1. Won’t you tell me your name?”
Chapter Ten
Theories of Communication in Developing Relationships
“Hello, I love you.
Won’t you tell me your name?”

2. Social Penetration Theory
Social Penetration Theory (SPT) Altman and Taylor
SPT has been developed further by communication scholars
SPT is a post-positivist theory of the broad scope of relational development

3. Social Penetration Theory: Stages
Orientation Stage: Interaction ruled by social convention and formulas
Exploratory Affective Stage: Interactants begin to share more information and are more relaxed and friendly
Affective Stage: Close friendships and romantic relationships in which a great deal of open exchange occurs
Stable Exchange Stage: Continuing openness and richness in interaction

4. Social Penetration Theory: Breadth and Depth of Exchange
As people move through these stages, both the breadth and depth of information exchange increase (“onion model” of SPT)
Self-disclosure: Any communication shared about one’s self—intimate or not
SD changes through relational development:
Norm of reciprocity
Peripheral before private
Rate of disclosure begins to slow at deeper levels

5. A different view of the “onion”
Breadth
Depth

6. Metts add
(1) The onion model not used much anymore; self-disclosure is more cyclical than continuously wider and deeper

7. Social Exchange Processes
The motivation to move in and out of relationships is explained by Social Exchange Theory
Social Exchange Theory--“economic” model: outcomes, comparison level and comparison level of alternatives
People motivated to be in relationships that provide them with high levels of rewards and low levels of costs.

8. Rewards positive consequences of being in a relationship
Emotional: positive affect when with partner (love, warmth, etc.)
Social: activities, events, other people
Instrumental: partner helps accomplish tasks
Opportunity: relationship allows you to do something you couldn’t do otherwise

9. Costs negative consequences of being in a relationship
Emotional: negative affect with partner
Social: having to do socially undesired activities/interact with partner’s friends
Instrumental: partner prevents tasks from being accomplished or creates more work
Opportunity: life experiences given up for the sake of the relationship

10. Outcomes
The outcome refers to the overall level of “profit” or “deficit” in relationships
rewards – costs = outcome
Relationships are generally rewarding when outcomes are positive, and generally costly when outcomes are negative

11. Comparison Level
Comparison level (CL) : “standard” by which people evaluate their relationships
how rewarding or costly you expect your relationship to be
based on prior experience, family model, friends, media, etc.
Outcome - CL= Satisfaction
When outcome meets or exceeds the CL, people are satisfied.
When the outcome falls under the CL, people are dissatisfied.

12. Comparison Level for Alternatives
Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLAlt)
perceptions that an alternative to the relationship exists (another partner, being single, etc.)
Poor alternatives are related to more commitment
Good alternatives are related to less commitment

13. Combined Effect of CL and CLAlt
Poor Good
The Relationship:
Meets or Exceeds CL
Fails to Meet CL
Satisfied and Committed
Satisfied but Uncommitted
Dissatisfied but Committed
Dissatisfied and Uncommitted

14. Original Investment Model
Rewards
Satisfaction
Costs
Commit-
ment
Stability CL
Investment
CLAlt

15. Current Investment Model
Rewards
Costs CL
Satisfaction
Benign Attribs. & Emots.
Accomm.
Behavior
Stabl.
Commit.
Investments
CL-Alt
Decision to remain
Accommodate partner
Not retaliate
Derogation of alternatives
Willingness to sacrifice
Perc. rel. superiority
Stabl

16. Metts add: Equity Theory
Equity theory compares the ratio of contributions (costs) versus benefits (rewards) for each relational partner
This ratio does not have to be equal for equity to exist; rather it has to be equivalent.
Ex: Christy has a cost/reward ratio of 5/ Steve has a cost/reward ratio of 3/6.
In an equitable relationship, both partners are getting a “fair deal” based on their benefits vs. contributions.

17. The Concept of Inequity
When one partner is getting a “worse deal” in comparison to the other partner, there is inequity.
A person can feel under-benefited or over-benefited.
A person can have more rewards than costs and still be under-benefited by comparison.
Example:
Ted has a r/c ratio of 12/8 while his partner, Emily, has a r/c ratio of 12/3.

18. SPT: Development and Tests of Theory
Support for many predictions of SPT
Esp. role of self-disclosure
But difficult to test full range of theory over development of “real-life” relationships
SPT has also been criticized for being an overly rational and economic model of rel. development (where is emotion? Planalp)
Metts add: Is it really the sum of costs and rewards or the salient/magnitude?

19. SPT, cont.
Paradoxically, it has also been critiqued for the ideology of total openness as an ideal
Knapp’s stage model is contemporary (1978) but more communication focused (includes social network, ritualized bonding, and coming apart stages—next slide)
More recent approaches are dialectical theory (covered in ch. 11) and turning points

21. Turning Points analysis
Meeting Parents
C First Sex Reunion O M
I First Fight Time apart T E N
First Fight
Time

22. Uncertainty Reduction Theory
Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT): Berger & Calabrese (1975)
URT originally designed to explain processes of initial interaction
URT considers ways in which interactants attempt to reduce cognitive uncertainty when we first interact with someone
predictive and explanatory uncertainty
cognitive and behavioral uncertainty

23. Form of URT URT is an axiomatic theory
URT begins with 7 basic axioms (e.g., High levels of uncertainty cause increases in information seeking. As uncertainty levels decline, information seeking decreases, p. 177, Table 10.1).
Axioms are not unquestioned truths, but are the untestable building blocks of the theory
URT then logically combines these axioms to derive 21 testable theorems

24. UNC VC NVA Info-Skg Recip Intim Simil Liking --- 2. NVA
3. Info-Seeking
4. Intimacy
5. Recip
6. Simil
7. Liking

25. Uncertainty Reduction Theory: Developments
URT has been extended to consider strategies for reducing uncertainty.
active (asking others, manipulating environ.),
passive (observing)
interactive (self-disclosure & questions)
URT has been extended to consider motivations for reducing uncertainty. These include incentives, deviation, and possibility of future interaction

26. Uncertainty Reduction Theory: Tests and Critiques
URT has received some evidence for both basic predictions and extensions regarding information search and motivations
URT has been critiqued in terms of the motivational force that drives information seeking.
Critics contend that anticipating future interaction (anticipating positive and negative relational outcomes) is more important than uncertainty reduction (Sunnafrank—Predicted Outcome Value)

27. Uncertainty Reduction Theory: Expansions
URT has been expanded to consider relationships beyond initial interaction
Events that increase uncertainty in established rels.
Levels of uncertainty—self, partner, relationship
URT has been expanded to uncertainty in intercultural relationships—Gudykunst’s Anxiety Uncertainty Management theory (includes social and cultural identity; anxiety as emotion + uncertainty as cognitive, and intercultural adaptation as outcome)
The uncertainty concept has also been applied to research in organizational socialization and social support