Growing up, I went to a very small private high school in Visalia, California. Our school was 300 students strong and was known for our tight-knit student body. The school offers Pre-K through high school, and many of us went to that school the whole way through. This created an intimate environment, we were very close to each other and had watched one another grow up. What was interesting, was when new students joined our class. For many of them, the closeness of our group was intimidating. It was hard to come into a class where everyone had known each other for years. One year on the first day of school I noticed a new face, we’ll call her Maddie. As time passed and the school year began, my friends and I tried to befriend her and make her feel welcome. Maddie was shy but it was obvious she wanted to feel like she belonged. One night we invited her for a sleep over. Everything was going well, we ate pizza, watched some movies, then something changed right as we were settling down for bed. We were talking about some drama at school, Maddie was quietly listening, then all the sudden she entered the conversation and started sharing EVERYTHING. We had only known Maddie for a few weeks, and she hadn’t really told us much about her, even with us asking questions here and there. So my friends and I were a bit taken back and uncomfortable when she started sharing such personal things out of the blue. The theory of Social Penetration describes why my friends and I felt that way, as well as Maddie’s motivation for her intimate disclosures.
Social Penetration theory describes the progression of interpersonal relationships. This objective theory states that as long as a relationship 1) engages is proper self disclosure and 2) calculates optimal benefits for now and the future, closeness will develop. Self disclosure is the sharing of personal information. Social Penetration theory believes proper self disclosure begins with sharing superficial information, then slowly works into the mid range, followed by intimate information. This was the natural progression that most of my classmates/friends and I had been developing for years. We began with sharing our names, our likes and dislikes. As we spent more time together we shared about our goals, our morals, and ethics. Then finally after spending many years with some of my closest friends, we shared a little bit about our greatest fears, dreams, regrets, and insecurities. Social Penetration theory would categorize those very close relationships as affective or maybe even stable. Calculating relationship outcomes is based on whether or not someone meets our communication expectations, or if someone else can do better. This idea can be seen in my closest relationships. The people that I became closest with were ones I felt met my standards a a friend. Everyones expectations in relationships are different, for example I value a comedic, high energy, and loyal friend. Social Penetration theory states that with those that you self disclose and that meet your expectations, you will become close with.
Back to my story with Maddie. Maddie wanted to be close with us, she saw the intimate relationships our friend group shared and she wanted in. Therefore, she thought that by charing the deep intimate level information, that she would become closer with us. According to Social Penetration theory however, that was against the rules of self discloser and would not always result in closeness. This method of sharing intimate information very soon in a relationship is actually commonly used. An academic study was done on Sorority and Fraternity members to track the level of self disclosure when interacting with potential new members. The study was labeled “A SOCIAL IDENTITY APPROACH TO INTERGROUP CONTACT BETWEEN FRATERNITY AND SORORITY MEMBERS AND NON-MEMBERS” and found high levels of deep self disclosure between the groups. I find this theory to be a helpful and reliable road map to developing closeness in interpersonal relationships. I have found much of my personal experience with relationships quite predictable with this objective theory, as well as relationships i’ve read about and observed.
Citations:
Altman, I. & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt.
Warber, Katie M, et al. “A SOCIAL IDENTITY APPROACH TO INTERGROUP CONTACT BETWEEN FRATERNITY AND SORORITY MEMBERS AND NON-MEMBERS.”