Social Penetration Theory proposes that relationships develop through reciprocal self-disclosure from superficial to intimate topics over time. It is likened to an onion with layers being peeled back through breath and depth of disclosure. Relationships progress through 5 stages from orientation to stable partnership or depenetration. People regulate intimacy based on weighing rewards against costs using standards of comparison to their current relationship and alternatives. While influential, the theory is limited in scope and not fully data-backed, and disclosure's impact can vary between increasing and decreasing closeness.

1. SOCIAL PENETRATION
THEORY
Thu Huynh
Shanta Dahal

2. Agenda
I. Social Penetration Theory
II. Application Log
III. Critique

3. I. Social Penetration Theory
Author
Definition
Onion Metaphor
Self-disclosure Breadth and Depth
Rewards and
Costs
5 stages of a
relationship

4. Irwin
Altman
Author
Dalmas
Taylor
 Born July 16, 1930 in New York,
USA
 B.A. degree (New York University -
1951)
 M.A. degree (University of
Maryland – 1954)
 Ph.D. (University of Maryland –
 1933–1998, USA
 Social justice leader, scholar,
politician and administrator, mentor
and teacher
 Founder of the Minority Fellowship
Program in the American
Psychological Association

5. The process of
Developing intimacy through mutual self-
disclosure and other forms of vulnerability

6. Onion metaphor
Personality is like a multi-layered onion
with public self on the outer layer and private self at
the core.
As time passes and intimacy grows,
the layers of one's personality begin to
unfold to reveal the core of the person.

8. Conversations with a reserved and
superficial attitudeOrientation stage
Exploratory affective
stage
Affective stage
Stable stage
Depenetration stage
(optional)
People are careful with what they say
and share
Conversations come to some common and
normal topicsStart to reveal ourselves
Conversations about private and personal
mattersThe more people share, the easier
arguments and criticisms may arise but the
more intimate they get
Conversations about thoughts, beliefs and
valuesEach of them may predict other’s
emotional reaction
Starts to break
down
5 stages of a Relationship

9. Self-disclosure
Sharing with someone information
which helps him or her understand
you.
The information can be descriptive or
evaluative
The information can include thoughts,
feelings, aspirations, failures,
successes, fears, dreams, as well as
one's likes, dislikes, and favorites

10. The depth of penetration is regarded
as the degree of disclosure in a
specific area of life
The breadth of penetration is regarded
as the range of various aspects of life
over which disclosure takes place

11. Depth without Breadth
Summertime Romance
Breadth without Depth
Casual Relationship

12. 4 stages of Breadth and Depth

13. 1. Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently
and sooner than private information:

14. 2. Self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially in the
early stages of relationship development

15. 3. Penetration is rapid at the start but slows down
quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are
reached

16. 4. De-penetration is a gradual process of layer by
layer withdrawal

17. How do we regulate closeness?
People normally weigh their communication and
relationship with others on a rewards-costs scale
even without thinking about it
Outcomes: rewards minus costs
Comparison Level (CL)
Comparison Level of Alternatives (CLalt)

18. Outcomes: rewards minus costs
Minimax principle of human behavior: people
seeks to maximize their benefits and minimize their
costs.

19. Comparison Level (CL)—Gauging Relational Sa
First standard we use to evaluate the outcome we
receive.
The threshold above which an interpersonal
outcome seems attractive; a standard for relational
satisfaction.
Sequence plays a large part in evaluating a
relationship

20. Comparison Level of Alternatives (CLalt)
—Gauging Relational Stability
The best outcome available in other relationships; a
standard for relational stability
Outcome > CLalt > CL

21. II. Application Log
Celestine
Life coach and Founder
of Personal Excellence
Ken Soh
Software Consultant at

22. The journey of Celestine and Ken ‘
9 years before
New-members
induction meeting
4,5 years before
On the street
04/07/2013
Ken sent first
messages to
Celestine
05/05/2013
Went into a
relationship
06/25/2013
Got engaged
05/25/2014
Got married

23. Orientation stage
Exploratory affective
stage
Affective stage
Stable stage
Depenetration stage
(optional)
5 stages of a Relationship
New-members induction meeting
Exchanged no more than 5 lines
Could not remember what they talked
First time
Second timeCelestine introduced to Ken about her
How rare that a guy would be so open in
sharing!!!
Sensitivity Sincerity
Level of careful he read her messages
Level of sharp details he responded to her
Thought #1: “Is He a Player?”
Thought #2: “He’s Not Interested in Me and
I’m Just Imagining All of This”
He let her enter his private life.
He introduced herself to his parents and his close
childhood friends.
He took her into his private room
Worldviews Life philosophies
Importance of assuming control over
external variables to live a more fruitful
life
8.5 hours

24. Depth & Breadth of Penetration
1. Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner
private information
Tall
Dark
Handsome
Charming
Creative person
Good knowledge in designing
Living her passion

25. Depth & Breadth of Penetration
2. Self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially in the early stages
of
relationship development
Ken’s disclosure, patience and trust

26. Depth & Breadth of Penetration
3. Penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as
the tightly wrapped inner layers are reached
Wholemeal bread with
nutella.
He bit the bread into a
heart
Ken used tulip for the
proposal.

27. Depth & Breadth of Penetration
4. De-penetration is a gradual process of layer by layer
withdrawal
They are still
happy

28. REGULATING CLOSENESS
ON THE BASIS OF REWARDS A
Outcomes: rewards minus cost
Ken’s first messages
Ken’s first disclosure
Celestine thought about Ken at first days
“Ken had this sensitivity and sincerity that made me keen to hear from him and
share more about me”
He honestly and openly answered all
Celestine interrogated questions over
Whatsapp, phone and in-person
conversation

29. REGULATING CLOSENESS
ON THE BASIS OF REWARDS A
Comparison Level (CL)—Gauging Relational Satisfaction
“Initially I was disappointed. I thought it would be
great if we were mentally compatible.”
“Holy molly mother of cows!!! This guy is actually
very smart!!!!”
“I could feel that there was now something really
serious going on in this relationship”.
“Hey, I think this is someone I can see myself
with… for life.”
8.5 HOURS

30. REGULATING CLOSENESS
ON THE BASIS OF REWARDS A
Comparison Level of Alternatives (CLalt)—Gauging Relational S
Truly emotional sharing, kind,
and caring and even plus some
more

31. III. Critique
The scope of the theory is limited

32. III. Critique
Theory is not fully supported by data

33. III. Critique
Disclosure can either increase or decrease a relationship
Imbalance of a relationship
Not based on truth or exaggerated
The pace of self-disclosure

34. III. Critique
Relationship is not depended only on “Outcome: Rewards and
RewardCost
Time Effort
Money
Personaliti
es
Harmony
Compatibili
ty

35.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_penetration_theory
 http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/social_penetration.htm
 http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/capstone/interpersonal/socpen.html
 http://www.communicationstudies.com/communication-theories/social-
penetration-theory
 https://educ5102.wikispaces.com/Social+Penetration+Theory
 http://pencil-pushing.blogspot.com/2012/04/week-8-social-penetration-
theory.html
 http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~johnca/spch100/10-5-altman.htm
 http://interpersonal-compatibility.blogspot.com/2012/06/social-
penetration-theory-of.html
 http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/0767430344/student_view0/chapt
er10/index.html
 http://personalexcellence.co
Preference