1st Class, Tuesday, Social Penetration Theory

A highly objective theory in the socio-psychological tradition.

Theorist: Irwin Altman & Dalmas Taylor

• the theorists were interested how closeness is developed - through mutual self-disclosure

1. Metaphor: Onion - everyone has their comfort level of sharing themselves

1）Closeness develops if individuals proceed in a gradual, orderly fashion from superficial to intimate.

2）Outer layer: how we present ourselves in public space

core: who we are at the core of ourselves

3）self-disclosure has both depth and breadth

breadth: how far we are willing to share (differnt topics)

depth: the degree of intimacy is going below (superficial-intimate-personal-core)

• Observations about depth:
  • Peripheral items are exchanged more often and sooner.
  • Self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially early on.
  • Social pen is rapid at the beginning but slows down once the inner layers of the onion are reached.
  • Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal.

2. The result: how we regulate closeness

1)outcome (people regulate their closeness) = rewards - costs (people always maximize rewards but minimize costs)

We use comparison level and comparison level of alternative to compare the outcome.

• Comparison level (CL): the threshold above which an outcome appears attractive
• Comparison level of alternatives (CLalt): evaluating other relationships’ options at this moment
• Optimum disclosure occurs when both parties believe outcome > CL > CLalt

2)relationship satisfaction: is gauged using the CL which is the threshold above which a relational outcome appears attractive. (especially based past experiences)

3)relationship stability: is gauged using CLalt, which is the best relational outcome currently available outside the relationship. (it’s about the options at the current moment)

3. Critiques

• disclosure does not always mean closeness.
  • like sometimes to manipulate others.
• Social exchange assumptions.
• Social media and disclosure.
  • We can learn a person on social media, but do not know them. Just keep it to yourself.
• Do people always act in their own interest?
  • This theory encourages selfishness, but in friendship, we can sacrifice.

2nd Class, Thursday, Uncertainty Reduction Theory

A highly objective theory in the socio-psychological tradition.

Theorist: Charles Berger

He was inspired by the idea that we have initial doubts about someone. Why did we choose to reduce uncertainty?

• To anticipate the future interaction.
• Incentive value: they have something you want
• They act in a way that feels weird to you: deviate. You want to reduce the feeling.

1. Two ways of uncertainty

behavioral+cognitive

2. Eight truths (axioms) about initial uncertainty

axiom: self-evident truth that requires no additional testing/support

1）verbal comunication

As verbal communication increases, uncertainty decreases.

2）nonverbal warmth

As nonverbal warmth increases, uncertainty decreases.

3）information seeking

High level of uncertainty will cause increase in information seeking behavior.

4）self-disclosure

High level of uncertainty will cause decrease in self-disclousre.

5）reciprocity

High level of uncertainty produce high risk of high reciprocity.

6）similarity

Similarity between persons reduces uncertainty.

7）liking

Increases in uncertainty level decreases liking.

8）shared networks

The more people you have in common, the less uncertain you will be about them (not necessary like them).

3. The axioms combine to create 28 theorems

• “+” positive relationships
• “-” negative relationships

4. Uncertainty reduction in intercultural situations

when culture’s different, that uncertainty is highly. The greater the culture gap, the larger the likelihood that uncertainty will be produced.

And uncertainty (thought) produces anxiety (feeling).

5. Relational turbulence theory

explains how uncertainty affects people in ongoing relationships.

• Interference can be a factor. When you goals are hindered.
• Relational uncertainty (self, partner, and relationship) can be a factor.
• Relational turbulence: react bigger because inference, uncertainty, etc.

6. How do emotions impact the management of uncertainty?

The strength of the emotion is the motive force to contemplate three questions of efficacy.

• coping efficacy: can I cope with what I might discover?
• communication efficacy: do I have the skills it takes to seek information? Like asking the right question.
• target efficacy: Will they give me honest information?

7. Information seeking to reduce uncertainty

• passive
• active: asking the third party for information.
• interactive: engage in face-to-face discussion, asking them questions upon meeting them.
• extractive

8. Critiques

• Theorems may be not true.
• Reasons that reduce uncertainty not always hold up.
• Uncertainty reduction may not drive our behavior.