Social Penetration Theory describes how interpersonal closeness develops gradually from superficial to intimate exchange through mutual self-disclosure. Relationships require continual vulnerability over time through both breadth, the range of topics shared, and depth, the level of personal disclosure. Lasting intimacy is built through reciprocal self-disclosure that penetrates multiple layers of personality from public to private information over the course of a relationship.

1. Social Penetration Theory Interpersonal closeness proceeds in a gradual and orderly fashion from superficial to intimate levels of exchange, motivated by current and projected future outcomes. Lasting intimacy requires continual and mutual vulnerability through breadth and depth of self-disclosure (p. 120).

2. We All Have Personality structure’s It is multi-layered; like an onion Outer layer = public self The deeper the layer, the more private the topic

3. How to peel the layers? Self-disclosure: the voluntary sharing of what makes up your personality structure. -this leads to reciprocity (openness in one person leads to openness in the other).

4. Depth and Breadth Depth of penetration (layers of an onion): degree of personal disclosure -Depth w/ out breadth=summertime romance Breadth of penetration (slices of a pizza): range of areas that disclosure occurs in -Breadth w/ out depth=casual relationship

5. Depth and Breadth of Self-disclosure Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information. Self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially in the early stages of the relationship Penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as more layers are peeled away. Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal.

6. How to regulate closeness? On the basis of rewards and costs Outcome = rewards minus costs - MinimaxPrinciple of behavior: people seek to maximize their benefits and minimize their costs.

7. Two standards for evaluating relationships 1) Comparison level – Gauging relational satisfaction - We compare our relationships to the baseline of past experience. “Is this better or worse than what I’ve had?” 2) Comparison level of Alternatives – Gauging relational stability - We compare our relationships with what we could have. “Is there no other relationship that is more attractive than this one?”

8. Dialectical model Privacy Intimacy People want both in their social relationships

9. Communication Privacy Management Theory Privacy rules: Rules for revealing or concealing private information Boundary coordination: Two people agreeing on the same privacy rules for a given disclosure/certain topic Boundary turbulence: Conflict resulting from a failure to coordinate privacy rules in a relationship