theories of communication in developing relationships hello, i love you. wont you tell me your name?
TRANSCRIPT
Chapter TenTheories of Communication in Developing Relationships
“Hello, I love you. Won’t you tell me your name?”
Social Penetration TheorySocial 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
Social Penetration Theory: StagesOrientation 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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-bsf2x-aeE&feature=related
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 reciprocityPeripheral before privateRate of disclosure begins to slow at
deeper levels
A different view of the “onion”
Depth
Breadth
Metts add(1) The onion model not used much
anymore; self-disclosure is more cyclical than continuously wider and deeper
Social Exchange ProcessesThe 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.
Rewardspositive 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
Costsnegative 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
OutcomesThe outcome refers to the overall
level of “profit” or “deficit” in relationships
rewards – costs = outcomeRelationships are generally
rewarding when outcomes are positive, and generally costly when outcomes are negative
Comparison LevelComparison level (CL) : “standard” by
which people evaluate their relationships how rewarding or costly you expect
your relationship to bebased 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.
Comparison Level for AlternativesComparison 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
Combined Effect of CL and CLAlt
CL Alt
Poor GoodThe Relationship:
Meets or Exceeds CL
Fails to Meet CL
Satisfied and Committed
Satisfied but Uncommitted
Dissatisfied but Committed
Dissatisfied and Uncommitted
Original Investment Model
Costs
CL
Satisfaction
Investment
CLAlt
Commit-ment
Stability
Rewards
Current Investment Model
RewardsCostsCL
Satisfaction
Investments
CL-Alt
Commit.Benign Attribs. & Emots.
Accomm.
Behavior
Decision to remain
Accommodate partner
Not retaliate
Derogation of alternatives
Willingness to sacrifice
Perc. rel. superiority
Stabl.
Metts add: Equity TheoryEquity 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 5/10 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.
The Concept of InequityWhen 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.
SPT: Development and Tests of TheorySupport 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?
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
Turning Points analysis
Turning Points Meeting Parents
C First Sex Reunion
O M M
I First Fight Time apart T M E N T Time
Uncertainty Reduction TheoryUncertainty 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 uncertainty
cognitive and behavioral uncertainty
Form of URTURT is an axiomatic theoryURT 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
UNC
VC NVA Info-Skg
Recip
Intim Simil Liking
UNC ---
1. VC ---
2. NVA ---
3. Info-Seeking
---
4. Intimacy
---
5. Recip ---
6. Simil ---
7. Liking ---
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
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)
Uncertainty Reduction Theory: Expansions
URT has been expanded to consider relationships beyond initial interactionEvents 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