Social Penetration Theory - Coursework Example

Social Penetration Theory No: This paper is going to reveal some facts about the communication between two persons when they make a closer relationship and is going to argue whether the social penetration theory is true or not. The point and thesis will discuss whether social penetration theory is a successful theory with the help of previous studies and researches. By focusing on motion, it is possible to understand communication in all its complexity and dynamics. The Social Penetration Theory break down that the relations started including penetration after some time. However, each of friendship does not go for a closer relation. Social Penetration Theory Sociology is a subject which deals with the human and deeply study their activities and behavior. Many economists and sociologist have worked to find out the facts under this subject. The Social Penetration Theory explains in brief how the relationships between two persons work with the passage of time and how they come closer with each other even at each stage of time. This theory was introduced by Altman and Taylor which gave the basic initiative of the relation and closeness which develops between two persons and how two unknown people become known. The Social Penetration Theory break down that the relations started including penetration after some time. Research method For conducting the research work to complete this paper on Social Penetration Theory, the most work has been done through the internet and some of the resources have been gathered from the library through some journals. The Social Penetration Theory and Personalities This theory explains the two personalities which might be opposite in characters but have strong relationship or friendship. Their theory shows an understanding of the complexity of relationships and that the process of relationship development that occurs over time. An Onion Metaphor Social Penetration Theory uses an onion metaphor to explain the personalities. According to this theory, the human personality is multilayered like an onion. The first or outer layer is one’s public domain which he uses to show other and it works on facts, but the inner layer is one’s personal domain in which he keeps his relationships, feelings, emotions and attitudes. The Penetration is included in the personal domain of one. Penetration Stages According to the Social Penetration Theory, Penetration has five stages. Each of these stages works differently. Orientation stage Exploratory affective stage Affective stage Stable stage Depenetration Penetration starts with small attraction and simple communication then we start coming closer by revealing ourselves, personal and private things get shared and relationship becomes closer, a saturation level reached in the relationship and finally the break down start which lead the relationship to termination. Problem Area What makes people start a relation? And how, with the passage of time, relations change their faces? What makes an end to a relation? Or, Why break-ups happen and doest Social Penetration theory is a reason behind this of being the successful theory? A Review of the Literature The one of the most important studies has been done by Knapp and Vangelisti (2000), in their study they have discovered the mode of changes occur in a relationship of two persons. How friendship converts into a deep relationship in relational partners and which changes caught their lives after they get closer to each other. It told that in the first stage of relation, the communication remained soft and loveable. This theory also led the Social Penetration Theory and tells the accuracy of Social Penetration Theory (Knapp & Vangelisti, 2000). A study of Baxter gives a detailed idea about the Social Penetration Theory and told that the negative communication in a relation by the partners in their close relation is not necessary as the compromise of quarrel is or the admission of unflattering. The information included in this study is based upon an experiment about testing the Social Penetration Theory; Baxter interviewed 102 partners to complete her study. The study says that negative communication and arguments in a relation sometimes increase their closeness. Baxter, however, put forward that the playful communication can develop the close relation of two partners and to prove his point, She uncovered that in all of 102 couples, they appreciate the playful communication as they believe that it bring them even closer (Baxter, 1992). This is the point where Social Penetration Theory failed. One of the existing researches on the human behavior towards their relationships has been worked specifically on the romantic relationship between two persons bound with love and this very deeply explain the cost and benefit of two partners as done in Social Penetration Theory. Friendship starts from the childhood and found an influential factor in the child’s socialization. It develops feelings of social acceptance and also helped children in improving their academic and social life (Doll, 1996). Social Penetration Theory made for the most part of its predictions about the coming time and next stage of the relationships development, which is complexly based on the subjective levels of partner’s communication and the self-disclosure. The theory of Cognitive Dissonance told that the conflicts and conflicting actions are often included in the life of human being (Anderson et al, 1998). Evaluation of Theory The Social Penetration Theory has the following key concepts, which best explain the purpose of the theory: Explanation of data The Social Penetration Theory clarifies all facts of human behavior under the social interaction. The process in which people disclose themselves is called as the self-disclosure, which is described through the Onion analogy by the theory. It helps in knowing levels of privacy and personal details that make up an individuals personality. Prediction of future events Social Penetration theory based on the future predictions and outcomes of one’s relation, whether their relation will be successful or fails. This prediction can be forecasted by assessing the self-disclosure levels of the individuals as well as what kind of relationship is taking place. Even though there is a prediction but still it is hard to assess the outcome of the relationship, as not all the cases have same end. Relative Simplicity The basic philosophy of the Social Penetration Theory is very straightforward. Once concepts such as the onion analogy, self-disclosure and depenetration are understood it can be easy to see the effects of social penetration in your own life and in the surrounding environment. Testable Hypothesis The outcome of experiment or prediction about a relation can be positive or negative after testing them with a process of self-disclosure. The effects of self-disclosure can be tracked within a relationship. Practical utility The Social Penetration Theory is a communication theory that relies on human interaction. Because communication and social interaction is a part of everyday life the theory can be seen in progress in most social situations. Cost and Reward Outcomes/ Social Exchange Theory The ideas of cost and reward outcomes that are used in the Social Penetration Theory were first developed in the Social Exchange theory in 1959 by Psychologists John Thibaut and Harold Kelly. The concept in short describes that people will use the equation profits = rewards – costs to determine if the relationship is worth beginning or continuing. The concept of ‘comparison levels suggests that people enter a relationship knowing what they want out of it and what they deserve. If the rewards in the relationship outweigh the costs then that particular individual will continue to be committed to the relationship, if this is not the case then in most situations the relationship will fail. Conclusion In my opinion, based on the research, most of the scientist and economists have proved Social Penetration Theory a true theory. People gradually peel off each layer of their relationship as they use to do of an onion, and this happen once in everyone’s life which proves that social penetration theory was a successful theory. There are no hard rules for starting a relationship and everyone is free to choose his or her mate according to choice. The relationships are not bound to change their status after some time. Even the Social Penetration Theory does not apply in each relationship. It is important to continue the research in the head to explore more facts about the relations, close relation. The theory has been applied many times and many experiments have been conducted in order to check the accuracy of the Social Penetration Theory and some of them were award winning experiment, e.g. experiment by Mie Kito. The arguments against the theory in my opinion are that certain aspects of the theory seem to put everyone into the same bracket. For example the cost and reward outcomes seem to label everyone as using the same mathematical equation to decide if they should enter a relationship. References Anderson, R., & Ross, V. (1998). Questions of communication: A practical introduction to theory (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press. N/A Boulter, L. T. (2002). Self-concept as a predictor of college freshman academic adjustment. College Student Journal, 36, 230-245. Baxter, L. A. (1992). Forms and functions of intimate play in personal relationship. Human Communication Research. Braithwaite, C. A. (1997). Blood and Money: The routine violation of conversation rules. Communication Reports, 10, 60-70. Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D.C. (1998). Understanding communication theory: The communicative forces for human action. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. N/A Doll, B. (1996). Children without friends: implications for practice and policy. School Psychology Review, 25, 160-180. Fink, B. & Wild, K. (1995). Similarities in leisure interests: effects of selection and socialization in friendship. Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 470-480. Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2000). Interpersonal Communication and Human Relationships. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Read More