SOCIAL PENETRATION
THEORY: FACEBOOK
Com 394 PPT Presentation by Ellie Hunt
Social Penetration Theory..
Developed by Irwin Altman and
Dalmas Taylor (1973)
• Theory attempts to understand the
levels of self-disclosure that result in
the development of interpersonal
relationships (Altman and Taylor,
1973)
• Self-disclosure: What you chose to
reveal about yourself for others to
examine and evaluate. (Olson, A.
2012)
•
•
Principles of self-disclosure:
• Risk
• Trust
• Reciprocity
• Movement from impersonal to intimate
information (Pennington, N 2015)
•
Factors associated with increased depth of
relationships:
• Time spent together
• Commitment/satisfaction with relationship
• Environment
• Perceived costs and rewards of disclosure
(Altman and Taylor, 1973)
5 assumptions of Social Penetration Theory
1. Person A is aware they are building a relationship with
Person B and vice versa
2. Physical proximity is required to develop and maintain
interpersonal relationship
3. There are specific disclosures that correlate with each
stage of relational closeness
4. Skipping ahead/going out of order of stages can stunt or
end the relationship
5. The social penetration process is gradual
(Pennington, N. 2015)
Onion Metaphor for Social Penetration Theory
•
Breadth: Amount of differing topics disclosed
•
Depth: The extent to which each individual
topic is disclosed
(Altman and Taylor, 1973)
•
•
Four layers of disclosure
• 1st: Surface
• 2nd: Peripheral
• 3rd: Intermediate
• 4th: Central
(Pennington, N 2015)
Each internal level intensifies in depth and
breadth as individuals share more information
and spend more time with each other.
(Altman and Taylor, 1973)
https://www.slideshare.net/doylesrader/socialpenetrationtheory
Facebook and the Four Stages of Self-Disclosure
•
Orientation Stage:
•
Surface layer: appearance, gender, age
•
•
Exploratory Stage:
•
Peripheral Layer: asking questions to learn each other’s basic interests, where they are from etc.
•
•
On Facebook: Chatting on Facebook to learn this information
Affective Exchange Stage:
•
•
On Facebook: Scanning Facebook profile to learn this information
Intermediate Layer: discussing how you feel about things
•
•
On Facebook: Assume that once you befriend someone on Facebook you have accomplished this stage
Entering the Central Layer: discussing personal information, small amount of breadth and depth
• On Facebook: Can occur through in depth conversation chatting online or deciding to meet in person
Stable-Exchange Stage:
•
Reaching the core of Central Layer: full depth and breadth of each other’s personal information achieved
• On Facebook: In most cases individuals who have reached this level will have met in person, excluding
situations in which the relationship remains exclusively online (can be the case for long distance
friendships or in the case of one of the parties masking their true identity) (Pennington, N. 2015)
Facebook: Chugging Rather Than Sipping
•
Facebook provides a timeline for it’s users that extends
as far back as the day they created their account.
•
Whenever you accept a friend request, you’re granting
someone access to review all of your previous status
updates, pictures, and other information that has
accumulated over the years on the Facebook wall.
•
This accessibility of information on Facebook allows
individuals to “chug” information about new friends
rather than learning about them in small “sips” of
knowledge over time.
•
Social Penetration Theory becomes warped as stages of
self-disclosure may be skipped.
•
Individuals are less able to self-disclose information
gradually at their own discretion.
(Pennington, N. 2015, pg. 24)
Social Information Seeking
•
Refers to the process of meeting someone offline and using Facebook to learn
about them
•
Also commonly referred to as “creeping”
•
By using this method to gain information about an individual, they are no longer in
control of deciding how and when their self-disclosures are revealed.
•
“Unlike peeling away the layers of an onion.. Facebook allows one to slice right
into a target’s personality and social history, thus more deeply accessing the
feature’s close to one’s core” (Pennington, N. 2015, pg. 57)
•
The “chug” vs. “sip” metaphor and the concept of social information seeking
demonstrate how much faster disclosures occur when Facebook is involved.
Context Collapse
•
“The flattening out of multiple distinct audiences in one’s social network”
•
Context collapse becomes harmful for self-disclosures on Facebook when the
individual wrongly perceives their audience
•
The individual may not consider who their entire audience is and therefore disclose
personal information too openly.
•
This can have a dramatic effect on halting relationships before they begin in the case
that an individual in the audience is uncomfortable or turned off by what is disclosed.
• Especially harmful if the individual does not have their settings on private and
those who have yet to reach their surface layer of self-disclosure reject them.
(Pennington, N. 2015, pg. 16)
Example: Context Collapse in Conjunction With SPT
•
Surface Layer:
• You receive a friend request from someone you have met a few times briefly
and notice you have mutual friends so you accept
•
Peripheral Layer:
• You notice they recently shared a music video posted by your favorite band
Next, they post a status clearly directed at an ex-relationship of theirs, calling
them out for a long list of detailed events that occurred in their past.
• Their status self-disclosed more information about their personal life then you
feel comfortable with knowing because they most likely were not thinking
about you as their audience when they chose to post it.
• You may now feel less inclined or no longer care to further the friendship
through the remaining layers of the social penetration theory
•
(Pennington, N. 2015, pg. 16)
Amanda M. Olsen’s Study on Facebook
and The Social Penetration Theory
•
In her study of The Social Penetration
Theory in regards to Facebook and
increasing self-esteem, Olsen tests her
hypothesized relationships between
those who use Facebook to build
relationships through self-disclosure and
their related levels of positive selfesteem.
•
81% of participants reported that they
felt good or very good when they selfdisclosed through Facebook
(Olsen, A. M. 2013)
Amanda M. Olsen’s Study on Facebook and
The Social Penetration Theory Continued..
•
Comforted by the Internet
•
•
•
Individuals were able to eliminate in
person self-consciousness when selfdisclosing information on Facebook.
“Online conversations allow time for an
individual to think clearly about a
response before replying.”
Online interactions through Facebook
are usually done at home, allowing users
to feel more comfortable and
conversation to be more convenient.
(Olsen, A. M. 2013)
Amanda M. Olsen’s Study on Facebook and
The Social Penetration Theory Continued
•
Self Esteem
• According to the study, there is a positive
correlation between self-esteem and selfdisclosure on social media.
• Those with low self esteem are more likely to
self-disclose on Facebook because it is
potentially less likely for them to be rejected.
• “Facebook induced self-affirmation produces
an array of related psychological benefits,
such as being more open-minded, secure,
willing to take responsibility for failure in a
task, and less likely to blame others.”
• Facebook users are more likely to share the
positive highlights of their lives, causing their
online presence to appear more exciting than
the reality they live in.
(Olsen, A. M. 2013)
In Conclusion
•
The Social Penetration Theory illustrates the types and levels of self-disclosure
that must occur in order to establish relational closeness.
•
Facebook causes difficulty when attempting to properly apply this theory to
relationships because personal information is so readily available to see online.
•
In some cases, this causes individuals to make quick decisions about others and
decide against truly getting to know them.
•
Self-disclosures on Facebook are closely related to levels of high self-esteem and
some people feel more comfortable revealing self-disclosures through Facebook
rather then in person.
References
•
Olson, A. M. (2013). Facebook and social penetration theory (Order No. 1537056). Available
from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1356735207). Retrieved from
http://login.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.lib.
asu.edu/docvie w/1356735207?accountid=4485
•
Pennington, N. (2015). Building and maintaining relationships in the digital age: Using social
penetration theory to explore communication through social networking sites (Order
No. 3706935). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(1695847200). Retrieved from
http://login.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.lib.
asu.edu/docview/1695847200?accountid=4485
•
Taylor, D., & Altman, I. (1975). Self-Disclosure as a Function of Reward-Cost
Outcomes. Sociometry, 38(1), 18-31. doi:10.2307/2786231