social penetration theory

Running head: SOCIAL PENETRATION THEORY: A THEORY APPLICATION 1

Social Penetration Theory: A Theory Application

The Relationships between SP Theory and the Professional World

Matthew J. Collazo

Grand Valley State University

SOCIAL PENETRATION THEORY: A THEORY APPLICATION 2

Introduction

People are onions. As continuing familiarity is achieved with another person, layer upon

layer is peeled back, revealing a direct route toward the inner core. When attempting to deepen a

relationship, if the benefits of peeling away these layers outweigh the costs of maintaining that

relationship, then the communication progresses. This link between cost and benefit analysis is

one of the central ideas in the theory of Social Penetration. What is the cost of maintaining

relationships? What value could be placed on close interactions with a boss or coworkers? How

beneficial could these things be in the professional setting? Social Penetration theory is

important in film and video production because it helps illustrate the need to be on the same page

as the director in order to make the vision a reality. When the crew is on comfortable terms with

each other, it allows for a smoother production atmosphere, and that results in a more productive

workplace. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the significance of understanding the

theory of Social Penetration, and how it can be applied to achieving success in the

profession of film and video production. This paper will examine a combination of my own

research in the theory and what professionals have said about it, a description of the context I

wish to examine using the theory, and an application concluding the research in relation to the

context.

Literature Review

The Social Penetration Theory (SPT) is one that revolves around the idea that building

and maintaining relationships is a result of self-disclosure and vulnerability. Constructed by

Altman and Taylor (1968), this theory proposes a model that compares individuals and the depth

of their personalities to the tightly compacted layers of an onion, accessible only by achieving a

greater familiarity with that person through mutual self-disclosure. As people become more


familiar, they begin to allow certain degrees of vulnerability to take place as they reveal more

about themselves. An important part of the onion model is the depth and breadth of knowledge

attained about a person. While depth is important, it only focuses on one particular aspect of the

individual’s life. An example of this would be to know extensive amounts about someone’s

religious beliefs, but virtually nothing about their political views. The greater depth attained, the

closer one may be to reaching the others’ core, or the deepest aspects of that person. This would

include self-image, closely held secrets, and their fundamental beliefs. Breadth, however, focuses

on the spectrum of topics known about the person in question. Knowing a little information on

many aspects of a person’s life is common, for example. The basic understanding of many

features of one’s life would result in a great breadth with little depth, while deep disclosure about

a particular bit of information illustrates great depth while excluding breadth. Ideally, a great

span of breadth, as well as deep penetration in each category, generally represents a healthy and

closer relationship.

As this process ensues and one person reveals something about themselves, the other is

inherently expected to answer with a fact of similar nature. This is referred to as the Law of

Reciprocity (Altman & Taylor, 2009). If communication is to continue, then these reciprocal

disclosures remain successful. According to the theory, penetrating deeper into the personalities

of another is dependent on a series of positive interactions that result in the mutual benefit of

furthering friendships. The basis of cost and benefit analysis is what determines continued

interaction to the deeper layers; if the benefit of further interaction outweighs the cost, then

interaction progresses onward.

Outside of the layered onion model, the next largest aspect of Social Penetration Theory

is a closer look at the concept of cost and benefit analysis, sometimes paired with the theory of


Social Exchange. To help determine when and where a relationship will progress, Altman and

Taylor offered a description of comparison levels that gauge the general satisfaction in a

relationship, resulting in the final outcome of the standards an individual personally sets. The

first describes relational satisfaction as “the threshold above which an interpersonal outcome

seems attractive”, which is simply a set of standards held by a person in order for them to remain

happy in their relationship (Altman & Taylor, 2009, p. 118). A comparison level is drawn over

time by the past experiences an individual has observed. Regardless if the comparison is being

made from a past relationship, or the past actions of a current one, human beings draw on these

experiences to compare to the present and determine how satisfied they really are with their

partners. If an act of a current relationship is seen as above the comparison threshold, then the

person making the comparison is highly satisfied. Conversely, if an action doesn’t meet the

standards set by a previous relationship, the response is unattractive. Importantly to note is that,

like comparison levels, new relationships follow a sequence; they are both chronologically

shaped over time. This means that with new relationships, if a mistake is made early on, it has a

larger impact in the view of the other, as opposed to making an error further down the

relationship timeline when there are more experiences to compare with. Likewise, if one

relationship begins with a cool vibe, and later adjusts to meeting above the current comparison

level, the response is much more attractive than if it had begun closer to those comparison levels.

The other set of standards, referred to as the comparison level of alternatives, depicts

relational stability as being the best outcome possible, or the standards set for a person in which

another relationship seems more appealing (Altman & Taylor, 2009, p. 119). If one partner is

consistently failing to meet or surpass the comparison level of the other, the second partner

begins to weigh those comparisons with the option of beginning a new relationship elsewhere,


rendering the current relationship unstable. Unlike the other, this standard doesn’t directly deal

with the satisfaction with a partner, but rather decides what the outcome must be in order to

remain in or leave a relationship. In the stereotypical case of a battered wife, this standard would

answer her decision to remain in an abusive relationship; “despite her anguish, the woman feels

trapped in the situation because the option of being alone in the world appears worse….as

dreadful as her outcomes are, she can’t imagine a better alternative” (Altman & Taylor, 2009, p.

119). It appears as selfishness, even though it doesn’t benefit her, and this is very much the case.

Lastly, it is important to recall that human beings have always been inherently selfish.

This principle was used thousands of years ago by Epicurus, a Greek philosopher of Aristotle’s

time, named Ethical Egoism (Miller, 2010). This principle illustrates the desire of people to

maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain. When applying the theory of Social

Penetration, individuals subconsciously default to what John Stuart Mills, a great historical

philosopher, claimed to be the Principle of Utility (Tucker, 2008). In this theory, it is referred to

as the Minimax Principle of Human Behavior, in which people “seek to maximize their benefits

and minimize their costs” (Altman & Taylor, 2009, p. 118). This means that people generally

only try to engage in further communication if the stakes lie in their favorable gains. When

comparing the onion model to the comparison level standards, remember that all communication

is, for the most part, optional to pursue.

In relation to SPT, another recently emerged to help further explain the rationale behind

how disclosures are decided upon. According to Sandra Petronio, creator of the Communication

Privacy Management (CMP) Theory, people create their own privacy boundary rules that

determine their decision to disclose which personal information to others (Petronio, 2010). Her

theory pairs with Altman and Taylor’s because CMP theory holds that people shape privacy rules


on five principles: context, culture, gender, motive, and risk-benefit ratios, which can be

classified as categories on the onion (Kennedy-Lightsey, Martin, Thomson, Himes, &

Clingerman, 2012). While these rules are being shaped, Petronio explains that there are two more

factors that help shape what levels of information bypass the privacy rules: boundary

coordination and boundary turbulence. Boundary coordination insists that, although many

boundaries are held personally, there are many rules that become understood and shared equally,

referred to as boundary co-ownership. Petronio asserts that co-ownership is bound together in

three ways: they are established by linkage (who is involved and linked to the boundary),

permeability (the degree of disclosure to those outside the linkage), and coordinating co-

ownership rules. Boundary turbulence results when those agreements are not upheld or are

breeched (Petronio, 2010). This theory can be applied to help aid communication in businesses.

All of these accreditations supporting Social Penetration Theory prove that this theory is

prevalent in both the personal and professional level of communication, and has much to do with

how much and about what people communicate every day. While being largely studied

throughout the academic community, SPT has remained relevant when trying to describe how,

when, and to what degree people decide to interact with others.

Context

Communication is imperative in the professional field of film and video production. A

filmmaker and his crew are storytellers, and if communication is strained, than so is the resulting

work environment. On set, there are standards of communication which can alter the final

results of a collaborated project. Unfortunately, a large problem can be associated with

communication in the field of film and video production. There is a large disconnection between

the members of a production crew and their communication levels to higher members in the


production. Filmmaking has evolved much over the last century. A film professor at GVSU

claimed that in the height of Hollywood cinema in the few years prior to World War II, film

crews and actors were obligated to join in contractual positions, and were treated horribly (B.

Roos, personal communication, October, 2013) . This resulted in no regard to facilitate

communication on the set other than simply to give and receive directions, which strained

already forced relationships. After the war, there was less tolerance for these things, and reform

ensued.

Although today higher standards of communication are upheld, there is still a gap in

communication between directors and their crews and actors. The culprit is traditionally outdated

thinking; often, levels of hierarchy decide the flow of communication with other employees as

well as their superiors on set. A general hierarchical system would allow communication to flow

in this fashion: camera operators report to the director of photography, who reports to the

director, who reports to the producer, who then reports to the executive producer. This type of

hierarchical communication negates the chance of relaying possible innovative ideas and

problem solving suggestions and instead turns them into a game of telephone. For example, crew

members are almost never treated as equals, but when it comes to problem solving, “there are

those critical moments where leadership on the set shifts to those with the expertise needed in

that moment; It may be the assistant director who comes up with the solution” (Hodge, 2009, p.

23). As long as production teams remain ignorant of adopting a better understanding of

communication theory, the creativity, efficiency and overall productivity will suffer in the

business. It may appear impossible to end the hierarchical tradition, but some hopeful thoughts

still exist in response to the ever-more-popular market for grad students: “Their ability to find


ways to keep their own energy and creativity alive even in limited production roles will serve

them well as they work in the wider film industry” (Hodge, 2009, p. 23).

There have been many books published to attempt to bridge the gap between director and

crew, all involving great communication. Special handbooks are sometimes distributed among

new crew members when they join a production. Also, special courses are offered to help teach

set etiquette prior to being part of a production crew. According to Bräuchler and Postill (2010),

in the United States, “Unions now insist or at least advise future film employees to undergo

behavioral training before going on a set” (p. 314). Although these resources are beginning to

gain in popularity, the more traditional directors are shy to change a pattern that has been

continuing for too long. Now, it is beginning to affect college level entry students as they try to

enter a field where it is incredibly difficult to move up in roster. Along with the limited

employment offered to a surplus of motivated film students, it also doesn’t help that this field is

considered a project-based industry, as opposed to a task-oriented workflow. In a study

conducted over the relationship between employment and project-based industries, results did

show that people that develop great interpersonal communication skills are more often

recommended, and as a result are more likely to attain a job over a similar candidate (Blair,

Culkin, & Randle, 2003, p. 620). In this industry, being personable can get an aspiring

filmmaker much farther than an impressive resume.

Although this problem has somewhat improved over the years, it is one that still exists on

many sets and productions, continuing to hinder the business from achieving the best possible

productivity and creativity necessary for better success. I believe that a stronger understanding of

Social Penetration Theory would help alleviate the problem, and also help to secure a job for

future alumni like myself.


Application

One of the most beneficial tools I could use to improve the chances of success in film and

video production is by understanding the Social Penetration Theory. When it comes time to

apply for the first job after college, understanding how relationships work through SPT will help

accentuate communication skills, and therefore make someone more marketable. After being

hired into a company, applying SPT will allow someone to facilitate closer relationships and

create allies and friendships with co-workers and bosses, which could lead to later job

opportunities. Also, being aware of the onion model will help a person gauge their progress and

help determine where improvements need to be made in relation to the depth and breadth of their

knowledge. Furthermore, using the supporting theory of cost and benefit analysis, one could

determine that the benefits should always outweigh the cost when joining a workforce, because it

is in the interest of everyone else in the company. But getting a job in the industry is only half of

the battle. According to research done in the form of film successfulness, it was concluded that a

staggering number of movies are not profitable; “Seventy-eight percent of movies lose money

and only 22% are profitable…profit is unevenly distributed among those movies that are

profitable” (Vany & Walls, 2004, p. 1039). It is ever more important to have a crew that can help

produce a movie that actually makes a profit for as little cost to them as possible. Much like

Mills’ Principle of Utility, the goal of a successful business and happy employees is to maximize

the benefits while minimizing the costs.

Consequently, film crews are always working together on set, and understanding how to

properly improve relationships through self-disclosure will prove to be a momentous help. When

members of the crew have disclosed enough to be really comfortable with one another, then their

dynamics and productivity while shooting will be greatly enhanced. If deeper levels of


communication help improve relationships, and good relationships yield success, then furthering

communication among fellow employees should therefore spell greater success. In the future I

aspire to become a director, and in doing so, I understand that this knowledge of SPT can be used

to my advantage to help alleviate problems associated with being on set. An example of this

would be to ensure that everyone on the cast and crew knew and were comfortable with me to be

able to discuss things other than the jargon used on set. Also, directors should make it a point to

establish boundary coordination and privacy rules to make it clear what is and what is not

appropriate to discuss while on the clock. As long as the permeability is stable, and boundary

turbulence doesn’t occur, than so shall the communication and disclosure standards. Also, using

SPT, the owner of a film company could implement a company policy that was actually

reflective of the interactions that take place in the work environment, which too often go

unnoticed. Research has claimed that many company policies do not accommodate to employee

needs, but if they did, a positive change would occur; “When the rewards and costs of policies

have greater meaning…policies of high salience are the ones which would penetrate to the core

of the individual…these are the most likely to change behaviors” (Baack, 1991, p. 216). When

the behaviors change, then improvement can be made.

Next, in the film industry, there exists the hierarchy of communication in which only

certain people are able to transfer accurate information to where it needs to go. Unfortunately,

the more people the message needs to transfer through, the messier the result becomes upon

delivery, if it is even received. As a director, I would do my best to knock down the walls of the

hierarchy and ensure that any member of the cast or crew could speak with me. This way, there

would be incentive to establish an innovative workflow where everyone’s ideas can be shared


and collaborated. Plus, the more knowledgeable the director, the easier it is to collaborate with

not only employees, but other directors as well.

The film industry is not much different from other businesses in that the ultimate goal is

to achieve the best productivity possible, and the best way to do this is through the employees.

There is no argument that the better communication employees have among each other and their

superiors, the more productive the atmosphere will be. Also, like in business, communication

theory informs us that a person should know their communication partner, whether it be closing a

company deal or meeting the CEO of a neighboring company, regardless of their place on the

corporate ladder. If nothing is known about the other, than it would seem impossible to

understand the collaboration fully, and thus many good ideas and perspectives may be left unsaid

or unrealized. From a more personal perspective, there are standards of disclosure that should be

made clear at the time of the employment. Without disclosing the details, the director cannot use

the Law of Reciprocity to know that the movie may touch on subjects sensitive to the crew

member in which they do not support, which would in turn affect boundary turbulence, and

could damage a collaborative relationship. For example, say that the employees find out only

while shooting that they are meant to support a movie that goes completely against their beliefs.

Conclusion

The Social Penetration Theory is one that greatly exemplifies the importance of

relationships in the film industry. With proper care and integration, this theory could solve the

problems associated with lack of communication where it could be greatly beneficial. In this

paper I have examined a combination of my own research in the theory and what professionals

have addressed regarding it, a description of the context I wish to examine using the theory, and

an application concluding the research in relation to the context in a clear way. The purpose of


this paper was to discuss the significance of understanding the theory of Social Penetration,

and how it can be applied to achieving success in the profession of film and video

production. Like an onion, the potential for the greatest possible relationships among film

production crews lie beneath tightly compacted layers, accessible only by ensuring that proper

methods of self-disclosure and reciprocity take place, with careful consideration to the theory of

Social Penetration.


References

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (2009). Social Penetration Thoery. In E. A. Griffin, A First Look At

Communication Theory (pp. 113-124). New York: McGraw Hill.

Baack, D. (1991). The Personal Impact of Company Policies: A Social Penetration Theory

Perspective. Journal of Managerial Issues, 3, 196-219. Retrieved from

http://jstor.org/stable/40603910

Blair, H., Culkin, N., & Randle, K. (2003). From London to Los Angeles: a comparison of local

labour market processes in the US and UK film industries. Journal of Human Resource

Management, 619-633.

Bräuchler, B., & Postill, J. (2010). Theorising Media and Practice. New York: Berghahn Books.

Hodge, C. (2009). Film Collaboration and Creative Conflict. Journal of Film and Video, 61, 18-

30. doi:10.1353/jfv.0.0020

Kennedy-Lightsey, C. D., Martin, M. M., Thomson, M., Himes, K. L., & Clingerman, B. Z.

(2012). Communication Privacy Management Theory: Exploring Coordination and

Owndership Between Friends. Communication Quarterly, 60, 665-680.

Miller, J. (2010). A Distinction Regarding Happiness in Ancient Philosophy. Social Research,

595-624.

Petronio, S. (2010). Communication Privacy Management Theory: What Do We Know About

Family Privacy Regulation? Journal of Family Theory & Review, 175-196.

doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00052.x


Taylor, D. A. (1968). The Development of Interpersonal Relationships: Social Penetration

Processes. Journal of Social Psychology, 79-90. doi:10.1080/00224545.1968.9712476

Tucker, I. (2008). Picturing Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill and the Invention of a Photographic

Public. Criticism, 50, 411-446. doi:10.1353/crt.0.0076

Vany, A. S., & Walls, D. W. (2004). Motion picture profit, the stable Paretian hypothesis, and

the curse of the superstar. Economic Dynamics & Control, 28, 1035-1057.

doi:10.1016/S0165-1889(03)00065-4

social penetration theory

Education