Social Penetration Theory

Running head: SOCIAL PENETRATION THEORY: A THEORY APPLICATION 1
Social Penetration Theory: A Theory Application
The Relationships between SP Theory and the Professional World
Matthew J. Collazo
Grand Valley State University

SOCIAL PENETRATION THEORY: A THEORY APPLICATION 2
Introduction
People are onions. As continuing familiarity is achieved with another person, layer upon
layer is peeled back, revealing a direct route toward the inner core. When attempting to deepen a
relationship, if the benefits of peeling away these layers outweigh the costs of maintaining that
relationship, then the communication progresses. This link between cost and benefit analysis is
one of the central ideas in the theory of Social Penetration. What is the cost of maintaining
relationships? What value could be placed on close interactions with a boss or coworkers? How
beneficial could these things be in the professional setting? Social Penetration theory is
important in film and video production because it helps illustrate the need to be on the same page
as the director in order to make the vision a reality. When the crew is on comfortable terms with
each other, it allows for a smoother production atmosphere, and that results in a more productive
workplace. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the significance of understanding the
theory of Social Penetration, and how it can be applied to achieving success in the
profession of film and video production. This paper will examine a combination of my own
research in the theory and what professionals have said about it, a description of the context I
wish to examine using the theory, and an application concluding the research in relation to the
context.
Literature Review
The Social Penetration Theory (SPT) is one that revolves around the idea that building
and maintaining relationships is a result of self-disclosure and vulnerability. Constructed by
Altman and Taylor (1968), this theory proposes a model that compares individuals and the depth
of their personalities to the tightly compacted layers of an onion, accessible only by achieving a
greater familiarity with that person through mutual self-disclosure. As people become more

familiar, they begin to allow certain degrees of vulnerability to take place as they reveal more
about themselves. An important part of the onion model is the depth and breadth of knowledge
attained about a person. While depth is important, it only focuses on one particular aspect of the
individual’s life. An example of this would be to know extensive amounts about someone’s
religious beliefs, but virtually nothing about their political views. The greater depth attained, the
closer one may be to reaching the others’ core, or the deepest aspects of that person. This would
include self-image, closely held secrets, and their fundamental beliefs. Breadth, however, focuses
on the spectrum of topics known about the person in question. Knowing a little information on
many aspects of a person’s life is common, for example. The basic understanding of many
features of one’s life would result in a great breadth with little depth, while deep disclosure about
a particular bit of information illustrates great depth while excluding breadth. Ideally, a great
span of breadth, as well as deep penetration in each category, generally represents a healthy and
closer relationship.
As this process ensues and one person reveals something about themselves, the other is
inherently expected to answer with a fact of similar nature. This is referred to as the Law of
Reciprocity (Altman & Taylor, 2009). If communication is to continue, then these reciprocal
disclosures remain successful. According to the theory, penetrating deeper into the personalities
of another is dependent on a series of positive interactions that result in the mutual benefit of
furthering friendships. The basis of cost and benefit analysis is what determines continued
interaction to the deeper layers; if the benefit of further interaction outweighs the cost, then
interaction progresses onward.
Outside of the layered onion model, the next largest aspect of Social Penetration Theory
is a closer look at the concept of cost and benefit analysis, sometimes paired with the theory of

Social Exchange. To help determine when and where a relationship will progress, Altman and
Taylor offered a description of comparison levels that gauge the general satisfaction in a
relationship, resulting in the final outcome of the standards an individual personally sets. The
first describes relational satisfaction as “the threshold above which an interpersonal outcome
seems attractive”, which is simply a set of standards held by a person in order for them to remain
happy in their relationship (Altman & Taylor, 2009, p. 118). A comparison level is drawn over
time by the past experiences an individual has observed. Regardless if the comparison is being
made from a past relationship, or the past actions of a current one, human beings draw on these
experiences to compare to the present and determine how satisfied they really are with their
partners. If an act of a current relationship is seen as above the comparison threshold, then the
person making the comparison is highly satisfied. Conversely, if an action doesn’t meet the
standards set by a previous relationship, the response is unattractive. Importantly to note is that,
like comparison levels, new relationships follow a sequence; they are both chronologically
shaped over time. This means that with new relationships, if a mistake is made early on, it has a
larger impact in the view of the other, as opposed to making an error further down the
relationship timeline when there are more experiences to compare with. Likewise, if one
relationship begins with a cool vibe, and later adjusts to meeting above the current comparison
level, the response is much more attractive than if it had begun closer to those comparison levels.
The other set of standards, referred to as the comparison level of alternatives, depicts
relational stability as being the best outcome possible, or the standards set for a person in which
another relationship seems more appealing (Altman & Taylor, 2009, p. 119). If one partner is
consistently failing to meet or surpass the comparison level of the other, the second partner
begins to weigh those comparisons with the option of beginning a new relationship elsewhere,

rendering the current relationship unstable. Unlike the other, this standard doesn’t directly deal
with the satisfaction with a partner, but rather decides what the outcome must be in order to
remain in or leave a relationship. In the stereotypical case of a battered wife, this standard would
answer her decision to remain in an abusive relationship; “despite her anguish, the woman feels
trapped in the situation because the option of being alone in the world appears worse….as
dreadful as her outcomes are, she can’t imagine a better alternative” (Altman & Taylor, 2009, p.
119). It appears as selfishness, even though it doesn’t benefit her, and this is very much the case.
Lastly, it is important to recall that human beings have always been inherently selfish.
This principle was used thousands of years ago by Epicurus, a Greek philosopher of Aristotle’s
time, named Ethical Egoism (Miller, 2010). This principle illustrates the desire of people to
maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain. When applying the theory of Social
Penetration, individuals subconsciously default to what John Stuart Mills, a great historical
philosopher, claimed to be the Principle of Utility (Tucker, 2008). In this theory, it is referred to
as the Minimax Principle of Human Behavior, in which people “seek to maximize their benefits
and minimize their costs” (Altman & Taylor, 2009, p. 118). This means that people generally
only try to engage in further communication if the stakes lie in their favorable gains. When
comparing the onion model to the comparison level standards, remember that all communication
is, for the most part, optional to pursue.
In relation to SPT, another recently emerged to help further explain the rationale behind
how disclosures are decided upon. According to Sandra Petronio, creator of the Communication
Privacy Management (CMP) Theory, people create their own privacy boundary rules that
determine their decision to disclose which personal information to others (Petronio, 2010). Her
theory pairs with Altman and Taylor’s because CMP theory holds that people shape privacy rules

on five principles: context, culture, gender, motive, and risk-benefit ratios, which can be
classified as categories on the onion (Kennedy-Lightsey, Martin, Thomson, Himes, &
Clingerman, 2012). While these rules are being shaped, Petronio explains that there are two more
factors that help shape what levels of information bypass the privacy rules: boundary
coordination and boundary turbulence. Boundary coordination insists that, although many
boundaries are held personally, there are many rules that become understood and shared equally,
referred to as boundary co-ownership. Petronio asserts that co-ownership is bound together in
three ways: they are established by linkage (who is involved and linked to the boundary),
permeability (the degree of disclosure to those outside the linkage), and coordinating co-
ownership rules. Boundary turbulence results when those agreements are not upheld or are
breeched (Petronio, 2010). This theory can be applied to help aid communication in businesses.
All of these accreditations supporting Social Penetration Theory prove that this theory is
prevalent in both the personal and professional level of communication, and has much to do with
how much and about what people communicate every day. While being largely studied
throughout the academic community, SPT has remained relevant when trying to describe how,
when, and to what degree people decide to interact with others.
Context
Communication is imperative in the professional field of film and video production. A
filmmaker and his crew are storytellers, and if communication is strained, than so is the resulting
work environment. On set, there are standards of communication which can alter the final
results of a collaborated project. Unfortunately, a large problem can be associated with
communication in the field of film and video production. There is a large disconnection between
the members of a production crew and their communication levels to higher members in the

production. Filmmaking has evolved much over the last century. A film professor at GVSU
claimed that in the height of Hollywood cinema in the few years prior to World War II, film
crews and actors were obligated to join in contractual positions, and were treated horribly (B.
Roos, personal communication, October, 2013) . This resulted in no regard to facilitate
communication on the set other than simply to give and receive directions, which strained
already forced relationships. After the war, there was less tolerance for these things, and reform
ensued.
Although today higher standards of communication are upheld, there is still a gap in
communication between directors and their crews and actors. The culprit is traditionally outdated
thinking; often, levels of hierarchy decide the flow of communication with other employees as
well as their superiors on set. A general hierarchical system would allow communication to flow
in this fashion: camera operators report to the director of photography, who reports to the
director, who reports to the producer, who then reports to the executive producer. This type of
hierarchical communication negates the chance of relaying possible innovative ideas and
problem solving suggestions and instead turns them into a game of telephone. For example, crew
members are almost never treated as equals, but when it comes to problem solving, “there are
those critical moments where leadership on the set shifts to those with the expertise needed in
that moment; It may be the assistant director who comes up with the solution” (Hodge, 2009, p.
23). As long as production teams remain ignorant of adopting a better understanding of
communication theory, the creativity, efficiency and overall productivity will suffer in the
business. It may appear impossible to end the hierarchical tradition, but some hopeful thoughts
still exist in response to the ever-more-popular market for grad students: “Their ability to find

ways to keep their own energy and creativity alive even in limited production roles will serve
them well as they work in the wider film industry” (Hodge, 2009, p. 23).
There have been many books published to attempt to bridge the gap between director and
crew, all involving great communication. Special handbooks are sometimes distributed among
new crew members when they join a production. Also, special courses are offered to help teach
set etiquette prior to being part of a production crew. According to Bräuchler and Postill (2010),
in the United States, “Unions now insist or at least advise future film employees to undergo
behavioral training before going on a set” (p. 314). Although these resources are beginning to
gain in popularity, the more traditional directors are shy to change a pattern that has been
continuing for too long. Now, it is beginning to affect college level entry students as they try to
enter a field where it is incredibly difficult to move up in roster. Along with the limited
employment offered to a surplus of motivated film students, it also doesn’t help that this field is
considered a project-based industry, as opposed to a task-oriented workflow. In a study
conducted over the relationship between employment and project-based industries, results did
show that people that develop great interpersonal communication skills are more often
recommended, and as a result are more likely to attain a job over a similar candidate (Blair,
Culkin, & Randle, 2003, p. 620). In this industry, being personable can get an aspiring
filmmaker much farther than an impressive resume.
Although this problem has somewhat improved over the years, it is one that still exists on
many sets and productions, continuing to hinder the business from achieving the best possible
productivity and creativity necessary for better success. I believe that a stronger understanding of
Social Penetration Theory would help alleviate the problem, and also help to secure a job for
future alumni like myself.

Application
One of the most beneficial tools I could use to improve the chances of success in film and
video production is by understanding the Social Penetration Theory. When it comes time to
apply for the first job after college, understanding how relationships work through SPT will help
accentuate communication skills, and therefore make someone more marketable. After being
hired into a company, applying SPT will allow someone to facilitate closer relationships and
create allies and friendships with co-workers and bosses, which could lead to later job
opportunities. Also, being aware of the onion model will help a person gauge their progress and
help determine where improvements need to be made in relation to the depth and breadth of their
knowledge. Furthermore, using the supporting theory of cost and benefit analysis, one could
determine that the benefits should always outweigh the cost when joining a workforce, because it
is in the interest of everyone else in the company. But getting a job in the industry is only half of
the battle. According to research done in the form of film successfulness, it was concluded that a
staggering number of movies are not profitable; “Seventy-eight percent of movies lose money
and only 22% are profitable…profit is unevenly distributed among those movies that are
profitable” (Vany & Walls, 2004, p. 1039). It is ever more important to have a crew that can help
produce a movie that actually makes a profit for as little cost to them as possible. Much like
Mills’ Principle of Utility, the goal of a successful business and happy employees is to maximize
the benefits while minimizing the costs.
Consequently, film crews are always working together on set, and understanding how to
properly improve relationships through self-disclosure will prove to be a momentous help. When
members of the crew have disclosed enough to be really comfortable with one another, then their
dynamics and productivity while shooting will be greatly enhanced. If deeper levels of

communication help improve relationships, and good relationships yield success, then furthering
communication among fellow employees should therefore spell greater success. In the future I
aspire to become a director, and in doing so, I understand that this knowledge of SPT can be used
to my advantage to help alleviate problems associated with being on set. An example of this
would be to ensure that everyone on the cast and crew knew and were comfortable with me to be
able to discuss things other than the jargon used on set. Also, directors should make it a point to
establish boundary coordination and privacy rules to make it clear what is and what is not
appropriate to discuss while on the clock. As long as the permeability is stable, and boundary
turbulence doesn’t occur, than so shall the communication and disclosure standards. Also, using
SPT, the owner of a film company could implement a company policy that was actually
reflective of the interactions that take place in the work environment, which too often go
unnoticed. Research has claimed that many company policies do not accommodate to employee
needs, but if they did, a positive change would occur; “When the rewards and costs of policies
have greater meaning…policies of high salience are the ones which would penetrate to the core
of the individual…these are the most likely to change behaviors” (Baack, 1991, p. 216). When
the behaviors change, then improvement can be made.
Next, in the film industry, there exists the hierarchy of communication in which only
certain people are able to transfer accurate information to where it needs to go. Unfortunately,
the more people the message needs to transfer through, the messier the result becomes upon
delivery, if it is even received. As a director, I would do my best to knock down the walls of the
hierarchy and ensure that any member of the cast or crew could speak with me. This way, there
would be incentive to establish an innovative workflow where everyone’s ideas can be shared

and collaborated. Plus, the more knowledgeable the director, the easier it is to collaborate with
not only employees, but other directors as well.
The film industry is not much different from other businesses in that the ultimate goal is
to achieve the best productivity possible, and the best way to do this is through the employees.
There is no argument that the better communication employees have among each other and their
superiors, the more productive the atmosphere will be. Also, like in business, communication
theory informs us that a person should know their communication partner, whether it be closing a
company deal or meeting the CEO of a neighboring company, regardless of their place on the
corporate ladder. If nothing is known about the other, than it would seem impossible to
understand the collaboration fully, and thus many good ideas and perspectives may be left unsaid
or unrealized. From a more personal perspective, there are standards of disclosure that should be
made clear at the time of the employment. Without disclosing the details, the director cannot use
the Law of Reciprocity to know that the movie may touch on subjects sensitive to the crew
member in which they do not support, which would in turn affect boundary turbulence, and
could damage a collaborative relationship. For example, say that the employees find out only
while shooting that they are meant to support a movie that goes completely against their beliefs.
Conclusion
The Social Penetration Theory is one that greatly exemplifies the importance of
relationships in the film industry. With proper care and integration, this theory could solve the
problems associated with lack of communication where it could be greatly beneficial. In this
paper I have examined a combination of my own research in the theory and what professionals
have addressed regarding it, a description of the context I wish to examine using the theory, and
an application concluding the research in relation to the context in a clear way. The purpose of

this paper was to discuss the significance of understanding the theory of Social Penetration,
and how it can be applied to achieving success in the profession of film and video
production. Like an onion, the potential for the greatest possible relationships among film
production crews lie beneath tightly compacted layers, accessible only by ensuring that proper
methods of self-disclosure and reciprocity take place, with careful consideration to the theory of
Social Penetration.

References
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (2009). Social Penetration Thoery. In E. A. Griffin, A First Look At
Communication Theory (pp. 113-124). New York: McGraw Hill.
Baack, D. (1991). The Personal Impact of Company Policies: A Social Penetration Theory
Perspective. Journal of Managerial Issues, 3, 196-219. Retrieved from
http://jstor.org/stable/40603910
Blair, H., Culkin, N., & Randle, K. (2003). From London to Los Angeles: a comparison of local
labour market processes in the US and UK film industries. Journal of Human Resource
Management, 619-633.
Bräuchler, B., & Postill, J. (2010). Theorising Media and Practice. New York: Berghahn Books.
Hodge, C. (2009). Film Collaboration and Creative Conflict. Journal of Film and Video, 61, 18-
30. doi:10.1353/jfv.0.0020
Kennedy-Lightsey, C. D., Martin, M. M., Thomson, M., Himes, K. L., & Clingerman, B. Z.
(2012). Communication Privacy Management Theory: Exploring Coordination and
Owndership Between Friends. Communication Quarterly, 60, 665-680.
Miller, J. (2010). A Distinction Regarding Happiness in Ancient Philosophy. Social Research,
595-624.
Petronio, S. (2010). Communication Privacy Management Theory: What Do We Know About
Family Privacy Regulation? Journal of Family Theory & Review, 175-196.
doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00052.x

Taylor, D. A. (1968). The Development of Interpersonal Relationships: Social Penetration
Processes. Journal of Social Psychology, 79-90. doi:10.1080/00224545.1968.9712476
Tucker, I. (2008). Picturing Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill and the Invention of a Photographic
Public. Criticism, 50, 411-446. doi:10.1353/crt.0.0076
Vany, A. S., & Walls, D. W. (2004). Motion picture profit, the stable Paretian hypothesis, and
the curse of the superstar. Economic Dynamics & Control, 28, 1035-1057.
doi:10.1016/S0165-1889(03)00065-4

Social Penetration Theory

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to Social Penetration Theory

Similar to Social Penetration Theory (7)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Social Penetration Theory