3
open expression of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. People maintain few relationships
at this stage, generally romantic relationships, close family members, and close friends.
Social depenetration, de‐escalation, or dissolution, is also possible when self‐disclo-
sure is reduced as a result of interpersonal conflict and relational stressors (Taylor &
Altman, 1987). Social depenetration is the deliberate closing off of some portions of a
person’s life to his or her partner. This dissolution process can signal relationship disin-
tegration or relationship renegotiation. This relationship de‐escalation process could
be gradual or more abrupt, such as following a relational transgression prompting a
breakup. Friends or romantic partners could drift apart slowly or have a clear shift/
break in a relationship, and the interactions will be different depending on the path.
Related theories
Beyond relationship stages, social penetration theory incorporates aspects of social
exchange theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Social exchange theory is based on an
economic framework in which resources, or rewards and costs, are transferred. In rela-
tionships, rewards are any resource to which a person can attach value, for example,
money, support, affection, or comfort. Costs in relationships are experiences that indi-
viduals want to avoid or find undesirable, for example, effort, sacrifice, gifts, costs for
dates, and time and energy invested. Social penetration theory follows a pattern of the
“greater the ratio of rewards to costs, the more rapid the penetration process” (Taylor &
Altman, 1987, p. 264). People try to predict the potential outcome and weigh each rela-
tionship on a reward/cost scale. This reward/cost ratio suggests that relationships esca-
late or develop more quickly when there are positive self‐disclosure experiences and do
not develop quickly or at all if too many perceived costs exist (Taylor & Altman, 1987).
Thus, people may withhold “risky” information early in relationships, such as recently
declaring bankruptcy, to develop more trust.
Social penetration theory has been criticized, starting with the limited scope. Social
penetration theory is mostly utilized to describe early stages of relationship development
and how dating relationships develop over time but does not apply as well to coworkers,
neighbors, or acquaintances. The theory is not as clear at describing or explaining what
occurs in established relationships such as lifelong friends, family members, or couples
that have been married for several decades. Another critique questions if the whole
theory is supported by data. Additionally, scholars have questioned when rates of reci-
procity are highest. It is likely that reciprocity is highest in the middle stages of a rela-
tionship instead of the final stages of a relationship. The theory also treats disclosure as
a linear process, but disclosure likely follows a nonlinear pattern that varies based on
stage of the relationship. Social penetration theory also does not account for individual
differences in disclosure preferences and behaviors, for example, introversion/extro-
version. Finally, although stages of the penetration process are outlined clearly, the
depenetration process is not as straightforward.
Since the original iteration of the theory, several other theories have incorporated
social penetration theory to extend to other phenomena in areas such as relationship