Relationship Development Theories

Anna Kuzio, Ph.D.

Rogers described three necessary and
sufcient conditions for relationship growth:

(1) congruence;

(2) unconditional positive regard; and

(3) empathic understanding of each other

Ive done the numbers, and I will marry you.
Social Penetration Theory
Introduction
friend in need is a friend indeed!
"either a borrower nor a lender be!
soft answer turns away wrath!
#on$t get mad% get even!
&o 'now him is to love him!
(amiliarity breeds contempt!
Introduction

#eveloped by social psychologists )rwin

ltman and #almas &aylor% social penetration
theory e*plains how relational closeness
develops!

+loseness develops only if individuals proceed

in a gradual and orderly fashion from
super,cial to intimate levels of e*change as a
function of both immediate and forecast
outcomes
Personality structure: a multilayered onion.

&he outer layer is the public self!

&he inner core is one$s private domain!

Closeness through self-disclosure.

&he main route to deep social penetration is

through self-disclosure!

./ith the onion-wedge model% the depth of

penetration represents the degree of personal
disclosure!

&he layers of the onion are tougher near the

center!
The depth and breadth of self-disclosure.

0eripheral items are e*changed more

fre1uently and sooner than private
information!

2elf-disclosure is reciprocal% especially in early stages of

relationship development!

0enetration is rapid at the start% but slows down 1uic'ly

as the tightly wrapped inner layers are reached!
1! 2ocietal norms prevent too much early self-disclosure!
2! 3ost relationships stall before a stable intimate
e*change is established!
3! 4enuine intimate e*change is rare but when it is
achieved% relationships become meaningful and enduring!

#epenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer

withdrawal!

(or true intimacy% depth and breadth of penetration are

e1ually important!
Regulating closeness on the basis of
rewards and costs.

)f perceived mutual bene,ts outweigh the

costs of greater vulnerability% the process of
social penetration will proceed!

2ocial penetration theory draws heavily on the

social e*change theory of 5ohn &hibaut and
6arold 7elley!
Outcome: rewards minus costs.

&hibaut and 7elley suggest that people try to predict

the outcome of an interaction before it ta'es place!
1! &he economic approach to determining behavior
dates from 5ohn 2tuart 3ill$s principle of utility!
2! &he minima* principle of human behavior claims that
people see' to ma*imi8e bene,ts and minimi8e costs!
3! &he higher we inde* a relational outcome% the more
attractive the behavior that might ma'e it happen!

2ocial e*change theory assumes that people can

accurately gauge the bene,ts of their actions and ma'e
sensible choices based on their predictions!

s relationships develop% the nature of interaction that

friends ,nd rewarding evolves!
Comparison level (CL)gauging relational
satisfaction.

person$s +9 is the threshold above which an

outcome appears attractive!

:ne$s +9 for friendship% romance% or family

ties is pegged by one$s relational history% the
baseline of past e*perience!

2e1uence and trends play large roles in

evaluating a relationship!
Comparison level of alternatives (CLalt)
gauging relational stability.

&he +9alt is pegged by the best relational outcomes available outside

the current
relationship!

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

instability
increases!

2ocial e*change theories have an economic orientation!

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

relationships!
1! 2ome women endure abuse because :utcome ; +9alt!
2! &hey will leave only when +9alt ; :utcome!

&he relative values of :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 satisfying if it is stable% but other
satisfying
options are also available (in case this relationship turns sour)!
Dialectics and the environment.

ltman originally thought that openness is the

predominant 1uality of relationship changes! &he
desire for privacy may counteract a unidirectional
1uest for intimacy!

dialectical model suggests that human social

relationships are characteri8ed by openness or contact
and closedness or separateness between participants!

ltman also identi,ed the environment as a heuristic

cue that might guide our decisions to disclose!

#isclosing of one$s self may include both our cognitive

space (our minds% thoughts) and our physical space or
territory!

2andra 0etronio$s +ommunication 0rivacy

3anagement theory maps out the intricate ways
people manage boundaries around their personal
information!
Critique: pulling back from social
penetration

2ocial penetration is an established and familiar

e*planation of how closeness develops in friendships
and romantic relationships! .ut% it also has many
critics!

0etronio thin's it$s simplistic to e1uate self-

disclosure with relational closeness!

2he also challenges the theorists$ view of disclosure

boundaries as being ,*ed and increasingly less
permeable!

+an a comple* blend of advantages and

disadvantages be reliably reduced to a single inde*<

re people so consistently sel,sh that they always

opt to act strictly in their own best interest<
Uncertainty Reduction
Theory
Introduction

+harles .erger notes that the beginnings of

personal relationships are fraught with
uncertainties!

=ncertainty reduction theory focuses on how

human communication is used to gain
'nowledge and create understanding!

ny of three prior conditions>anticipation of

future interaction% incentive value% or
deviance>can boost our drive to reduce
uncertainty!

+onversation
Uncertainty reduction: To predict and
explain

.erger$s emphasis on e*planation (our

inferences about why people do what they do)
comes from the attribution theory of (rit8
6eider!

&here are at least two types of uncertainty!

1! .ehavioral 1uestions% which are often
reduced by following accepted procedural
protocols!
2! +ognitive 1uestions% which are reduced by
ac1uiring information!
An axiomatic theory: Certainty about
uncertainty

.erger proposes a series of a*ioms to e*plain

the connection between uncertainty and eight
'ey variables!
Axiom 1% verbal communication: s the amount
of verbal communication between strangers
increases% the level of uncertainty decreases%
and as a result% verbal communication increases!
Axiom 2% nonverbal warmth: s nonverbal
afliative e*pressiveness increases% uncertainty
levels will decrease! #ecreases in uncertainty
level will cause increases in nonverbal afliative
e*pressiveness!
Axiom 3% information see'ing: 6igh levels of
uncertainty cause increases in information-
see'ing behavior! s uncertainty levels decline%
information-see'ing behavior decreases!
Axiom 4% self-disclosure: 6igh levels of
uncertainty in a relationship cause decreases in
the intimacy level of communication content!
9ow levels of uncertainty produce high levels of
intimacy!
Axiom 5% reciprocity: 6igh levels of uncertainty
produce high rates of reciprocity! 9ow levels of
uncertainty produce low levels of reciprocity!
Axiom 6% similarity: 2imilarities between
persons reduce uncertainty% while
dissimilarities produce increases in
uncertainty!
Axiom 7, li'ing: )ncreases in uncertainty level
produce decreases in li'ing; decreases in
uncertainty produce increases in li'ing!
Axiom 8% shared networ's: 2hared
communication networ's reduce uncertainty%
while a lac' of shared networ's increases
uncertainty!
Theorems: The logical force of uncertainty
axioms

&hrough pairing a*ioms% .erger creates 2?

theorems!

&hese 2? theorems suggest a comprehensive

theory of interpersonal development based on
the importance of reducing uncertainty in
human interaction!
Message plans to cope with uncertain
responses

.erger concluded that most social interaction

is goal-driven: we have reasons for saying
what we say!
1! .erger claims plans are hierarchically
organi8ed with abstract representations at the
top of the hierarchy and progressively more
concrete representation toward the bottom!
2! 2witching strategies at the top of the
hierarchy causes changes down the hierarchy%
altering behavior!

=ncertainty is central to all social interaction!

&here is an interaction between uncertainty reduction

theory and plan-based message production that suggests
various strategies individuals use to cope with
uncertainty and hedge against ris' when deploying
messages!
1! 2ee'ing information through a passive% active% or
interactive strategy!
2! +hoosing plan comple*ity>the level of detail a plan
includes and the number of contingency plans!
3! 6edging>planning ways for both parties to @save faceA
when at least one of them miscalculated!
B! &he hierarchy hypothesis: /hen individuals are thwarted
in their attempts to achieve goals% their ,rst tendency is
to alter lower-level elements of their message!
Anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM)
theory.

4udy'unst applied some of the a*ioms and

theorems of uncertainty reduction theory to
intercultural settings!

6e noted that both strangers and in-group

members e*perience some degree of an*iety
and uncertainty in any new interpersonal
situation!

/hereas .erger treats uncertainty as the 'ey

communication variable% 4udy'unst elevated
an*iety to an e1ual status!

&he end goal of =3 theory is eCective

communication rather than closeness or
relational satisfaction

/here .erger$s theory centers around D or ?

a*ioms% 4udy'unst incorporated 3B of them!

ccording to 4udy'unst% an*iety and

uncertainty aren$t always bad>a small
amount of both ma'es us more vigilant!

/e are mindful when we consciously thin'

about our communication and continually
wor' at changing what we do in order to
become more eCective!
Critique: Nagging doubts about uncertainty

s .erger himself admits% his original statement

contained some propositions of dubious validity!
1! +ritics such as 7athy 7ellermann consider
theorem 1D particularly Eawed!
2! &he tight logical structure of the theory doesnFt
allow us to reGect one theorem without
1uestioning the a*ioms behind it!
3! )n the case of theorem 1D% a*ioms 3 and D must
also be suspect!
B! 7ellermann and Rodney Reynolds challenge the
motivational assumption of a*iom 3!
H! &hey also have undermined the claim that
motivation to search for information is increased
by anticipation of future interaction% incentive
value% and deviance!

3ichael 2unnafran' challenges .erger$s claim

that uncertainty reduction is the 'ey to
understanding early encounters!
1! 6e believes that predicted outcome value
more accurately e*plains communication in
early encounters!
2! .erger insists that you canFt predict outcome
values until you reduce uncertainty!

#espite these problems% .ergerFs theory has

stimulated considerable discussion within the
discipline!
Social Information
Processing Theory
Introduction.

2cholars who studied new electronic media have oCered a variety

of theories to e*plain the inherent diCerences between computer-
mediated communication (+3+) and face-to-face communication!
1! 2ocial presence theory suggests that te*t-based messages
deprive +3+ users of the sense that other people are Gointly
involved in the interaction!
2! 3edia richness theory classi,es each communication medium
according to the comple*ity of the messages it can handle
efciently!
3! third theory concentrates on the lac' of social conte*t cues in
online communication!

Iach of these theories favors a @cues ,ltered outA interpretation

that regards the absence of nonverbal cues as the medium$s fatal
Eaw!

5oe /alther% a communication professor at +ornell =niversity%

argued that given the opportunity for sufcient e*change of
social messages and subse1uent relational growth% face-to-face
and +3+ are e1ually useful mediums for developing close
relationships!
CMC versus face-to-face: A sip instead of a
gulp.

/alther labeled his theory social information processing

(2)0) because he believes relationships grow only to the
e*tent that parties ,rst gain information about each other
and use that information to form impressions!

2)0 focuses on the ,rst lin' of the chain>the personal

information available through +3+ and its eCect on the
composite mental image of the other!

/alther ac'nowledges that nonverbal cues are ,ltered out

of the interpersonal information sent and received via +3+%
but he doesn$t thin' this loss is fatal!

&wo features of +3+ provide a rationale for 2)0 theory!

1! Jerbal cues: +3+ users can create fully formed impressions
of others based
solely on linguistic content of messages!
2! I*tended time: &hough the e*change of social information
is slower via +3+
than face-to-face% over time the relationships formed are not
wea'er or more fragile!
Verbal cues of afnity replace nonverbal
cues.

6e argues that verbal and nonverbal cues can be

used interchangeably!

I*perimental support for a counter-intuitive idea

1! /alther and two of his former graduate students
ran a comparative study to test how +3+ users
pursue their social goals and if afnity can be
e*pressed through a digital medium!
2! )n their study% the participants discussed a moral
dilemma with a stranger via either +3+ or face-to-
face! &he stranger was in actuality a research
confederate told to pursue a speci,c communication
goal! 6alf the confederates were told to interact in a
friendly manner and the remaining pairs were told
to interact in an unfriendly manner!
&he mode of communication made no diCerence
in the emotional tone perceived by the
participants!
B! 2elf-disclosure% praise% and e*plicit statements
of aCection successfully communicated warmth
as well as indirect agreement% change of
subGect% and compliments oCered while
proposing a contrasting idea!
H! )n face-to-face interactions% participants relied
on facial e*pression% eye contact% tone of voice%
body position% and other nonverbal cues to
communication afliation!
Extended time: The crucial variable in CMC.

/alther is convinced that the length of time

that +3+ users have to send messages is the
'ey determinant of whether their message
can achieve a comparable level of intimacy as
face-to-face interactions!

3essages spo'en in person ta'e at least four

times as long to say via +3+! &his diCerential
may e*plain why +3+ is perceived as
impersonal and tas'-oriented

2ince +3+ conveys messages more slowly%

/alther advises users to send messages more
often!

nticipated future interaction and chronemic

cues may also contribute to intimacy on the
)nternet!
1! 0eople will trade more relational messages if
they thin' they may meet again and this
anticipated future interaction motivates them to
develop the relationship!
2! /alther believes that chronemic cues% or
nonverbal indicators of how people perceive% use%
or respond to issues of time% is the only nonverbal
cue not ,ltered out of +3+!
Hyperpersonal perspective: Closer through
CMC than in person

/alther uses the term hyperpersonal to label

+3+ relationships that are more intimate than
romances or friendships would be if partners
were physically together!

6e classi,es four types of media eCects that

occur precisely because +3+ users aren$t
pro*imal!
1! 2ender: 2elective self-presentation
a! &hrough selective self-presentation% people
who meet online have an opportunity to ma'e
and sustain an overwhelmingly positive
impression!
b! s a relationship develops% they can edit the
breadth and depth of their self-disclosure to
conform to the cyber image they wish to
proGect!
Receiver: :verattribution of similarity
a! ttribution is a perceptual process where we observe
people$s actions and try to ,gure out what they$re
really li'e!
b! )n the absence of other cues% we are li'ely to
overattribute the information we have and create an
ideali8ed image of the sender!
c! 3artin 9ea and Russell 2pears describe this
identi,cation as 2)#I>social-identity-deindividuation!
i! =sers meet around a common interest!
ii! )n the absence of contrasting cues% they develop an
e*aggerated sense of similarity and group solidarity!
+hannel: +ommunicating on your own time
1! /alther refers to +3+ as an asynchronous channel
of
communication% meaning that parties can use it non
simultaneously!
2! bene,t is the ability to plan% contemplate% and
edit one$s comments more than is possible in
spontaneous% simultaneous tal'!
B! (eedbac': 2elf-ful,lling prophecy
K! self-ful,lling prophecy is the tendency for a
person$s e*pectation of others to evo'e a response
from them that con,rms what was anticipated!
1! 2elf-ful,lling prophecy is triggered when the
hyperpositive image is intentionally or
inadvertently fed bac' to the other person% creating
a +3+ e1uivalent of the loo'ing-glass self!
The warranting value of information: What
to trust?

2ocial networ'ing sites are now popular means of

+3+% but are distinct because of the inclusion of
photos% video% a personal pro,le% networ' connections%
and the ability to add information to others$ pro,les!

)nformation is believed if it has warranting value!

#oes their online pro,le match their oLine
characteristics<
1! 9ow warrant information can be easily manipulated by
owner and may not be trustworthy!
2! 6igh warrant information is less easily changed and
more trustworthy!

2ocial networ'ing sites allow interpersonal information

to come from both self and others
Critique: Walthers candid assessment.

/alther admits% 2)0 does not allow for

diCerences in the afliation drive% particularly
in reference to motivating eCects of
anticipated future interaction!

&he hyperpersonal perspective lac's

theoretical basis% which does not allow for
testability!

&he warranting principle may depend on the

information$s social desirability according to
the values of the society!