Relationship Theories

Question 1

social penetration theory

Answer 1

• Relationships deepen through self-disclosure
• As relationship grows, rate of disclosure slows while the depths of disclosure becomes more intimate
• Allows others to penetrate a person’s public persona and discover the inner self
• Progression is linear at first - follows stages and becomes more cyclical

Question 2

social penetration theory: reward-cost assessment

Answer 2

• Self-disclosure results in vulnerability, but sharing personal information can strengthen relationships → increases emotional intimacy and communication in general
• When rewards outweigh costs, information is shared

Question 3

social penetration theory: considerations and barriers for disclosing

Answer 3

• When we choose to share information about ourselves, it’s important to consider trust, loss of privacy, length of relationship, reactions from current and previous partners in similar instances
• Barriers can affect the amount of self-disclosure between partners and could include: gender (ex. women share more), race, religion (ex. may not be able to share certain things), personality (ex. may be more reserved/introverted), social status, ethnicity (ex. culture may affect sharing)

Question 4

4 levels of information that we share

Answer 4

• Surface: things others learn by looking at you (ex. Gender, age, race)
• Peripheral: information shared in any social situation (ex. Name, job, hometown)
• Intermediate: information shared infrequently, but not hidden about you (ex. Allergies, likes/dislikes, beliefs)
• Central: information is private; only in close relationships where a person is trusted (ex. Insecurities, vulnerabilities)

Question 5

4 stages of self-disclosure

Answer 5

• orientation stage
• exploratory stage
• affective stage
• stable stage

Question 6

orientation stage (and example from Shrek)

Answer 6

• Small talk/first impressions
• Non-intimate information, little personal sharing
• Observing and follow social norms
• Balance of surface and peripheral
• ____ or new co-workers
• ex. when Shrek and Fiona first meet and she discovers he’s an ogre

Question 7

exploratory stage (and example from Shrek)

Answer 7

• Reveal more about self (ex. opinions)
• Personal info is witheld
• Casual relationships (ex. Work or school)
• Show more non-verbal body language (shows interest in wanting to know more about a person)
• Balance of peripheral and intermediate
• ex. When Shrek and Fiona are talking and cooking dinner together

Question 8

affective stage (and example from Shrek)

Answer 8

• Disclose personal and private matters
• Share unique ways of speaking
• Comfortable arguing or criticizing
• More intermediate and central (may still be guarded - hold some things back)
• Close friends and romantic partners
• ex. when Shrek and Fiona confess their feelings for each other

Question 9

stable stage (and example from Shrek)

Answer 9

• Disclosure is open and comfortable
• Predictive abilities increase, but not perfect
• Nearly all levels of information are shared, but there’s never total disclosure (there are things we’ll hold back from relational partners)
• ex. When Fiona transforms into her true self (can be herself around him)

Question 10

de-penetration

Answer 10

• One or both partners see the costs of self-disclosure outweigh the benefits
• Withdraw from sharing and relationship (end or downgrade the relationship - ex. Best friend becomes a friend, and certain info is no longer shared with them)
• Why does de-penetration happen?
• • Vulnerability
• • Reward-cost assessment

Question 11

Social penetration theory: why is it important?

Answer 11

• Can be used to explain a variety of relationships (not just romantic ones)
• Helps us understand how people develop deep and meaningful relationships

Question 12

Social penetration theory: strengths and criticisms

Answer 12

• Strengths of this theory:
• • Direct and simple to understand
• • Applies to the real world
• • Helpful to understand electronic communications
• Criticisms:
• • Does not consider other variables that can change the outcome of a relationship
• • Not all relationships follow the same order (ex. Reality TV shows, long-distance relationships)

Question 13

attribution theory

Answer 13

• How and why ordinary people explain events as they do (Interpretation of events)
• Can have internal or external attributions

Question 14

Attribution theory: internal vs. external attributions

Answer 14

• Internal attribution:
• • Cause of behaviour is internal characteristics (ie. personality, beliefs, motives)
• • Not an outside force
• External attribution:
• • Cause of behaviour is a situation or event outside a person’s control (ex. Situational or environmental features)
• • Not internal characteristics

Question 15

Attribution theory: attribution error

Answer 15

• Overemphasises personal characteristics
• Ignores situational factors when judging others’ behaviours
• • ex. Feeling like Robyn is ungrateful because she comes home and complains about her day rather and doesn’t thank you for making dinner (but you’re not taking into account that she had a bad day, was stuck in traffic, etc.)

Question 16

actor/observer effect

Answer 16

• Make attributions for others’ behaviours in a different way than they make attributions for their own behaviours
• • ex. you feel like your partner is lazy because they don’t clean up after themselves, but you also don’t clean up after yourself, but you tell yourself it’s because you’re busy → “yeah but it’s different”

Question 17

attribution theory: 2 types of attributions

Answer 17

• relationship-enhancing attributions

- distress-maintaining attributions

Question 18

attribution theory: relationship-enhancing attributions

Answer 18

• More common for non-distressed or satisfied romantic relationships
• We give our partners more responsibility for their positive behaviours and let them off the hook for negative ones by making low-impact attributions for negative behaviours
• • Ex. positive: “she texts me at work because she cares about me”
• • Ex. negative: “she yells at me because her work is really stressful”

Question 19

attribution theory: distress-maintaining attributions

Answer 19

• More common in distressed or dissatisfied romantic relationships (occurs equally for men and women)
• Focusing on the negative in positive situations (ex. Feeling like your partner only brought you flowers because they did something bad and they’re trying to make up for it)
• Oka et al study:
• • Women with low relationship quality displayed more hostility in interactions
• • Males display more distress-maintaining attributions

Question 20

attribution theory: influence of family of origin on attributions

Answer 20

• Attribution patterns related to experiences growing up
• Gardener et al: family of origin was strongest predictor of attributions for one’s self and for one’s partner
• • Ex. empathy: if you grew up in a household that expressed a lot of empathy, you’re more likely to make empathetic attributions in your relationships (empathy is a relationship-enhancing attribution

Question 21

2 reasons why attribution theory is important for relationships

Answer 21

• Helps us understand and identify our biases
• • Ex. perceiving partner’s use of social networks (like Facebook) as negative compared to our own
• Helps us identify how our perceptions of relationships can influence our relationship satisfaction
• • Ex. Daughter-in-laws who were less satisfied with their mother-in-laws made more internal attributions for hurtful behaviours than daughter-in-laws that were satisfied

Question 22

attribution theory: strengths and criticisms

Answer 22

• Strengths:
• • Applies to everyone
• • Provides a sense of control
• • Helps us understand reasoning for another person’s perception
• Criticisms:
• • Feedback can influence how a person perceives a cause of an event
• • Perception of events is different for the individual and the observer (ex. What happens when you’re just observing it, and not part of it?)
• • Biases and social consensus (checking in with friends/family seeking reaffirmation) can change perception

Question 23

Communication Privacy Management theory

Answer 23

• How we manage information that we consider private
• • Contexts include healthcare, families, interpersonal relationships, social media, and organizational settings
• • Breakdown in relationships are caused by unsuccessful management of private information
• • Information disclosed is private (owned by the “information owner”/person who chooses to share it)
• • Disclosure is a process and private information is what people share
• • Process of revealing and concealing
• When we intentionally share personal information with another person, we have authorized them to be co-owners of the information
• • Sharing this information with a co-worker means a privacy relationship is formed
• • Owners can hold co-owners accountable (they have an obligation to take responsibility for protecting the information)

Question 24

Communication Privacy Management theory: assumptions

Answer 24

• We own our private information, even if we choose to share it
• Right to control the flow of information (who has access to it and who doesn’t)
• Share and withhold information based on privacy rules (rules can be flexible and are not rigid; rules change based on status of relationship)

Question 25

Communication Privacy Management theory: boundaries

Answer 25

• information is protected through boundaries

- 3 elements: boundary linkage, boundary permeability, and boundary turbulence

Question 26

Communication Privacy Management theory: boundary linkage

Answer 26

• Owners and co-owners are connected when they build associations through a boundary
• • Ex. doctor to patient relationship (process is clear how information is shared and protected)

Question 27

Communication Privacy Management theory: boundary permeability

Answer 27

• Represents how easily information can or cannot pass between individuals
• Boundary is thick when our information is shared with less people (1-2 people), and less likely to get out
• Boundary becomes thin when we share with more people, which means it’s more likely to get out

Question 28

Communication Privacy Management theory: boundary turbulence

Answer 28

• When rules are not mutually understood by co-owners, management of info comes into conflict with each owner’s expectations
• Turbulence is caused by:
• • mistakes/uninvited party overhearing
• • Disclosures made under the influence
• • Co-owner intentionally breaks privacy boundary

Question 29

Communication Privacy Management theory: why is it important?

Answer 29

Helps us to understand different relational issues, specifically privacy dilemmas and/or breakdowns in the disclosure process

Question 30

Communication Privacy Management theory: strengths and criticisms

Answer 30

• Strengths:
• • Practical
• • Applies to many relationships and contexts (family dynamics, gender gap in communication, disclosures of HIV or AIDS status, child sexual abuse)
• Criticisms:
• • Rules and choices (if do not follow the model, behaviours/choices not held to or explained by the model)

Question 31

Communication Privacy Management theory: Full House example

Answer 31

• boundary linkage: Michelle and friends become co-owners of secret info about “Mighty Mutant Superkids Club” –> connection; establish rules/consequences about info sharing (no grown-ups, eating toenails)
• boundary permeability: boundary is thin (shared between 4 kids) –> more likely that info will get out
• boundary turbulence: Michelle shares info with dad (co-owner breaking privacy boundary)