Social Penetration Theory

Social penetration theory was popularized by Irwin Altman & Dalmas Taylor. General social penetration theory about how the process of interpersonal communication. Here is described how the process of dealing with others, there is a variety gradual process, in which a kind of adaptation process between the two, or in the language of Altman and Taylor: social penetration.


Altman and Taylor (1973) discusses how the development of closeness in a relationship. According to them, basically we will be able to get close to someone else as far as we can through the process of "gradual and orderly fashion from superficial to intimate levels of exchange as a function of both immediate and forecast outcomes."


Altman and Taylor likens humans like onions. That is the human nature to have some layer or layers of personality. If we peel the outer skin of onions, then we will find another layer of skin. Similarly, the human personality.


The outer skin layer of the human personality is nothing that is open to the public, what we usually show to other people in general, not covered up. And if we are able to look a little deeper layers again, then there is a layer that is not open to everyone, the more layers are semiprivate personality. This layer is usually only open to certain people, the closest example.


And the innermost layer is a private area, within which there are values, self-concept, conflicts unresolved, pent-up emotions, and the like. This layer is not visible to the outside world, by anyone, even from a lover, a parent, or any person nearby. However, this layer is most impactful or at least play a role in a person's life.


Our proximity to others, according to Altman and Taylor, can be seen from the extent of our penetration of the layers of personality earlier. By allowing others to penetrate the layers of personality that we have means that we allow people to get closer to us. The extent of one's close relationship can be seen from here.


In the perspective of social penetration theory, Altman and Taylor explain some of the translation as follows:


First, we more often and more quickly familiar in terms of exchange on the outermost layer of our selves. We're easier to talk or chat about the things that are less important in ourselves to others, rather than talk about the things that are more private and personal. The more we attempt to penetrate, then a layer of personality that we face will also be thicker and more difficult to penetrate. The more tries in a region familiar to the more personal, the more difficult it is.


Second, self-disclosure (self-disclosure) are reciprocal (mutual), especially in the early stages in a relationship. According to this theory, at the beginning of a relationship both parties will usually keen to open up to each other, and this reciprocal openness. However, getting in or getting into the private areas, such openness more generally slow, not as fast as in the early stages of their relationship. And also more not be reciprocated.


Third, the penetration will be faster in the beginning but will decrease as more and get into the deeper layers. There is no term "hit it". Familiarity it all requires a long process. And usually a lot easier in the interpersonal relationship collapse before reaching a stable stage. Basically there will be many factors that cause the stability of a relationship crumble easily, easily shaken. However, if it is able to pass through these stages, usually the relationship will be more stable, more meaningful, and more durable.


Fourth, depenetrasi is a gradual process with fading. The point is that when a relationship is not going well, then they will try getting away. However, this process is not explosive or explode at once, but is more gradual. Everything is gradual, and fading.


In social penetration theory, the depth of a relationship is important. However, the breadth was also equally important. That is possible in certain things that are personal so we can open up to someone close to us. But that does not mean we also can open up in terms of the other person. Maybe we could open in matters of romance, but we can not be open in the affairs experience in the past. Or the other.


Because there is only one area are open for others (eg, love affairs earlier), then this represents a situation in which the relationship may be deep but not widespread (depth without breadth). And the opposite, broad but not deep (breadth without depth) might like relationship "hello, apakabar?", A relationship that is mediocre. Is an intimate relationship in which both covers, in a broad and well.


Decisions about how close a relationship according to social penetration theory is determined by the principle of profit and loss (rewards-costs analysis). After an introduction to someone in principle we calculate the cost-benefit factor in our relationship with that person, or referred to in relationship satisfaction index (index of relational satisfaction). So also are others that apply when dealing with us. If the relationship is mutually beneficial then it is likely to continue will be greater, and the process of social penetration will continue to be sustainable.


Altman and Taylor refer to the thought of John Thibaut and Harold Kelley (1952) on the concept of social exchange (social exchange). According to them the concept of social exchange, a number of important things, among others, is a matter of relational outcomes, relational satisfaction, and relational stability.


Thibaut and Kelley stated that we tend to estimate what benefits will we get in a relationship or relationships with others before we do the interaction. We tend to calculate profit and loss. If we estimate that we will benefit a lot if we are dealing with such a person then we are more likely to foster further relationships.


In the early days of our relationship with the one we usually see the physical appearance or external appearance of the person, background in common, and many similarities or similarities to the things you like or liked. And it is usually regarded as a "profit".


However, in a relationship that is already very familiar often we do not even concerned about some of the differences between the two sides, and we tend to appreciate each of these differences. Because if we've seen that there are a lot of advantages than disadvantages that we get in a relationship, then we usually want to know more about that person.


According to social exchange theory, we actually had difficulty in determining or predicting what benefits we will get in a relationship or relationships with others. Because psychologically what is considered a "benefit" was different for each person. Social exchange theory put forward two general standards of what is used as comparisons or benchmarks in evaluating an interpersonal relationship.


The first, related to the relative satisfaction (satisfaction relative): how much of the interpersonal relationship can make us happy or unhappy it. Thibaut and Kelley calls this a level comparison.


Suppose we take the example when we talk with our loved ones by telephone. If we usually talk over the phone with our lovers in a matter of 1 hour, then 1 hour rate will be the benchmark of our satisfaction in the relationship. If it turns out we chatted for longer than 1 hour, let's say 1 hour 30 minutes then we would rate it more than satisfactory. But vice versa, if it turns out we are only talking less than 1 hour of our conversation we tend to think of the less than satisfactory. It is only one factor alone in assessing relationship satisfaction via the telephone. Factors other woods are also taken into consideration is the tone of voice, intonation, topics discussed, warmth talk, and so on.


In addition, the comparison of our level in terms of friendship, romance, family relationships, much influenced by how the history of our interpersonal relationships in the past. We assess the value of a relationship based on a comparison with our experience in the past. We tend to store our memories are good in interpersonal relationships with others to be used as a sort of comparison in our interpersonal relationships in the present and in the future. It is also very important benchmarks.


The second, by Thibaut and Kelley referred to as the comparison level of alternatives. At this stage we raise a question in our interpersonal relationships. We begin to question the possibilities of what lies beyond the relationship that is being undertaken. Questions include "What I would benefit more if I relate to other people?" Or question "Possibly the worst what would I get if I stay in touch with this person?".


The more interesting possibility that others outside the relationship then the instability in our relationship will be even greater. In this case the social exchange theory seem more akin to economic calculation on cost-benefit, indeed. Many people who mention this theory as a theory of ecomonic behavior.


Unlike the comparison level, comparison level of alternatives does not measure satisfaction. This concept does not explain why many people who remain in a relationship with someone who used to torture himself, often hurting.


So according to this theory, the key to a relationship that will remain is the extent to which built up a relationship that gives advantages, sejuah where the relationship is able to produce satisfaction, the extent to which these relationships remain stable, and the possibility that other, more interesting than the relationship that is being they live it.


The theory itself is inseparable from a number of critics. There are critics who claim that is often faster than an accident or a relationship is not able to be predicted in advance. There are times when we reluctantly had to quickly familiarize themselves with a particular person, and we do not have another choice. The theory is unable to explain this matter.


This theory also does not reveal the gender issues in the explanation. Though gender differences will greatly affect the issue of self-disclosure in interpersonal relationships. Even further study of Altman and Taylor revealed that the males are less open than females.


Altman and Taylor also almost consistently use cost-benefit perspective in assessing or measuring an interpersonal relationship. The first question that arises is to what extent we will be consistent in assessing which is an advantage and which one is a loss for us in the relationship? And the second question is to what extent we will continue to be selfish in a relationship with someone else?


We also often feel that in an interpersonal relationship that everything is not always about ourselves, about what benefits we get in the relationship. In fact we often feel happy that our friends get an advantage or exciting news. Although it is not happening to us, it turns out we are also able to participate happy. It is also not able to be explained in the theory.


Bibliography:


Griffin, Emory A., A First Look at Communication Theory, 5th edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003, page 132-141