Bonfire flames
FLAMES. You know what that means, right? You may have played that game with friends. You write down the names of two friends, that of a boy and a girl; then you cross out the letters that appears in both names, and count the letters left uncrossed. You then get the total and…
Our relationships, however, are not easily defined by such a game. There is some truth in the idea, though, that compatability (not necessarily determined by how our names are spelled) contributes to how we develop close and/or intimate relationships with other people.
Relationship development theories follow either of the following two approaches to explain how close relationships are developed. One approach is the phenomenological approach, which focuses on the “self-disclosures” of participating individuals, their “nonverbal warmth” (or lack of it), their “empathic listening” and “trust” as they draw close to others. The other approach, from a somewhat economic perspective, looks at relationships as these are determined by the ”rewards and costs of interaction,” with the assumption that “people interact with others in a way that maximizes their personal benefits and minimizes their personal costs” (Griffin 115-16).
How do you approach your relationships with your family, your friends, your romantic partners?
Perhaps your relationship with them is also affected by your attachment style. What is your attachment style: secure, dismissing, preoccupied, fearful?
Let’s think about that as we learn more about different ways of developing relationships…
Paul Cezanne
How to peel an onion and win the love of friends
Why onions? Because that’s how social psychologists Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor look at the personality structure of individuals. Altman and Taylor’s Social Penetration Theory posits that people develop close relationships with others through a “peeling” of layers “in a gradual and orderly fashion from superficial to intimate levels of exchange as a function of both immediate and forecast outcomes” (Griffin 119).
Altman and Taylor say that individuals slowly peel their outer layers (public selves) to reveal parts of their inner core (private domains) through a process of self-disclosure.
If you have tried slicing onions, you’d know that the outer layer and the core are the tougher parts to cut through. Developing close relationships through self-disclosure is like that, too. Initiating a friendship may sometimes be as hard as forging close ties with another.
The degree of closeness will depend on the depth and breadth of reciprocal self-disclosure. Altman and Taylor points to four observations about the social penetration process (Griffin 121):
- Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information.
- Self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially in early stages of relationship development.
- Penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are reached.
- Societal norms prevent too much early self-disclosure.
- Most relationships stall before a stable intimate exchange is established.
- Genuine intimate exchange is rare but when it is achieved, relationships become meaningful and enduring.
- Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal.
Breadth can just as be important as depth in fostering close relations. Individuals sometimes remain close friends because they share several common interests, even though the nature of this friendship may not be as deep. Of course, breadth and depth would be the best combination.
But once there’s a connection, how will the friendship prosper? John Thibaut and Harold Kelley, proponents of Social Exchange Theory, say that relationship development will depend on the rewards and costs of going into the friendship.
Thibaut and Kelley propose that when “perceived mutual benefits outweigh the costs of greater vulnerability, the process of social penetration will proceed.” They “suggest that people try to predict the outcome of an interaction before it takes place” (Griffin 122-23).
This “economic” theory makes use of “the minimax principle … [that] claims that people seek to maximize benefits and minimize costs” (Griffin 123).
Individuals weigh the benefits-minus-costs that potential friendship will yield, and they decide whether to continue or to distance themselves from such connections. They base their decisions partly on their CL (Comparison Level) — “the threshold above which an outcome appears attractive.” That is, the possible relational satisfaction such a connection may possibly provide — as guaged by the value they place on it in comparison to their relational history.
They also use as basis their CLalt (Comparison Level of Alternatives) — “the best relational outcomes available outside the current relationship.” The latter is often used to explain why people sometimes stay in abusive relationships: for example, some women endure abuse because Outcome > CLalt (in other words, women stay with their abusive partners because they don’t see any rewarding alternative outside their current relationships).
When individuals rate a possible connection as Outcome > CLalt > CL, they will be open to optimal disclosures (Griffin 124-25).
Of course, Altman and Taylor’s theory may seem too pat for others. Altman actually had second thoughts about an individual’s openness. He later on speculated that an individual’s need for privacy may dialectically impact on the need for intimacy.
Sandra Petronio’s Privacy Management Theory extends Altman’s second thoughts, and along the way dismantles some of the assumptions behind Social Penetration Theory. Petronio’s theory points to how the need for privacy is managed by setting up “privacy boundaries” and by negotiating “relational turbulence” resulting from different boundary rules. Some factors determining boundary rules include: culture, gender, motives, context, and risk-benefit ratio. Boundary coordination between individuals happens when there is shared understanding of boundary linkage, boundary ownership, and boundary permeability. Relational turbulence occurs when there is no coordination of boundary rules and management.
Along the way, Petronio questions Altman and Taylor’s onion metaphor to illustrate their concept of personality structure. According to Petronio, “boundaries are personally created, often shifting, and frequently permeable” (Griffin 127). Not an onion at all. 
RSS Feed