relationship development theories

7/27/2019 Relationship Development Theories

1/48

Relationship Development Theories

Anna Kuzio, Ph.D.


2/48

Rogers described three necessary andsufcient conditions or relationship growth:

(1) congruence;

(2) unconditional positive regard; and (3) empathic understanding o each other


3/48

Ive done the numbers, and I will marry you.


4/48

Social Penetration Theory


5/48

Introduction

riend in need is a riend indeed!"either a borrower nor a lender be!

sot answer turns away wrath!

#on$t get mad% get even!

&o 'now him is to love him!

amiliarity breeds contempt!


6/48

Introduction

#eveloped by social psychologists rwinltman and #almas &aylor% social penetrationtheory e*plains how relational closenessdevelops!

+loseness develops only i individuals proceedin a gradual and orderly ashion romsuper,cial to intimate levels o e*change as aunction o both immediate and orecast

outcomes


7/48

Personality structure: a multilayered onion.

&he outer layer is the public sel!&he inner core is one$s private domain!


8/48

Closeness through self-disclosure.

&he main route to deep social penetration isthrough sel-disclosure!

./ith the onion-wedge model% the depth openetration represents the degree o personal

disclosure!&he layers o the onion are tougher near the

center!


9/48

The depth and breadth of self-disclosure.

0eripheral items are e*changed morereuently and sooner than privateinormation!


10/48


11/48

el-disclosure is reciprocal% especially in early stages o

relationship development!

0enetration is rapid at the start% but slows down uic'lyas the tightly wrapped inner layers are reached!

1! ocietal norms prevent too much early sel-disclosure!

2! ost relationships stall beore a stable intimatee*change is established!

3! 4enuine intimate e*change is rare but when it isachieved% relationships become meaningul and enduring!

#epenetration is a gradual process o layer-by-layerwithdrawal! or true intimacy% depth and breadth o penetration are

eually important!


12/48


13/48

Regulating closeness on the basis ofrewards and costs.

perceived mutual bene,ts outweigh thecosts o greater vulnerability% the process osocial penetration will proceed!

ocial penetration theory draws heavily on the

social e*change theory o 5ohn &hibaut and6arold 7elley!


14/48

Outcome: rewards minus costs.&hibaut and 7elley suggest that people try to predict

the outcome o an interaction beore it ta'es place!

1! &he economic approach to determining behaviordates rom 5ohn tuart ill$s principle o utility!

2! &he minima* principle o human behavior claims thatpeople see' to ma*imi8e bene,ts and minimi8e costs!

3! &he higher we inde* a relational outcome% the moreattractive the behavior that might ma'e it happen!

ocial e*change theory assumes that people canaccurately gauge the bene,ts o their actions and ma'esensible choices based on their predictions!

s relationships develop% the nature o interaction thatriends ,nd rewarding evolves!


15/48

Comparison level (CL)gauging relationalsatisfaction.

person$s +9 is the threshold above which anoutcome appears attractive!

ne$s +9 or riendship% romance% or amilyties is pegged by one$s relational history% the

baseline o past e*perience! euence and trends play large roles in

evaluating a relationship!


16/48

Comparison level of alternatives (CLalt)gauging relational stability. &he +9alt is pegged by the best relational outcomes available outside

the currentrelationship! /hen e*istent outcomes slide below an established +9alt% relational

instability

increases! ocial e*change theories have an economic orientation!

&he +9alt e*plains why people sometimes stay in abusiverelationships!

1! ome women endure abuse because utcome +9alt!

2! &hey will leave only when +9alt utcome! &he relative values o utcome% +9% and +9alt help determine one$s

willingness to

disclose! 1! ptimum disclosure will occur when both parties believe that

utcome

+9alt +9!

2! relationship can be more than satisying i it is stable% but othersatisying

options are also available (in case this relationship turns sour)!


17/48

Dialectics and the environment.

ltman originally thought that openness is the

predominant uality o relationship changes! &hedesire or privacy may counteract a unidirectionaluest or intimacy!

dialectical model suggests that human socialrelationships are characteri8ed by openness or contactand closedness or separateness between participants!

ltman also identi,ed the environment as a heuristiccue that might guide our decisions to disclose!

#isclosing o one$s sel may include both our cognitivespace (our minds% thoughts) and our physical space orterritory!

andra 0etronio$s +ommunication 0rivacyanagement theory maps out the intricate wayspeople manage boundaries around their personalinormation!


18/48

Critique: pulling back from socialpenetration

ocial penetration is an established and amiliare*planation o how closeness develops in riendshipsand romantic relationships! .ut% it also has manycritics!

0etronio thin's it$s simplistic to euate sel-

disclosure with relational closeness! he also challenges the theorists$ view o disclosure

boundaries as being ,*ed and increasingly lesspermeable!

+an a comple* blend o advantages anddisadvantages be reliably reduced to a single inde*the level o detail a planincludes and the number o contingency plans!

3! 6edging>planning ways or both parties to @save aceA

when at least one o them miscalculated!B! &he hierarchy hypothesis: /hen individuals are thwarted

in their attempts to achieve goals% their ,rst tendency isto alter lower-level elements o their message!


30/48


31/48

Anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM)theory.

4udy'unst applied some o the a*ioms andtheorems o uncertainty reduction theory tointercultural settings!

6e noted that both strangers and in-groupmembers e*perience some degree o an*iety

and uncertainty in any new interpersonalsituation!

/hereas .erger treats uncertainty as the 'eycommunication variable% 4udy'unst elevated

an*iety to an eual status!&he end goal o = theory is eCective

communication rather than closeness orrelational satisaction


32/48

/here .erger$s theory centers around D or ?a*ioms% 4udy'unst incorporated 3B o them!

ccording to 4udy'unst% an*iety anduncertainty aren$t always bad>a small

amount o both ma'es us more vigilant! /e are mindul when we consciously thin'

about our communication and continuallywor' at changing what we do in order to

become more eCective!


33/48


34/48

Critique: Nagging doubts about uncertainty s .erger himsel admits% his original statement

contained some propositions o dubious validity!1! +ritics such as 7athy 7ellermann consider

theorem 1D particularly Eawed!2! &he tight logical structure o the theory doesnFt

allow us to reGect one theorem without

uestioning the a*ioms behind it!3! n the case o theorem 1D% a*ioms 3 and D must

also be suspect!

B! 7ellermann and Rodney Reynolds challenge themotivational assumption o a*iom 3!

H! &hey also have undermined the claim thatmotivation to search or inormation is increasedby anticipation o uture interaction% incentivevalue% and deviance!


35/48

ichael unnaran' challenges .erger$s claimthat uncertainty reduction is the 'ey tounderstanding early encounters!

1! 6e believes that predicted outcome value

more accurately e*plains communication inearly encounters!

2! .erger insists that you canFt predict outcomevalues until you reduce uncertainty!

#espite these problems% .ergerFs theory hasstimulated considerable discussion within thediscipline!


36/48

Social InformationProcessing Theory


37/48

Introduction. cholars who studied new electronic media have oCered a variety

o theories to e*plain the inherent diCerences between computer-mediated communication (++) and ace-to-ace communication!

1! ocial presence theory suggests that te*t-based messagesdeprive ++ users o the sense that other people are Gointlyinvolved in the interaction!

2! edia richness theory classi,es each communication mediumaccording to the comple*ity o the messages it can handle

efciently!3! third theory concentrates on the lac' o social conte*t cues in

online communication! Iach o these theories avors a @cues ,ltered outA interpretation

that regards the absence o nonverbal cues as the medium$s atalEaw!

5oe /alther% a communication proessor at +ornell =niversity%argued that given the opportunity or sufcient e*change osocial messages and subseuent relational growth% ace-to-aceand ++ are eually useul mediums or developing closerelationships!


38/48

CMC versus face-to-face: A sip instead of agulp. /alther labeled his theory social inormation processing

(0) because he believes relationships grow only to thee*tent that parties ,rst gain inormation about each otherand use that inormation to orm impressions!

0 ocuses on the ,rst lin' o the chain>the personalinormation available through ++ and its eCect on thecomposite mental image o the other!

/alther ac'nowledges that nonverbal cues are ,ltered outo the interpersonal inormation sent and received via ++%but he doesn$t thin' this loss is atal!

&wo eatures o ++ provide a rationale or 0 theory!

1! Jerbal cues: ++ users can create ully ormed impressionso others based

solely on linguistic content o messages!2! I*tended time: &hough the e*change o social inormation

is slower via ++

than ace-to-ace% over time the relationships ormed are notwea'er or more ragile!

fffi


39/48

Verbal cues of affinity replace nonverbalcues. 6e argues that verbal and nonverbal cues can be

used interchangeably! I*perimental support or a counter-intuitive idea

1! /alther and two o his ormer graduate studentsran a comparative study to test how ++ users

pursue their social goals and i afnity can bee*pressed through a digital medium!

2! n their study% the participants discussed a moraldilemma with a stranger via either ++ or ace-to-ace! &he stranger was in actuality a research

conederate told to pursue a speci,c communicationgoal! 6al the conederates were told to interact in ariendly manner and the remaining pairs were toldto interact in an unriendly manner!


40/48

&he mode o communication made no diCerencein the emotional tone perceived by theparticipants!

B! el-disclosure% praise% and e*plicit statementso aCection successully communicated warmthas well as indirect agreement% change osubGect% and compliments oCered whileproposing a contrasting idea!

H! n ace-to-ace interactions% participants reliedon acial e*pression% eye contact% tone o voice%body position% and other nonverbal cues tocommunication afliation!


41/48

Extended time: The crucial variable in CMC.

/alther is convinced that the length o timethat ++ users have to send messages is the'ey determinant o whether their messagecan achieve a comparable level o intimacy asace-to-ace interactions!

essages spo'en in person ta'e at least ourtimes as long to say via ++! &his diCerentialmay e*plain why ++ is perceived as

impersonal and tas'-oriented


42/48

ince ++ conveys messages more slowly%

/alther advises users to send messages moreoten!

nticipated uture interaction and chronemiccues may also contribute to intimacy on the

nternet!1! 0eople will trade more relational messages ithey thin' they may meet again and thisanticipated uture interaction motivates them todevelop the relationship!

2! /alther believes that chronemic cues% ornonverbal indicators o how people perceive% use%or respond to issues o time% is the only nonverbalcue not ,ltered out o ++!

H l ti Cl th h


43/48

Hyperpersonal perspective: Closer throughCMC than in person

/alther uses the term hyperpersonal to label++ relationships that are more intimate thanromances or riendships would be i partnerswere physically together!

6e classi,es our types o media eCects thatoccur precisely because ++ users aren$tpro*imal!


44/48

1! ender: elective sel-presentation

a! &hrough selective sel-presentation% peoplewho meet online have an opportunity to ma'eand sustain an overwhelmingly positiveimpression!

b! s a relationship develops% they can edit thebreadth and depth o their sel-disclosure toconorm to the cyber image they wish to

proGect!


45/48

Receiver: verattribution o similarity

a! ttribution is a perceptual process where we observepeople$s actions and try to ,gure out what they$rereally li'e!

b! n the absence o other cues% we are li'ely to

overattribute the inormation we have and create anideali8ed image o the sender!

c! artin 9ea and Russell pears describe thisidenti,cation as #I>social-identity-deindividuation!

i! =sers meet around a common interest!ii! n the absence o contrasting cues% they develop an

e*aggerated sense o similarity and group solidarity!


46/48

+hannel: +ommunicating on your own time

1! /alther reers to ++ as an asynchronous channelo

communication% meaning that parties can use it nonsimultaneously!

2! bene,t is the ability to plan% contemplate% and

edit one$s comments more than is possible inspontaneous% simultaneous tal'!

B! eedbac': el-ul,lling prophecy

K! sel-ul,lling prophecy is the tendency or a

person$s e*pectation o others to evo'e a responserom them that con,rms what was anticipated!

1! el-ul,lling prophecy is triggered when thehyperpositive image is intentionally orinadvertently ed bac' to the other person% creating

a ++ euivalent o the loo'ing-glass sel!

Th tig l fif ti Wht


47/48

The warranting value of information: Whatto trust?

ocial networ'ing sites are now popular means o

++% but are distinct because o the inclusion ophotos% video% a personal pro,le% networ' connections%and the ability to add inormation to others$ pro,les!

normation is believed i it has warranting value!

#oes their online pro,le match their oLinecharacteristics

relationship development theories

Documents