some effects of self-disclosure among college women. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 10, 84-93.

Kelley, H. H. (1979). Close relationships: Their structures and processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Knapp, M. L. (1984). Interpersonal communication and human relationships. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Mills, J. & Clark, M. S. (1982). Exchange and communal relationships. In L. Wheeler (ed.), Review of personality and social psychology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Panyard, C. (1973). Self-disclosure between friends: A validity study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 20, 66-68.

Pasternack, T. & Van Landingham, M. (1972). A comparison of the self-disclosure behavior of female undergraduates and married women. Journal of Psychology, 82, 233-240.

Rossiter, C. & Pearce, W. B. (1975). Communicating personally. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs: Merrill.

Taylor, D. A. (1968). Some aspects of the development of interpersonal relationships: Social penetration processes. Journal of Social Psychology, 75, 79-90.

Thibaut, J. W. & Kelley, H. H. (1952). The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

VanLear, C. A., Jr. (1991, December). Testing a cyclical model of communicative openness in relationship development: Two longitudinal studies. Communication Monographs, 58, 337-361.

Worthy, C. G., Gary, A. L., & Kohn, G. M. (1969). Self-disclosure as an exchange process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 59-63.

Wright, P. H. (1894). Self-referent motivation and the intrinsic quality of friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 115-138.