The Formation of Social Relationships A Longitudinal Study of Social Penetration

Abstract

This study investigated three levels of self-disclosure (public, semiprivate, privatepersonal) in the socialpenetration process. The study addressed three questions.(1) What is the nature of changes in the three levels of disclosure over time? (2) Is self-disclosure reciprocated at the three levels of intimacy? (3) Does reciprocity vary over time and, ij so, how does it vary? Same-sex zero-history dyads participated in a six-week longitudinal study. The half-hour taped conversations were submitted to interaction analysis. Polynomial trend analyses and Markov analyses were used to analyze the data. The results showed: (1) a convex quadratic trend for private-personal disclosures over time; (2) reciprocity at the same level of intimacy as an interactional norm (especially at the beginning and endof the relationship); (3) a cyclicalfluctuation ofreciprocalinteractsover time. These results were interpreted as elaborating the social penetration process. INCE Berlo (1960), communication scholars have offered their ideas concerning what it means to view communication S as process and decried the lack of process research (Alex ander, 1975;Berlo, 1977;Smith, 1972). One result of the process debate was the recognition of the need for longitudinal research (Bochner, 1978;Miller, 1978;Rossiter & Pearce, 1975) and concern for how behaviors are patterned over time (Ellis, 1979;Fisher, 1978). Concurrent

Communicating social support during crises at the farmers’ market: A social exchange approach to understanding customer‐farmer communal relationships

“…These examples show how some customers and farmers have developed an interpersonal relationship that has moved from a surface level into deeper relational stages (Taylor, ; VanLear, ) that signify a communal, interdependent relationship.…”

AA online: the enactment of supportive Computer Mediated Communication

“…Self-presentations at a given level of depth should generally call forth a responding self-presentation at a comparable level above chance (Altman, 1973;Davis, 1976Davis, , 1977VanLear, 1987). We have considered the importance ofthis concept for mutual identification in support groups.…”

“…We can conceptualize the response to self-presentations in two ways. First, the principle of reciprocity holds that the level of self-presentation by one party is generally reciprocated by a comparable self-presentation by the other producing a symmetrical interaction pattern; this principle has generally been supported empirically (Davis, 1976(Davis, ,1977Morton, 1978;VanLear, 1985VanLear, ,1987. However, reciprocity does not occur in all situations (Dindia, 1982) or the norm may be relaxed (Altman, 1973;Morton, 1978;VanLear, 1985).…”

Proposing the online community self-disclosure model: the case of working professionals in France and the U.K. who use online communities

“…Our method of data collection through Zoomerang insured our respondents' complete privacy, and their actual identities were not revealed. We did not observe the process of social penetration itself, which can be accomplished by conducting longitudinal studies (VanLear, 1987(VanLear, , 1991. Further, there are other potential elements of SPT that could be studied -including satisfaction, stability and security in a relationship -to predict self-disclosure.…”

“…Rather, the segments of outer layers must first be exposed, experienced and peeled in succession before the inner, intimate layers are revealed. This gradual escalation of the revealing process is termed social penetration (Altman & Taylor, 1973) and provides the foundation for many communication studies in relational development (e.g., Gudykunst & Nishida, 1986;VanLear, 1987VanLear, , 1991Hensley, 1996;Walther & Burgoon, 1996). As individuals disclose more and more information regarding themselves (i.e., amount) to other members, it is likely that the disclosures will tend to reach toward the more central, more intimate cores (i.e., depth) of the relational partners during the progression of the relationships (Wheeless & Grotz, 1976;Wheeless, 1978).…”