Theories of Human Communication

Journal Entry: Chapter 8: Social Penetration Theory

Abbey Schwab

Description of Theory

The systematic and steady process of gaining deeper intimacy with another individual
from surface level information to more vulnerable information. This process includes looking at
outcomes both in the present and future. The personality structure is based on an onion. The
outside layers present commonly shared qualities that are easy to see and self-descriptive such as
your appearance and biographical data. The deeper layers of the onion are thicker and tougher to
break through. They focus on things not commonly shared like emotions, past experiences,
traumas, and core values. The only way to work your way through an individual’s layers is
through self-disclosure. Putting a guard up does not allow for closeness with others. You must be
able to voluntarily share about yourself. Lasting intimacy within relationships requires repeated
and reciprocated deep vulnerability in every aspect of one’s life.

Application of Theory to Everyday Life

The most fascinating thing about the Social Penetration Theory is the fact that I can see it
applied to many different situations in my own life and others lives too. Freshmen year, I met a
boy that I really wanted to be my friend. I began shedding the first layer of my onion with
information like what classes I was in and my major. Social exchange says you’ll start thinking
to yourself, “Is it worth it to share deeper?” I kept thinking of the benefit-minus-cost idea and
wondering if the time and possible embarrassment was worth the satisfaction of a close
friendship. One day, we broke through to the deeper layers when he became vulnerable and self-
disclosed about his homesickness and long-held emotions. Through the law of reciprocity, I then
felt comfortable sharing the inner layers of my onion.

The three psychologists, Beike, Brandon, and Cole, from the University of Arkansas,
shared the idea of autobiographical memories. It draws people closer through allowing them into
our experiential world. That was the case for this friendship, but then we started depenetrating.
We couldn’t sustain the level of intimacy we reached because we only had depth and no breadth.
He was only sharing deeply about one piece of his inner layer. Our friendship was high cost, low
reward. We stayed in the friendship regardless because our outcomes were above our comparison
level of alternatives. The ethical egoism says that we should seek to attain the maximum pleasure
and minimum pain in our lives. When I decided to walk away from that friendship, I was looking
out for what was best for myself first and foremost.