The social penetration theory (SPT) proposes that, as relationships develop, interpersonal to more intimate ones. Self-disclosure is the major way to bring a relationship to a new level of intimacy. 16– ^ Jump up to: Simonds, L. M. Education is a social institution through which a society's children are taught basic . The emphasis of this program is on fostering relationships with universities in . This socialization also involves learning the rules and norms of the society . Put simply, what used to be considered C-level, or average, now often earns a. Why do we feel resentment when we feel we've put more into a relationship or sacrificed more following norms and rules, achieving goals, and playing roles. writings, Homans, never uses the phrase “social exchange theory. .. Page 16 .
Some examples of inputs can be qualifications, promotions, interest on the job and how hard one works. Some outcomes can be pay, fringe benefits, and power status. The individual will mainly expect an equitable input-outcome ratio. This can occur in a direct exchange of the two parties, or there can be a third party involved. These changes can occur over a person's life course through the various relationships, opportunities, and means of support.
An example of this is the convoy model of support, this model uses concentric circles to describe relationships around an individual with the strongest relationships in the closet circle.
As a person ages, these relationships form a convoy that moves along with the person and exchanges in support and assistance through different circumstances that occur. Within this model, there are different types of support Social support a person can receive, those being intangible, tangible, instrumental, and informational.
Intangible support can either be social or emotional and can be love, friendship and appreciation that comes with valuable relationships.
Tangible support are physical gifts given to someone such as land, gifts, money, transportation, food, and completing chores. Instrumental support are services given to someone in a relationship.
Finally, informational support is the delivering of information that is helpful to an individual. Cost being equal, they choose alternatives from which they anticipate the greatest rewards. Rewards being equal, they choose alternatives from which they anticipate the fewest costs. Immediate outcomes being equal, they choose those alternatives that promise better long- term outcomes. Long-term outcomes being perceived as equal, they choose alternatives providing better immediate outcomes.
Costs and other rewards being equal, individuals choose the alternatives that supply or can be expected to supply the most social approval or those that promise the least social disapproval.
Costs and other rewards being equal, individuals choose statuses and relationships that provide the most autonomy. Other rewards and costs equal, individuals choose alternatives characterized by the least ambiguity in terms of expected future events and outcomes.
Other costs and rewards equal, they choose alternatives that offer the most security for them. Other rewards and costs equal, they choose to associate with, marry, and form other relationships with those whose values and opinions generally are in agreement with their own and reject or avoid those with whom they chronically disagree. Other rewards and costs equal, they are more likely to associate with, marry, and form other relationships with their equals, than those above or below them.
Equality here is viewed as the sum of abilities, performances, characteristics, and statuses that determine one's desirability in the social marketplace.
In industrial societies, other costs and rewards equal, individuals choose alternatives that promise the greatest financial gains for the least financial expenditures. In his article published inNye originally proposed seven propositions that were common in all types of relationship, A few years later he would expand the propositions to a total of twelve.
The first five propositions listed are classified as general propositions and are substance free-meaning, the propositions themselves can stand alone within the theory. Proposition number six has been identified by scholars as a notion that there is a general assumption of a need for social approval as a reward and can therefor act as a drive force behind actions.
Proposition seven will only work if the individual has the freedom to be excluded from outside factors while in a social exchange relationship. The twelfth and final proposition is directed towards the way our society has a heightened value placed on monetary funds. By studying such forms of behavior he hoped to illuminate the informal sub-institutional bases of more complex social behavior, typically more formal and often institutionalized.
His vision of the underpinnings of social structure and institutional forms is linked to the actions of individuals, for example to their responses to rewarding and punishment circumstances. This set of theoretical ideas represents the core of Homans's version of social exchange theory. Malinowski[ edit ] With his Kula exchange, Malinowski drew a sharp differentiation between economic exchange and social exchange.
Using his Kula exchange, Malinowski states that the motives of exchange are only social and psychological. Mauss argues the exchange found in the society is influenced by social behaviors, while morality and religion influence all aspects of life. Bohannan[ edit ] Bohannan focuses his theory on economic problems such as multicentrism, and modes of exchange. He contributed to the social exchange theory finding the role and function of markets in tribal subsistence economies, makes a distinction of economic redistribution and market exchange from social relationships.
Polanyi[ edit ] He proposes three principles to create a new idea for socioeconomic change, transforming traditional economies, and political economic development. Sahlins[ edit ] He presents the idea that the economy is a category of behavior instead of just a simple category of culture.
Assumptions[ edit ] Social exchange theory is not one theory but a frame of reference within which many theories can speak to another, whether in argument or mutual support. Thibaut and Kelley have based their theory on two conceptualizations: Thus, the assumptions they make also fall into these categories.
The assumptions that social exchange theory makes about human nature include the following: Humans are rational beings. The standards that humans use to evaluate costs and rewards vary over time and from person to person. The assumptions social exchange theory makes about the nature of relationships include the following: Relational life is a process.
The prisoner's dilemma is a widely used example in game theory that attempts to illustrate why or how two individuals may not cooperate with each other, even if it is in their best interest to do so.
It demonstrates that while cooperation would give the best outcome, people might nevertheless act selfishly. We cannot achieve our goals alone so as humans sometimes we have to become actors.
Social exchange theory - Wikipedia
In the world today we see actors as unemotional people but that is not the case once we reach our goals in the end. Comparison levels[ edit ] Social exchange includes "both a notion of a relationship, and some notion of a shared obligation in which both parties perceive responsibilities to each other".
This evaluation rests on two types of comparisons: Comparison Level and Comparison Level for Alternative. According to Thibaut and Kelley, the Comparison Level CL is a standard representing what people feel they should receive in the way of rewards and costs from a particular relationship.
An individual's comparison level can be considered the standard by which an outcome seems to satisfy the individual. If people see no alternative and fear being alone more than being in the relationship, social exchange theory predicts they will stay.
This is congruent with their assumption that human beings are rational. In order for behavioral sequences to lead to social exchange, two conditions must be achieved: The reciprocity principle refers to the mutual reinforcement by two parties of each other's actions. Once the process is in motion, each consequence can create a self-reinforcing cycle.
Even though the norm of reciprocity may be a universally accepted principle, the degree to which people and cultures apply this concept varies. For instance, some theorists view power as distinct from exchanges, some view it as a kind of exchange and others believe power is a medium of exchange. Fate control is the ability to affect a partner's outcomes.
Three different matrices have been described by Thibaut and Kelley to illustrate the patterns people develop. These are given matrix, the effective matrix and the dispositional matrix. ReciprocityGeneralized Exchange, and Productive Exchange. In a direct exchange, reciprocation is confined to the two actors. One social actor provides value to another one and the other reciprocates.
There are three different types of reciprocity: Productive exchange means that both actors have to contribute for either one of them to benefit. Both people incur benefits and costs simultaneously. Another common form of exchange is negotiated exchange which focuses on the negotiation of rules in order for both parties to reach a beneficial agreement. One major difference between the two exchanges is the level of risks associated with the exchange and the uncertainty these risks create ref.
Negotiated exchange can consist of binding and non-binding negotiations. When comparing the levels of risk within these exchanges, reciprocal exchange has the highest level of risk which in result produces the most uncertainty.
Binding negotiated exchanges involve the least amount of risks which will result the individuals feeling low levels of uncertainty. Whereas non-binding negotiated exchanges and their level of risks and uncertainty fall in between the amount of risks associated with reciprocal and binding negotiated exchanges.
Critiques[ edit ] Katherine Miller outlines several major objections to or problems with the social exchange theory as developed from early seminal works  The theory reduces human interaction to a purely rational process that arises from economic theory.
The theory assumes that the ultimate goal of a relationship is intimacy when this might not always be the case. The theory places relationships in a linear structure, when some relationships might skip steps or go backwards in terms of intimacy.
Russell Cropanzano and Marie S. Mitchell discuss how one of the major issues within the social exchange theory is the lack of information within studies on the various exchange rules. Specifically, Rosenfeld looked at the limitations of interracial couples and the application of social exchange theory. His analysis suggest that in modern society, there is less of a gap between interracial partners education level, socioeconomic status, and social class level which in turn, makes the previously understood application of social exchange mute.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
June Learn how and when to remove this template message The most extensive application of social exchange has been in the area of interpersonal relationships. Self-Interest can encourage individuals to make decisions that will benefit themselves overall. Homans once summarized the theory by stating: Social behavior is an exchange of goods, material goods but also non-material ones, such as the symbols of approval or prestige. Persons that give much to others try to get much from them, and persons that get much from others are under pressure to give much to them.
This process of influence tends to work out at equilibrium to a balance in the exchanges.
- Social exchange theory
For a person in an exchange, what he gives may be a cost to him, just as what he gets may be a reward, and his behavior changes less as the difference of the two, profit, tends to a maximum "Theories Used in Research". Anthropology[ edit ] Other applications that developed the idea of exchange include field of anthropology as evidenced in an article by Harumi Befu, which discusses cultural ideas and norms.
Within this field, self-interest, human sentiment and motivational process are not considered. This contrasts with psychological studies of exchange in which behaviors are studied ignoring the culture. Social exchanges from the anthropological perspective have been analyzed using the gift-giving phenomena. The concept of reciprocity under this perspective states that individuals can directly reward his benefactor or another person in the social exchange process.
The basis of this theory is the distinction between restricted exchanges, which is only capable of connecting pairs of social groups, and generalize exchange, which integrates indefinite numbers of groups. One feels as if there is not longer a need for a relationship or communication due to lack of rewards. Once this happens, the process of looking for new partners and resources occurs. This allows a continuation of networking. One may go through this process quite frequently. A View From the social exchange theory applied this theory to new media online dating.
The study discovers the different factors involved when an individual decides to establish an online relationship. The research found how social exchange processes changed during the year by measuring self disclosure. According to the study, the amount one person rewards another and the comparison levels for alternatives become the most important factors in determining liking and satisfaction. They use the concept of reciprocity to understand their findings.
The study concluded that meeting new people is often given as a major reason for participation in leisure activities, and meeting new people may be conceptualized as an exercise of reciprocity. In this case, reciprocity is perceived as a starting mechanism for new social relationships because people are willing to be helped by others, expecting that the help will eventually be returned. This study concludes that Bargaining helps to satisfy the more specific needs of the parties because greater risks are taken to obtain more information.
Interracial marriage[ edit ] Patterns of interracial marriage have been explained using social exchange theory. Kalmijn  suggests that ethnic status is offset against educational or financial resources.
This process has been used to explain why there are more marriages between black men and white women than between white men and black women.
This asymmetry in marriage patterns has been used to support the idea of a racial hierarchy. Lewis,  however, explains that the same patterns of marriage can be accounted for in terms of simple facial attractiveness patterns of the different gender by race groupings. Users of these platforms seem to feel obligated to share simple information as was listed by Pennington, but also highly personal information that can now be considered general knowledge.
In cases like this, there is depth without much breadth. For example, some cultures, like the Japanese, value personal privacy more than others. Therefore, a Japanese person may not self-disclose nearly as much or as enthusiastically as, say, a French person. Partners who come from different religious backgrounds may hesitate to share thoughts or attitudes that concern matters of faith. Men often refrain from expressing deep emotions out of fear of social stigma. Such barriers can slow the rate of self-disclosure and even prevent relationships from forming.
In theory, the more dissimilar two people are, the more difficult or unlikely self-disclosure becomes. Stranger-on-the-train phenomenon[ edit ] Most of the time individuals engage in self-disclosure strategically, carefully evaluating what to disclose and what to be reserved, since disclosing too much in the early stage of relationship is generally considered as inappropriate, which can end or suffocate a relationship.
Whereas, in certain contexts, self-disclosure does not follow the pattern. This exception is known as "stranger-on-the-train or plane or bus " phenomenon, in which individuals reveal personal information with complete strangers in public spaces rapidly. In such situations, self-disclosure is spontaneous rather than strategic.
This specific concept can be known as verbal leakage, which is defined by Floyd as "unintentionally telling another person something about yourself". Some researchers argue that revealing our inner self to complete strangers is deemed as " cathartic exercise" or "service of confession", which allows individuals to unload emotions and express deeper thoughts without being haunted by the potential unfavorable comments or judgements.
Some researcher suggests that this phenomenon occurs because individuals feel less vulnerable to open up to strangers who they are not expected to see again.
Individuals in a relationship who experience anxiety will find it difficult to divulge information regarding their sexuality and desires due to the perceived vulnerabilities in doing so. In a study published by the Archives of Sexual Behaviorsocially anxious individuals generally attribute potential judgement or scrutiny as the main instigators for any insecurities in self-disclosing to their romantic partners.
Rewards and costs assessment[ edit ] Social exchange theory[ edit ] Further information: Social exchange theory Social exchange theory states that humans weigh each relationship and interaction with another human on a reward cost scale without realizing it. If the interaction was satisfactory, then that person or relationship is looked upon favorably. But if an interaction was unsatisfactory, then the relationship will be evaluated for its costs compared to its rewards or benefits. People try to predict the outcome of an interaction before it takes place.
Coming from a scientific standpoint, Altman and Taylor were able to assign letters as mathematical representations of costs and rewards. They also borrowed the concepts from Thibaut and Kelley's in order to describe the relation of costs and rewards of relationships. Thibaut and Kelley's key concepts of relational outcome, relational satisfaction, and relational stability serve as the foundation of Irwin and Taylor's rewards minus costs, comparison level, and comparison level of alternatives.
A major factor of disclosure is an individual calculation in direct relation to benefits of the relationship at hand. Each calculation is unique in its own way because every person prefers different things and therefore will give different responses to different questions.
An example of how rewards and costs can influence behaviour is if an individual were to ask another individual on a date. If they say 'yes', then the first individual has gained a reward, making them more likely to repeat this action. However, if they reply with 'No', then they have received a punishment which in turn would stop them from repeating an action like that in the future.
The more someone discloses to their partner, the greater the intimacy reward will be. When the individuals involved in the relationship hold positive values in this calculation, intimacy proceeds at an accelerated rate.
In the relationship, if both parties are dyad, the cost exceeds the rewards.
The relationship then will slow considerably, and future intimacy is less likely to happen. The basic formula in which some can process this in most situations is: Outcome[ edit ] This means that people want to maximize their rewards and minimize their costs when they are in a relationship with somebody.
According to Altman and Taylor, relationships are sustained when they are relatively rewarding when the outcome is positive and discontinued when they are relatively costly when the outcome is negative.
As defined by Thibaut and Kelley, comparison level is the standard by which individuals evaluate the desirability of group membership. A group is defined as "two or more interdependent individuals who influence one another through social interaction". In this instance, the group refers to a dyadic relationship, but it can really be extended to any type of group. That is, when groups fall above the CL they are seen as being satisfying to the individual, and when they fall below the CL they are seen as being unsatisfying.
We take an average of outcomes from the past as a benchmark to determine what makes us happy or sad so that we may develop the threshold, or comparison level, in which an outcome appears attractive. Past experiences shape one's thoughts and feelings about developing relationships, and in this way, an individual's CL is very much influenced by these previous relationships.
Comparison level of alternatives[ edit ] A person's CL is the threshold above which an outcome appears attractive. Comparison level only predicts when we are satisfied with membership in a given relationship, or group. Therefore, Thibaut and Kelley also say that people use a comparison level for alternatives to evaluate their outcomes.
Basically, CLalt is determined by "the worst outcome a person will accept and still stay in a relationship. However, even if a relationship is unhealthy, a person might choose to remain in it because it is better than what they perceive the real world to be.
Trends and sequences are one of the major factors when evaluating a relationship. Interpersonal communication[ edit ] The value of social penetration theory initially lies in the area of interpersonal communication. Some of the key findings are described as follows. Scholars also use this theory to examine other factors influencing the social penetration process in close friendships. As Mitchell and William put it, ethnicity and sex do have impact on the friendship foster.
The survey results indicates that more breadth of topics occurs in penetration process in black friendship than white. Nurses could apply the theory into daily interactions with patients, as doctors could in their articulations when consulting or announcing. In addition, the relationship between nonverbal behavior and the social penetration process has been of interest. Gender-based difference in self-disclosure[ edit ] Research demonstrates that there are significant gender differences in self-disclosure, particularly emotional self-disclosure, or expressing personal feelings and emotions, such as "Sometimes, I feel lonely to study abroad and to be away from my family.
In friendship between females, emotional attachments such as sharing emotions, thoughts, experiences, and supports are at the core, while friendships between males tend to focus on activities and companionships. In addition, there is a gender difference regarding to topics revealed. Men tend to disclose their strengths. On the contrary, women disclose their fear more.
For example, lesbian friendships and intimate relationships are reliant on mutual self-disclosure and honesty. The problem is that for many lesbians, this process is not always as simple as it may seem. A lot of these women involve themselves in groups that are solely made up of only lesbians or groups that are only made up of heterosexual women to avoid their true lesbian identity. It can be difficult for lesbian individuals to open-up about their sexual identities, because of the fear of being rejected or losing special relationships.
Early studies have shown that patients' self-disclosure is positively related to treatment outcomes. Farber puts it, in psychotherapy "full disclosure is more of an ideal than an actuality. Therefore, the trust built over time among the patient and the therapist is essential to reach a mode of deep discussion.
To strengthen the alliance, cultivating a comfortable atmosphere for self-disclosure and self-discovery is important. When the therapist shared self-referent information to the patient it created trust and the patients perceived the therapist as being more "human. Individuals with social phobia tend to adopt strategic avoidance of social interactions, which makes it challenging for them to disclose themselves to others and reveal emotions.
Self-disclosure is the key to foster intimate relationship, in which individuals can receive needed social supports. Close friendship and romantic relationship are two major sources for social supports, which have protective effect and play a crucial role in helping individuals with social phobia to cope with distress. In service industry, compared with securing new customers, maintaining long-term relationships with existing customers is more cost-effective. The received information regarding to the taste and preference of the customers then can be used to provide tailored services, which in turn can positively strengthen customers' trust, commitment and loyalty toward the restaurant.
Expertise is positively correlated to both customer and server disclosure. Some scholars explored the arena of company policy making, demonstrating that the effect company policies have on the employees, ranging from slight attitudinal responses such as dissatisfaction to radical behavioral reactions such as conflicts, fights and resignation. In this way, sophisticated implementation of controversial policies is required Baack, Social penetration theory offers a framework allowing for an explanation of the potential issues.
Media-mediated communication[ edit ] Self-disclosure in reality TV[ edit ] Reality TV shows are gaining popularity in the last decades, and the trend is still growing.
Social penetration theory
Reality TV is a genre that is characterized with real-life situations and very intimate self-disclosure in the shows. Self-disclosure in reality show can be considered as self-disclosure by media characters and the relationship between the audience and the media character is parasocial. Nonetheless, rapid self-disclorue of intimate layers is a norm in reality TV shows, and unlike in interpersonal interactions, viewers prefer early intimate disclosure and such disclosure leads to liking rather than inducing uncomfortable feeling.
The Internet has been thought to broaden the way people communicate and build relationships by providing a medium in which people could be open-minded and unconventional and circumvent traditional limitations like time and place.
Since there are risks and there is usually more uncertainty about whether the person on the other side of the computer is being real and truthful, or deceitful and manipulative for one reason or another there is no possible way to build a relationship. A lack of face-to-face communication can cause heightened skepticism and doubt.
Since this is possible, there is no chance to make a long-lasting and profound connection. Panos,  Not only are people meeting new people to make friends, but many people are meeting and initiating romantic relationships online.
Celebrity's self-disclosure on social media[ edit ] Social media has turned to be a crucial platform for celebrities to engage with their followers. On social medias, the boundaries between interpersonal and mass communication is blurred, and parasocial interaction PSI is adopted strategically by celebrities to enhance liking, intimacy and credibility from their followers. What is worth noting is that unlike in real-life interpersonal relationship, disclosure reciprocity is not expected in parasocial interactions, although through imagined interactions on social medias, followers do feel they are connected to the media figures.
Since social networking sites are relatively new phenomena, there are not as many studies done about how people disclose information online compared to a one-on-one interaction. There have been surveys conducted about how social networking sites such as FacebookMySpaceTwitterLinkedInhi5myyearbookor Friendster affect interactions between human beings.
On Facebook, users are able to determine their level and degree of self-disclosure by setting their privacy settings McCarthy, There was a study done about the connection on how couples or other romantic relationships have trustcommitment, and affection towards each other and the amount of self-disclosure each person gives to the one another. There are several criteria to the study.