CHAPTER 8
SOCIAL PENETRATION THEORY
Outline
I. Introduction.
A. Developed by social psychologists Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor, social
penetration theory explains how relational closeness develops.
II. Personality structure: a multilayered onion.
A. The outer layer is the public self.
B. The inner core is one’s private domain.
III. Closeness through self-disclosure.
A. The main route to deep social penetration is through self-disclosure.
IV. The depth and breadth of self-disclosure.
A. Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private
information.
B. Self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially in early stages of relationship development.
C. Penetration is rapid at the start, but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner
layers are reached.
2. Most relationships stall before a stable intimate exchange is established.
4. Sharing personal narratives, which tend to contain a carefully structured story,
deeper emotion, and greater detail than other shared information, is a quick
path to stronger bonds.
D. Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal.
E. For true intimacy, depth and breadth of penetration are equally important.
V. Regulating closeness on the basis of rewards and costs.
A. Social penetration theory draws heavily on the social exchange theory of John
Thibaut and Harold Kelley.
B. If perceived mutual benefits outweigh the costs of greater vulnerability, the process
of social penetration will proceed.
VI. Relational outcome: Rewards minus costs.
A. Thibaut and Kelley suggest that people try to predict the outcome of an interaction
before it takes place.
1. The economic approach to determining behavior dates from John Stuart Mill’s
principle of utility.
3. The higher we index a relational outcome, the more attractive the behavior that
might make it happen.
B. Social exchange theory assumes that people can accurately gauge the benefits of
their actions and make sensible choices based on their predictions.
C. As relationships develop, the nature of interaction that friends find rewarding
evolves.
VII. Gauging relational satisfaction- The comparison level (CL).
A. A person’s CL is the threshold above which an outcome appears attractive.
VIII. Gauging relational stability- The comparison level of alternatives (CLalt).
A. The CLalt is the best relational outcomes currently available outside the relationship.
B. While one’s CL is relatively stable over time, CLalt compares the options at the current
moment.
C. When existent outcomes slide below an established CLalt, relational instability
increases.
D. Social exchange theories have an economic orientation.
E. The CLalt explains why people sometimes stay in unsatisfying relationships.
1. Some women endure abuse because Outcome > CLalt.
2. They will leave only when CLalt > Outcome.
F. The relative values of Outcome, CL, and CLalt help determine one’s willingness to
disclose.
CL.
2. A relationship can be more than satisfying if it is stable, but other satisfying
options are also available (in case this relationship turns sour).
IX. Ethical reflection: Epicurus’ ethical egoism.
A. Psychological egoism reflects many social scientists’ conviction that all of us are
motivated by self-interest.
B. Ethical egoism claims we should act selfishly.
C. Epicurus emphasized the passive pleasures of friendship, good digestion, and above
X. Dialectics and the environment.
A. Altman originally thought that openness is the predominant quality of relationship
changes. The desire for privacy may counteract a unidirectional quest for intimacy.
B. A dialectical model suggests that human social relationships are characterized by
XI. Critique: Pulling back from social penetration.
A. Petronio thinks it’s simplistic to equate self-disclosure with relational closeness.
B. She also challenges the theorists’ view of disclosure boundaries as being fixed and
increasingly less permeable.
Key Names and Terms
Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor
Social psychologists who created social penetration theory. Altman is a researcher at
University of Utah; Taylor, now deceased, was affiliated with Lincoln University,
Pennsylvania.
Social Penetration
Personality Structure
Onion-like layers of beliefs and feelings about self, others, and the world; deeper levels
are more vulnerable, protected, and central to self-image.
Self-disclosure
Depth of penetration
The degree of disclosure in a specific area of an individual’s life.
Law of reciprocity
A paced and ordered process in which openness in one person leads to openness in
the other.
Breadth of penetration
Relationship behavior and status regulated by both parties’ evaluations of perceived
rewards and costs of interaction with each other.
John Thibaut and Harold Kelley
Psychologists who developed social exchange theory or the attempt to quantify the
value of different outcomes for an individual. Thibaut, now deceased, was affiliated
with the University of North Carolina; Kelley is a researcher at UCLA.
Outcome
Comparison level of alternatives (CLalt)
The best outcomes available in other relationships; a standard for relationship stability.
Ethical egoism
The belief that individuals should live their lives so as to maximize their own pleasure
and minimize their own pain.
Dialectical model
The assumption that people want both privacy and intimacy in their social relationships;
they experience a tension between disclosure and withdrawal.
Territoriality
The tendency to claim a physical location or object as our own.
Sandra Petronio
Paul Wright
Professor emeritus from University of North Dakota who believes that friendships often
reach a point of such closeness that self-centered concerns are no longer salient.
Principal Changes
This chapter has been lightly edited for clarity. New research on the power of revealing
autobiographic memories for connecting with others has been included in the section on
Kick-off Questions & Interaction Starters
• Does “instant intimacy” exist?
• What’s at the core of your onion?
• Once you have breached a topic or topical area, is it always possible to revisit that
area? Or revisit it easily? What if you hit on something sensitive or taboo, then what?
Suggestions for Discussion
What is this theory about?
Depending on how you’ve organized your class and how broad your theory selections,
you may find it necessary or helpful to subcategorize theories. When I start this section of
theories, my emphasis turns from meaning and messages to developing connections or
relationships. Social penetration seems to straddle these divisions. With the prominence on
disclosing the contents of the self, I have found students begin to equate SPT with a theory of
Comparison level and comparison level of alternatives
Often, social penetration theory intuitively appeals to students because it reinforces
many of the metaphors and analogies we use to discuss self. It is easy to diagram and to
grasp. The majority of students easily follow the discussion about the onion model and social
penetration though some confusion can arise when talk turns to calculating comparison level
Relationship Outcome
> CLalt
< CLalt
> CL
Happy
Stay
Happy
Leave
< CL
Unhappy
Stay
Unhappy
Leave
Two of the quadrants are relatively simple to explain. The top left-side quadrant (happy,
stay) illustrates most people’s “happily-ever-after” ideal relationship where you’re content and
feel that nothing could be better. The bottom right-side quadrant (unhappy, leave) is also
easily pictured—an unhappy situation and something better comes along. It means leaving a
potentially even more enticing. Another example is a person who likes her job and income, but
gets a better offer. Finally, the bottom left-side box (unhappy, stay) may be illustrative of an
Problems with the theory
In several ways, social penetration theory relies upon a problematic construction of the
self, self-disclosure, and overall process of communication itself, and thus it should provide
more thoughtful students with a good exercise in theory critique. For example, characterizing
self-disclosure as penetration may confound the issues of agent and agency. It is, after all, the
speaker who discloses, rather than the audience of the disclosure who acts, who exposes the
An additional problem is that the images of the wedge and the onion suggest that self–
disclosure is an asymmetrical, rather than a reciprocal, egalitarian process. Although, as
noted in the chapter, the sexual connotations of the term penetration were not intended by
In addition to the problems inherent in the image of the penetrating wedge are the
difficulties brought on by the comparison of the self to an onion. Although this analogy is easy
to visualize, it suggests that the self is a static, stable, completed, knowable entity that is
gradually exposed or discovered; it is not therefore dynamic, shaped by the process of
communication. To evoke a parallel, but more risqué, analogy, Altman and Taylor’s discloser
The onion metaphor
The onion metaphor is also problematic because of the remarkable uniformity of this
particular vegetable. As one peels away the outer layers of this pungent sphere, what one
finds is more and more layers. In this sense, then, the actual structure of the onion suggests
that there is no immutable essence of personhood at the center of our psyches, and that we
Copyright © 2018 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the
prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
are all packaging and no content. Like a Russian nesting doll, nothing unique is contained in
the center, only more and more dolls. It is ironic that this most postmodern view of self, which
works against the fundamental assumptions of social penetration theory, is evoked by its
central analogy.
Sample Application Log
Dan
I have always been cautious about what I tell people about myself. I never want to reveal
something that I might later regret. But I do like to have close relationships. The problem is I
find it takes a long time for me to form that closeness. When I was in sixth grade I moved to a
new school. I didn’t begin to feel like people really knew me until my junior year in high school.
Exercises and Activities
The avocado theory? How about the pineapple?: Changing the model.
As a long-time instructor of theory and interpersonal classes, one can come to love and
loathe teaching this theory. After years of covering social penetration, it is like a familiar
houseguest; it requires little to no preparation and you know exactly what you’ll be asked. On
the other hand, it can get a bit too familiar to the point of being dull and unexciting; it’s hard to
get too worked up when there’s nothing novel. If you find yourself in this quandary, perhaps
you will be as excited by this idea as we are: what if it wasn’t the onion theory?
Ask your students how the explanations about self-disclosure and relational
development would be different with a different fruit or vegetable. Using this method, I have
found students really engage in discussions about both the nature of the relational process
and the theory’s assumptions. I put students in smaller groups (usually no more than 5) and
assign each a new fruit or vegetable. Using a new fruit or vegetable as their model, what would
The onion
Figure 8.1 presents an onionized version of Pete’s personality structure. Consider
asking your students to create onions of their own psyches. How would they designate their
own personality layers? As you discuss the results of their models, see what sorts of
similarities and differences emerge among your students. Is Pete’s personality structure a
good approximation of your average student?
You might also consider using a real onion, a few toothpicks and a knife as your object
lesson. Recruit volunteers to talk through key components of the theory: personality,
“Who are you?” interviews and self-disclosure
If you and your students enjoy in-class demonstrations/tests of theory, consider the
following exercise. Divide your students into pairs to conduct interviews. Tell them to decide
who will be the interviewer and who will be the interviewee for the first phase, and indicate that
the roles will be reversed in the second phase. Allow approximately five minutes for each turn.
During the first phase, the interviewers begin by asking their partners, “Who are you?” After
the interviewee has answered, the interviewer repeats the question or offers follow-up queries.
After the time has expired, the students switch roles for the second phase. This time, the
Feature-film examples
In a throwback nod to EVT, at times, doing the predictable thing might be the best
course of action. One would be remiss to not show the short clip from Shrek where the title
character beautifully describes that “ogres are like onions; they have layers!” One could hardly
ask for a better way to start your class period—and your students will most likely recognize it
immediately.
Another provocative film is Almost Famous (2000), the story of a teenage boy who
develops quirky and revealing relationships with rock stars, their groupies, and the writers who
teacher at Santa Barbara City College and much respected textbook writer—identifies the
scene in which the featured rock band believes it is about to perish in a plane crash as a vivid
demonstration of the potential downside of intimate self-disclosure.
The Proposal (2009) provides a number of useful examples to illustrate SPT.
Pretending to be a romantic couple to fool immigration, Margaret (played by Sandra Bullock)
and Andrew (Ryan Reynolds) go back and forth with surface disclosures; they recognize that if
they were a couple, they should know this level of content about each other. It becomes clear
The Disney animated feature Zootopia (2016) has an excellent scene you might show in
class. Officer Judy Hopps (a rabbit) and Nick Wilde (a fox) have a rocky start to their
partnership; he is quickly stereotyped as a con artist and she is overly naïve. But when they are
forced to work together to solve a mystery, and glide over the park in a gondola, the
The Johari window
An alternative model of self and self-disclosure that you might consider sharing with
your class is the Johari window, which characterizes the issues of agency and reciprocity more
effectively than does the social penetration approach, perhaps. One must not forget though
Further Resources
▪ If students want to learn more about social exchange theory, Griffin’s chapter-length
treatment from the Second Edition is a good place to begin (available in the theory archive
at www.afirstlook.com).
▪ For some applications of SPT in a technology-driven age, a few good articles to explore
include:
o Babajide Osatuyi, Katia Passerini, Aurelio Ravarini, and Sukeshini A. Grandhi, “‘Fool
me once, shame on you… then, I learn.’ An examination of information disclosure in
o Jih-Hsin Tang and Cheng-Chung Wang, “Self-disclosure Among Bloggers: Re-
examination of Social Penetration Theory,” CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social
Johari window
▪ If you present the Johari window to complement and contrast with social penetration, see:
o Terry R. Armstrong, “Revisiting the Johari Window: Improving Communications
Through Self-disclosure and Feedback,” Human Development, Vol. 27, 2006, pp.
10–14.
o Moshe Bensimon, and Dorit Amir, “Sharing My Music with You: The Musical