Presentation on theme: "Won’t you tell me your name?”"— Presentation transcript:
1Won’t you tell me your name?” Chapter TenTheories of Communication in Developing Relationships“Hello, I love you.Won’t you tell me your name?”
2Social Penetration Theory Social Penetration Theory (SPT) Altman and TaylorSPT has been developed further by communication scholarsSPT is a post-positivist theory of the broad scope of relational development
3Social Penetration Theory: Stages Orientation Stage: Interaction ruled by social convention and formulasExploratory Affective Stage: Interactants begin to share more information and are more relaxed and friendlyAffective Stage: Close friendships and romantic relationships in which a great deal of open exchange occursStable Exchange Stage: Continuing openness and richness in interaction
4Social 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 notSD changes through relational development:Norm of reciprocityPeripheral before privateRate of disclosure begins to slow at deeper levels
6Metts add(1) The onion model not used much anymore; self-disclosure is more cyclical than continuously wider and deeper
7Social Exchange Processes The motivation to move in and out of relationships is explained by Social Exchange TheorySocial Exchange Theory--“economic” model: outcomes, comparison level and comparison level of alternativesPeople motivated to be in relationships that provide them with high levels of rewards and low levels of costs.
8Rewards positive consequences of being in a relationship Emotional: positive affect when with partner (love, warmth, etc.)Social: activities, events, other peopleInstrumental: partner helps accomplish tasksOpportunity: relationship allows you to do something you couldn’t do otherwise
9Costs negative consequences of being in a relationship Emotional: negative affect with partnerSocial: having to do socially undesired activities/interact with partner’s friendsInstrumental: partner prevents tasks from being accomplished or creates more workOpportunity: life experiences given up for the sake of the relationship
10OutcomesThe outcome refers to the overall level of “profit” or “deficit” in relationshipsrewards – costs = outcomeRelationships are generally rewarding when outcomes are positive, and generally costly when outcomes are negative
11Comparison LevelComparison level (CL) : “standard” by which people evaluate their relationshipshow rewarding or costly you expect your relationship to bebased on prior experience, family model, friends, media, etc.Outcome - CL= SatisfactionWhen outcome meets or exceeds the CL, people are satisfied.When the outcome falls under the CL, people are dissatisfied.
12Comparison 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 commitmentGood alternatives are related to less commitment
13Combined Effect of CL and CLAlt Poor GoodThe Relationship:Meets or Exceeds CLFails to Meet CLSatisfied and CommittedSatisfied but UncommittedDissatisfied but CommittedDissatisfied and Uncommitted
14Original Investment Model RewardsSatisfactionCostsCommit-mentStabilityCLInvestmentCLAlt
15Current Investment Model RewardsCostsCLSatisfactionBenign Attribs. & Emots.Accomm.BehaviorStabl.Commit.InvestmentsCL-AltDecision to remainAccommodate partnerNot retaliateDerogation of alternativesWillingness to sacrificePerc. rel. superiorityStabl
16Metts add: Equity Theory Equity theory compares the ratio of contributions (costs) versus benefits (rewards) for each relational partnerThis 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.
17The 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.
18SPT: Development and Tests of Theory Support for many predictions of SPTEsp. role of self-disclosureBut difficult to test full range of theory over development of “real-life” relationshipsSPT 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?
19SPT, cont.Paradoxically, it has also been critiqued for the ideology of total openness as an idealKnapp’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
21Turning Points analysis Meeting ParentsC First Sex ReunionOMI First Fight Time apartTENFirst FightTime
22Uncertainty Reduction Theory Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT): Berger & Calabrese (1975)URT originally designed to explain processes of initial interactionURT considers ways in which interactants attempt to reduce cognitive uncertainty when we first interact with someonepredictive and explanatory uncertaintycognitive and behavioral uncertainty
23Form 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 theoryURT then logically combines these axioms to derive 21 testable theorems
25Uncertainty 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
26Uncertainty Reduction Theory: Tests and Critiques URT has received some evidence for both basic predictions and extensions regarding information search and motivationsURT 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)
27Uncertainty Reduction Theory: Expansions URT has been expanded to consider relationships beyond initial interactionEvents that increase uncertainty in established rels.Levels of uncertainty—self, partner, relationshipURT 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