➡️ Video Lesson
➡️ Study Card
➡️ Introduction
Social penetration theory states that as relationships progress, the individuals involved will become closer and share more personal information with one another.
Carpenter & Greene (2015) show that the onion analogy is a fitting illustration for outlining the workings of social penetration theory.
They explain that takes a significant amount of time to get to a person’s “core self”, which often contains the most intimate details about that person. Like the layers of an onion, a person has a superficial outer layer, a more personal middle layers, inner layers, and a core personality (p. 1-2).
➡️ Phases of Social Penetration
Phases of Social Penetration
According Altman and Taylor, there are four distinct stages in a relationship, coupled with the possibility of a fifth phase that can occur known as social depenetration.
This includes:
- The orientation phase
- The exploratory phase
- The affective exchange phase
- The stable phase, and
- The social depenetration phase
Altman & Taylor (1973) state:
“…as people continue to interact and maintain a relationship, they gradually move toward deeper areas of their mutual personalities through the use of words, bodily behavior, and environmental behaviors” (p. 27).
This process is called self-disclosure, and according to Altman & Taylor (1973), the longer people interact, the more they disclose about themselves personally(pp. 26-29).
Social Penetration Theory Examples
1. Neighbors Who Share a Love for Gardening
- Orientation Phase: They greet each other with a simple “Hello” when passing by.
- Exploratory Phase: They start talking about their gardening interests and exchange tips.
- Affective Phase: They share personal stories about their families and past gardening successes.
- Stable Phase: They invite each other over to see their gardens and help each other with gardening projects.
- Depenetration Phase: They begin to see each other less often as one neighbor becomes busy with work, and their interactions become limited to polite greetings.
2. College Roommates Adjusting to Campus Life
- Orientation Phase: They introduce themselves during the first day in their dorm room and discuss their majors.
- Exploratory Phase: They talk about their hometowns and high school experiences.
- Affective Phase: They start hanging out together outside of the dorm, sharing personal stories and future plans.
- Stable Phase: They become close friends, regularly spending time together and helping each other through tough times.
- Depenetration Phase: After graduation, they slowly lose touch, with communication dwindling to occasional messages on social media.
3. Coworkers Bonding Over a New Project
- Orientation: They exchange names and job titles during a team meeting.
- Exploratory: They discuss their previous work experiences and their current project tasks.
- Affective: They start having lunch together, sharing personal stories and aspirations.
- Stable: They form a strong friendship, confiding in each other and offering support both professionally and personally.
- Depenetration: One coworker changes jobs, and their interactions become limited to LinkedIn messages and occasional catch-ups.
4. Book Club Members Discovering Shared Interests
- Orientation: They introduce themselves and share what kind of books they enjoy.
- Exploratory: They discuss their thoughts on the current book and other hobbies they have.
- Affective: They start meeting outside of the book club, talking about their personal lives and interests.
- Stable: They become good friends, sharing books and supporting each other in personal matters.
- Depenetration: One member moves away, and their interactions become limited to occasional online chats.
5. Gym Buddies Motivating Each Other
- Orientation: They exchange names during a workout class.
- Exploratory: They discuss their fitness goals and routines.
- Affective: They start working out together, sharing tips and personal experiences.
- Stable: They form a close bond, motivating each other and discussing personal life challenges.
- Depenetration: One person stops attending the gym, and their interactions fade to social media likes.
6. Parents Meeting at a School Event
- Orientation: They introduce themselves at a PTA meeting.
- Exploratory: They talk about their children’s activities and school experiences.
- Affective: They start arranging playdates and sharing personal stories about parenting.
- Stable: They become close friends, supporting each other in parenting challenges and personal life.
- Depenetration: One family moves to a different city, and their interactions become limited to holiday cards.
7. Travelers Meeting on a Group Tour
- Orientation: They introduce themselves at the start of the tour.
- Exploratory: They share their reasons for traveling and favorite destinations.
- Affective: They start exploring together, sharing personal stories and travel experiences.
- Stable: They become travel buddies, planning future trips and staying in touch regularly.
- Depenetration: After a few years, their travel schedules no longer align, and their interactions become less frequent.
8. Volunteers Working at a Charity Event
- Orientation: They exchange names and roles at the event.
- Exploratory: They talk about their motivations for volunteering and other events they’ve participated in.
- Affective: They start volunteering together regularly, sharing personal stories and life experiences.
- Stable: They form a close bond, supporting each other in and out of volunteering activities.
- Depenetration: One volunteer moves away, and their interactions become limited to occasional updates.
9. Online Gamers Becoming Friends
- Orientation: They introduce themselves in the game chat.
- Exploratory: They discuss their gaming strategies and favorite games.
- Affective: They start playing together regularly, sharing personal stories and interests outside gaming.
Stable: They form a strong friendship, chatting daily and supporting each other in personal matters. - Depenetration: One player stops playing as often, and their interactions become limited to sporadic messages.
10. Students in a Study Group
- Orientation: They introduce themselves and share their majors during the first study group meeting.
- Exploratory: They discuss their study habits and academic goals.
- Affective: They start studying together regularly, sharing personal stories and future aspirations.
- Stable: They become close friends, supporting each other academically and personally.
- Depenetration: After graduation, they move to different cities, and their interactions become limited to occasional catch-ups.
➡️ Strengths of Social Penetration Theory
Strengths of Social Penetration Theory
One of the key strengths of the social penetration theory is its simplicity. It provides a useful framework for understanding how people interact and how relationships develop over time.
The theory is able to account for the differences between individuals, as well as the differences in the level of intimacy that they feel comfortable sharing with one another.
A variety of research studies support the social penetration theory, and justify idea it proposes on levels of self-disclosure.
Researchers Tang & Wang (2012) suggest, that even though technology and anonymity on the internet and social media platforms have become an everyday method of communication.
When social penetration theory was applied to the context of internet blogging, it revealed that bloggers disclose their thoughts, feelings, and experiences to their best friends in the real world with more depth and sincerity, than they did their online audiences (p. 247).
This supports social penetration theory in that it reveals that online acquaintances are not privy to the same level of intimate knowledge as a person in the bloggers real-life inner circle.
Trefalt (2013) also confirms the validity of social penetration theory in her research related to work and non-work co-worker relationships.
She used four categories to exemplify relationships in the workplace: new, leery, close, and establish.
In the interviews she conducted with members of a law firm, she found that the social boundaries between co-workers became less constrained as they moved towards a more established relationship (pp. 1809-1812).
➡️ Criticisms of Social Penetration Theory
Criticisms of Social Penetration Theory
Some have argued that the theory fails to account for the complexity of relationships and the fact that relationships can progress at different speeds.
Additionally, critics have commented that the theory does not explain the nuances of why some relationships are more successful than others.
Furthermore, the theory is based on the assumption that all relationships progress in the same manner, which may not be the reality of all relationships.
In reference to the limited scope of the social penetration theory, Greene & Carpenter (2016) suggest that the theory is only applicable to the explanation of early stages of relationship building and how some romantic relationships grow over time; it does not apply well with regards to more complex connections such as coworkers, neighbors, or online acquaintances who interact on the internet .
They say that there is a statistical lack of evidence to support the theory, and they argue that the deepening of some relationships does not follow a linear pattern (Greene & Carpenter, 2016, p.4-5).
Modern academics are also finding that the social penetration theory has become dated in its approach to relationships. Panos (2014) remarks that social penetration theory was originally describing:
“…one-to-one and face-to-face contexts of communication…this classical model does not seem to fit well with the one-to-many modes of communicating of SNS” that exist in the modern world (p.188).
➡️ References and Further Reading
References
Akrout, H., Diallo, M. F., Akrout, W., & Chandon, J. L. (2016). Affective trust in buyer-seller relationships: a two-dimensional scale. Journal of Business &Amp; Industrial Marketing, 31(2), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1108/jbim-11-2014-0223
Altman, I. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Carpenter, A., & Greene, K. (2015). Social Penetration Theory. The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic160
Mangus, S. M., Bock, D. E., Jones, E., & Folse, J. A. G. (2020). Examining the effects of mutual information sharing and relationship empathy: A social penetration theory perspective. Journal of Business Research, 109, 375– 384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.019
Pennington, N. (2021). Extending Social Penetration Theory to Facebook. The Journal of Social Media in Society, Vol. 10(No. 2), 325–343.
Panos, D. (2014). “I” on the Web: Social Penetration Theory Revisited. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n19p185
Tang, J. H., & Wang, C. C. (2012). Self-Disclosure Among Bloggers: Re-Examination of Social Penetration Theory. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(5), 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0403
Trefalt, P. (2013). Between You and Me: Setting Work-Nonwork Boundaries in the Context of Workplace Relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1802–1829. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0298
Gregory Paul C. (MA)
Gregory Paul C. is a licensed social studies educator, and has been teaching the social sciences in some capacity for 13 years. He currently works at university in an international liberal arts department teaching cross-cultural studies in the Chuugoku Region of Japan. Additionally, he manages semester study abroad programs for Japanese students, and prepares them for the challenges they may face living in various countries short term.
This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.