Theories of Communication in Developing Relationships “

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

Social Penetration Theory

 Social Penetration Theory (SPT) Altman and Taylor  SPT has been developed further by communication scholars  SPT is a post-positivist theory of the broad scope of relational development

Social Penetration Theory: Stages



Orientation Stage

: Interaction ruled by social convention and formulas 

Exploratory Affective Stage

more relaxed and friendly : Interactants begin to share more information and are 

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 reciprocity Peripheral before private Rate of disclosure begins to slow at deeper levels

A different view of the “onion”

Breadth Depth

Metts add

 (1) The onion model not used much anymore; self-disclosure is more

cyclical

than continuously wider and deeper

Social Exchange Processes

 The 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.

Rewards

 positive 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

Costs

 negative consequences of being in a relationship • • • •

Emotional:

negative affect with partner

Social

: having to do socially undesired activities/interact with partner’s friends

Instrumental:

from being accomplished or creates more work partner prevents tasks

Opportunity

: life experiences given up for the sake of the relationship

Outcomes

 The

outcome

refers to the overall level of “profit” or “deficit” in relationships 

rewards – costs = outcome

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

Comparison Level



Comparison level (CL)

: “standard” by which people evaluate their relationships  how rewarding or costly you expect your relationship to be  based 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 Alternatives



Comparison 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 CL

Alt CL Alt The Relationship:

Poor Good Meets or Exceeds CL

Satisfied and Committed Satisfied but Uncommitted

Fails to Meet CL

Dissatisfied but Committed Dissatisfied and Uncommitted

Rewards Costs CL

Original Investment Model

Satisfaction Investment CL

Alt

Commit ment Stability

Rewards Costs CL Satisfaction Investments CL-Alt

Current Investment Model

Commit.

Benign Attribs. & Emots.

Accomm.

Behavior Stabl.

Decision to remain Accommodate partner Not retaliate Derogation of alternatives Willingness to sacrifice Perc. rel. superiority

Metts add: Equity Theory



Equity 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 Inequity

 When 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 Theory

 Support 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 First Sex    

C O M M

     

I T M E N T

First Fight Time apart Time Reunion

Uncertainty Reduction Theory

 Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT): Berger & Calabrese (1975)  URT originally designed to explain processes of

initial interaction

 URT considers ways in which interactants attempt to reduce cognitive uncertainty when we first interact with someone 

predictive

and

explanatory

uncertainty 

cognitive

and

behavioral

uncertainty

Form of URT

 URT is an

axiomatic theory

 URT begins with 7 basic axioms decreases, p. 177, Table 10.1). (e.g., High levels of uncertainty cause increases in information seeking. As uncertainty levels decline, information seeking  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 1. VC UNC

VC

-- ---

NVA Info Skg Recip Intim Simil Liking

-- 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 interaction  Events 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