Chapter TenTheories of Communication in Developing Relationships

“Hello, I love you. Won’t you tell me your name?”

Social Penetration TheorySocial Penetration Theory (SPT)

Altman and TaylorSPT has been developed further by

communication scholarsSPT is a post-positivist theory of the

broad scope of relational development

Social Penetration Theory: StagesOrientation Stage: Interaction

ruled by social convention and formulas

Exploratory Affective Stage: Interactants begin to share more information and are more relaxed and friendly

Affective Stage: Close friendships and romantic relationships in which a great deal of open exchange occurs

Stable Exchange Stage: Continuing openness and richness in interaction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-bsf2x-aeE&feature=related

Social Penetration Theory:Breadth and Depth of Exchange

As people move through these stages, both the breadth and depth of information exchange increase (“onion model” of SPT)

Self-disclosure: Any communication shared about one’s self—intimate or not

SD changes through relational development:

Norm of reciprocityPeripheral before privateRate of disclosure begins to slow at

deeper levels

A different view of the “onion”

Depth

Breadth

Metts add(1) The onion model not used much

anymore; self-disclosure is more cyclical than continuously wider and deeper

Social Exchange ProcessesThe motivation to move in and out of

relationships is explained by Social Exchange Theory

Social Exchange Theory--“economic” model: outcomes, comparison level and comparison level of alternatives

People motivated to be in relationships that provide them with high levels of rewards and low levels of costs.

Rewardspositive consequences of being in a

relationship• Emotional: positive affect when with partner (love, warmth, etc.)

• Social: activities, events, other people• Instrumental: partner helps accomplish tasks

• Opportunity: relationship allows you to do something you couldn’t do otherwise

Costsnegative consequences of being in a

relationship• Emotional: negative affect with partner • Social: having to do socially undesired activities/interact with partner’s friends

• Instrumental: partner prevents tasks from being accomplished or creates more work

• Opportunity: life experiences given up for the sake of the relationship

OutcomesThe outcome refers to the overall

level of “profit” or “deficit” in relationships

rewards – costs = outcomeRelationships are generally

rewarding when outcomes are positive, and generally costly when outcomes are negative

Comparison LevelComparison level (CL) : “standard” by

which people evaluate their relationships how rewarding or costly you expect

your relationship to bebased on prior experience, family

model, friends, media, etc.Outcome - CL= Satisfaction

• When outcome meets or exceeds the CL, people are satisfied.

• When the outcome falls under the CL, people are dissatisfied.

Comparison Level for AlternativesComparison Level for Alternatives

(CLAlt) perceptions that an alternative to the relationship exists (another partner, being single, etc.)

Poor alternatives are related to more commitment

Good alternatives are related to less commitment

Combined Effect of CL and CLAlt

CL Alt

Poor GoodThe Relationship:

Meets or Exceeds CL

Fails to Meet CL

Satisfied and Committed

Satisfied but Uncommitted

Dissatisfied but Committed

Dissatisfied and Uncommitted

Original Investment Model

Costs

CL

Satisfaction

Investment

CLAlt

Commit-ment

Stability

Rewards

Current Investment Model

RewardsCostsCL

Satisfaction

Investments

CL-Alt

Commit.Benign Attribs. & Emots.

Accomm.

Behavior

Decision to remain

Accommodate partner

Not retaliate

Derogation of alternatives

Willingness to sacrifice

Perc. rel. superiority

Stabl.

Metts add: Equity TheoryEquity theory compares the ratio of

contributions (costs) versus benefits (rewards) for each relational partner

This ratio does not have to be equal for equity to exist; rather it has to be equivalent.

Ex: Christy has a cost/reward ratio of 5/10 Steve has a cost/reward ratio of 3/6.In an equitable relationship, both partners are getting a “fair deal” based on their benefits vs. contributions.

The Concept of InequityWhen one partner is getting a “worse deal”

in comparison to the other partner, there is inequity.A person can feel under-benefited or

over-benefited.A person can have more rewards than

costs and still be under-benefited by comparison.

Example: Ted has a r/c ratio of 12/8 while his partner, Emily, has a r/c ratio of 12/3.

SPT: Development and Tests of TheorySupport for many predictions of SPT

Esp. role of self-disclosure But difficult to test full range of theory

over development of “real-life” relationships

SPT has also been criticized for being an overly rational and economic model of rel. development (where is emotion? Planalp)

Metts add: Is it really the sum of costs and rewards or the salient/magnitude?

SPT, cont.Paradoxically, it has also been

critiqued for the ideology of total openness as an ideal

Knapp’s stage model is contemporary (1978) but more communication focused (includes social network, ritualized bonding, and coming apart stages—next slide)

More recent approaches are dialectical theory (covered in ch. 11) and turning points

Turning Points analysis

Turning Points Meeting Parents

C First Sex Reunion

O M M

I First Fight Time apart T M E N T Time

Uncertainty Reduction TheoryUncertainty Reduction Theory

(URT): Berger & Calabrese (1975)URT originally designed to explain

processes of initial interactionURT considers ways in which

interactants attempt to reduce cognitive uncertainty when we first interact with someonepredictive and explanatory uncertainty

cognitive and behavioral uncertainty

Form of URTURT is an axiomatic theoryURT begins with 7 basic axioms (e.g.,

High levels of uncertainty cause increases in information seeking. As uncertainty levels decline, information seeking decreases, p. 177, Table 10.1).

Axioms are not unquestioned truths, but are the untestable building blocks of the theory

URT then logically combines these axioms to derive 21 testable theorems

UNC

VC NVA Info-Skg

Recip

Intim Simil Liking

UNC ---

1. VC ---

2. NVA ---

3. Info-Seeking

---

4. Intimacy

---

5. Recip ---

6. Simil ---

7. Liking ---

Uncertainty Reduction Theory:Developments

URT has been extended to consider strategies for reducing uncertainty. active (asking others, manipulating

environ.), passive (observing)interactive (self-disclosure &

questions)

URT has been extended to consider motivations for reducing uncertainty. These include incentives, deviation, and possibility of future interaction

Uncertainty Reduction Theory:Tests and Critiques

URT has received some evidence for both basic predictions and extensions regarding information search and motivations

URT has been critiqued in terms of the motivational force that drives information seeking.

Critics contend that anticipating future interaction (anticipating positive and negative relational outcomes) is more important than uncertainty reduction (Sunnafrank—Predicted Outcome Value)

Uncertainty Reduction Theory: Expansions

URT has been expanded to consider relationships beyond initial interactionEvents that increase uncertainty in established rels.Levels of uncertainty—self, partner, relationship

URT has been expanded to uncertainty in intercultural relationships—Gudykunst’s Anxiety Uncertainty Management theory (includes social and cultural identity; anxiety as emotion + uncertainty as cognitive, and intercultural adaptation as outcome)

The uncertainty concept has also been applied to research in organizational socialization and social support