Talk:Social penetration theory

message: I would like to add an onion model diagram to this page. b_cubed 05:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The last paragraph under "Breadth and Depth" either needs to be pervasively edited for clarity and citations or cut out altogether.  It contains figures of speech, grammar mistakes, and statements inconsistent with the clearer part of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.201.103.196 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last paragraph under "Breadth and Depth" 

message: Under the outcomes section of the "Rewards and costs assessment" has been edited to remove the math markup as it seemed to be unnecessarily used. now is shown within normal type face using stardard markup system LaurenOldroyd (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Outcomes heading under "Rewards and costs assessment"

message: I'm glad to see that sections of this article are being worked on by students. Here are some suggestions for improvement, which are probably obvious, but I hope they're helpful. I don't know the topic so I'm just writing from the point of view of Wikipedia style. This isn't meant to be an exhaustive list of problems.
;Lead
The fourth paragraph of the lead is grammatically weird.
;Assumptions
This should be continuous prose instead of a list.
;Onion Metaphor
A lot of this lacks citations of sources. If a book is being cited, the ISBN for that edition (if there is one) and page number should be included in the citation, so that other people can verify the source for themselves.
The onion metaphor diagram would benefit from a diagram to represent the different stages allowing a visual representation to be provided.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shague90 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! I have set to sorting the references and notes section to make them more detailed. I found that note 6 and 7 are the same external website but under different names. It is an extract from a published book "Changing Minds" but gives no details on publication on the website itself. 
LaurenOldroyd (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

text: It's going in the right direction, but watch out for unreferenced paragraphs. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements needed to this article 

message: Hello!
I have created an image using the Social Penetration metaphor with the use of the onion & layers. I deleted the previous 2 images on the page as I feel they did not have substantial relevance or add much to what was been mentioned. I used a credible source for the images information & made it clear as possible for readability. 
Nick. J. Austin (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Onion Metaphor Imagery Change

message: Hey Yin-Ying! I think you made great points in your questions and I totally feel the same! I will respond to them one by one below:
1. Regarding the overview, I absolutely feel the same. Overview should be brief and consist of key takeaways for readers. You can definitely extend the rest of the explanation in a new "definition" section.
2. For the SPT and SET, I think the length of the SET is ok. It's just the other parts are not fully developed thus making the related theory intro seems too long. I think you can either shorten this section to balance the structure or explore other derivation of SPT and add more reference into it.
3. I think the strangers on the train is a great idea! I personally like the example very much. Yet I feel the same struggle of yours that there isn't the perfect place to put it. My advice is either create a new section called phenomena observed, or introduce the example after some related definition /explanation.
4. About the application section-YES!! Mine is ridiculously long too. Especailly the last one-Computer-mediated communication is way too long. There are so many application we can't put everything into it. I think it is better if you can find a way better organize and arrange this section, than adding more materials into it. For example, combining some overlapping research into one field, or dimply shorten some redundant ones.
5. Finally I have a advice regarding the first section- Assumptions. Because there is barely explanation of individual assumption and you may want to improve it by adding a little more description.
In short, you did a great job on detecting those problems and offer suggestions! Can't wait to see the big difference you would make!
Yy362 (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from Young  

message: Hi Yin-Ying! You have posted some great questions and observations. Social penetration theory is certainly a fascinating (and relatable!) theory, but WOW there's a lot of content on this page! It is all very helpful, but I think that some of your ideas will definitely help to strengthen this page along with helping to organize it a little better! I will answer your points one-by-one below:
1. I agree with you. I think that the overview section is quite long, and if you don't know much about SPT, it is also very overwhelming, especially considering how much content follows on the rest of the page. I think that shortening the overview section could also strengthen it! It seems as though you could even put some of the content from the overview section just right down below, under the assumptions section? The assumptions section is pretty short, and it seems like some of the content in the overview section would actually be able to back-up some of the assumptions. Anyways, I think that shortening the overview section by either deleting some content, or just writing it in a more succinct manner, could really benefit that section in particular, and the page as a whole. It's a lot to cover for just the first "intro" part of the theory!!
2. I agree that there is a lot of content regarding the Social Exchange Theory. I think it's important to keep some information regarding that theory since the two theories relate to one another. However, I think that having the Wikipedia link to SET is the most important aspect - that way, if someone wants to learn more about SET, they can just go to that page instead of reading it on the SPT page. I'm not sure how much information I'd actually take out of the section, but I probably wouldn't add too much more to the section. I do wish, however, that there was a little more (1 or 2 sentences) written about how SPT and SET relate to one another. If I had never read about either theory, I think that I would be pretty confused. I think a more basic, introductory sentence at the beginning of the SET section would be quite helpful.
3. I think that adding a "Stranger on the Train" concept section would really enhance this page, because it's a very interesting concept. I'm wondering if there's any research on the concept? If so, it would be very interesting to read about it and you could incorporate it into the research section. Otherwise, I would maybe create a new section and place it under the "Onion metaphor" section... I was looking at the organization of the different sections, and it seems as though, after reading about the onion metaphor, a reader/learner might be able to understand/comprehend a new idea such as the "Stranger on the Train" idea. That is just my opinion. But I think you should definitely add it, because it serves as a great and enriching addition to the theory as a whole. 
4. I think it is OK to add more to the "extensive research and applications" page. In my opinion, you can never have too much research! And I personally learn best when I can read how a theory is applied in real life. However, I see what you mean when you say that it is long. I notice that the "social networking" part of the section is especially long. Perhaps if you added some research to the sub-sections, the section as a whole might even out a little bit? Or, if you added a new sub-section, I do not think that would be a bad thing, either. I say, if you have some good research or application findings, don't hesitate to add them! I think the page already contains some interesting points on research, but it could still be added on to and improved. 
Great job, Yin-Ying! This is a big page to edit, but I think you'll make it even better and I look forward to seeing the changes that you make!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amm564 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from Amanda 

message: Hi, Yin-Ying! The general structure of the page is well organized and easy for me to follow the flow. I think your imagery change on the page is great and improves its credibility. As for your questions, I think the introduction of the theory is a little overwhelming for me, especially the second paragraph which includes too many information. You can separate them into two parts. One part for explaining self-disclosure and another part for the objectivity of the theory. 
In terms of the social exchange theory, I think you are right about addressing the key ideas of the theory. More importantly, you can write about the relevance between the SET and the rewards and costs assessment at the beginning of the first paragraph to make reader understand why the page includes another theory to explain the concepts of social penetration theory.
In my opinion, you "strange-on-the-train" phenomenon can be added as a subsection under the self-disclosure part. It is easy for readers to understand the phenomenon after gaining the meaning and stages of self-disclosure. I think the phenomenon will be valuable and interesting for readers to understand the process of social penetration theory in a practical way. 
It is totally good for you to add more information to the application section, especially to the application in organizational communication. Besides, I think the criticism part needs more credible sources.
Hope my suggestions will help you edit the page. I believe your editing will make the page more attractive and useful for readers. I am looking forward to your final work. Aw1014 (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review from Ai-Ling 

message: Due to the ever-changing world of relational communications, I wonder if this article could benefit from the addition of parasocial relationships to the applications area. I think your current sections 4.3.1 and 4.4.1 could easily be worked in to this application. 
JRMcCumber1 (talk) 04:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parasocial Relationships 

message: The Depenetration section being separated from the other stages comes across as a bit awkward. Why is it important in this article to have this section separated? I feel the article would be more clear without this information. 
Eghensler (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depenetration Section

message: I plan to edit this article to include more references to research done about this theory as well as remove/edit some of the talking points that seem to make the article sound bias, also include more linked articles to relevant information pertaining to this theory.Marissamweaver (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes 

message: Is there really no critique of that theory? (It seems to me highly critiquable!) denis 'spir' (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  critique? 

message: Hi, I am a graduate student from Georgetown University who is editing the Social Penetration Theory article as part of an assignment for class. I made the following changes: 
For the sake of consistency, I wrote social penetration theory as SPT. 
In the self disclosure section, I removed the sentence, "In other words, penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are reached” because it was repetitive. 
In the part on De-penetration theory, I reworded “termination of relationship” to “causes the relationship to end.” 
In the Breadth and Depth section, the Depth subsection started off with a question. I removed this because I thought it was unnecessary. 
Under the Rewards and Costs Assessment section, I combined the Social Exchange Theory and Outcomes subsections. 
I removed the following paragraph:
"In addition, the relationship between nonverbal behavior and the social penetration process has been of interest. A study conducted among university drama student actresses discovers that casual acquaintances discussing intimate topics tended to use more intensive nonverbal behaviors than good friends do (Keiser & Altman, 1976)."
I felt that this did not add anything new to the article and the citation did not have  a link. MichaelNW (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from MichaelNW 

message: Hi, I'm a graduate student from the CCT program at Georgetown University. Here are my comments on the page.
1. The page didn’t write references for some examples it stated, so I can’t judge whether the examples are from academic research or just made up by the writer. Actually, they should come from academic articles.  See “Disclosure reciprocity”. 
2. The way the onion metaphor shows the relationship and the depth of the numbers is not accurate. The onion is cut into wedges. Each wedge is the breadth of the topics in the disclosure. The rising of the numbers should not represent different topics; instead, they are the depth of the same topic. For example, one man can talk about his family and his relationship at the first meet. He might introduce how many family members he has a girlfriend. As the self-disclosure goes deeper, under the same topics of family and relationship, he might tell you the one in his family he hates most, and he actually has divorced before. 
3. How about adding a section for critiques? The theory may meet some challenges because the traditional face to face communication is being replaced by online interaction. The writer mentioned some of this point in the application section. I expect to see more content focusing on this point. 
Extra references:
Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-Presentation in Online Personals: The Role of Anticipated Future Interaction, Self-Disclosure, and Perceived Success in Internet Dating. Communication Research, 33(2), 152–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205285368
Nicole Ellison, Rebecca Heino, Jennifer Gibbs, Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Volume 11, Issue 2, 1 January 2006, Pages 415–441, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x
Fanwang0912 (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  CCT Peer Review 2019 

message: Hello, I am a graduate student at Georgetown University who is editing the Social Penetration Theory article as part of an assignment for class. I made the following edits:
I added a part to the introduction about de-penetration. This new additions reads as, "SPT also examines the process of de-penetration and how some relationships regress over time and ultimately end.” 
In the disclosure reciprocity subsection of the self-disclosure section, there was an example about the rising cost of rent in New York City. I removed this example because it did not have a citation and replaced it with one that did. The new example reads as, "For instance, if someone was to bring up their experience with an intimate topic such as weight gain or having divorced parents, the person they are talking to could reciprocate by sharing their own experience.” The citation for this example is below:
Jiang, L. Crystal; Bazarova, Natalya N.; Hancock, Jeffery T. (2013). “From Perception to Behavior: Disclosure Reciprocity and the Intensification of Intimacy in Computer Mediated Communication.” Communication Research. 40. 125-143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211405313.  MichaelNW (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from MichaelNW 

message: Hello, I am a graduate student at Georgetown University who is editing the Social Penetration Theory article as part of an assignment for class. I made the following edit:
In the barriers section, there was an example about how people from Japan are less likely to self-disclose as much person information as people from France. I removed this example as it did not have a formal citation. I then replaced it with a similar example comparing the topics of discussion of interpersonal relationship between Japanese and American cultures and included a formal citation. The example reads as follows, "For example, Americans friends tend to discuss intimate topics with each other, whereas Japanese friends are more likely to discuss superficial topics." The citation for this example is below:
Cahn, Dudley D. (1984). "Communication in Interpersonal Relationships in Two Cultures: Friendship Formation and Mate Selection in the U.S. and Japan." Communication. 13. 31-37. MichaelNW (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from MichaelNW 

message: Hello, I am a graduate student at Georgetown University who is editing the Social Penetration Theory article as part of an assignment for class. I made the following edit:
In the barriers section, there was an example on how partners of different religions might hesitate to discuss topics of faith. I though this was a good example, but it lacked a citation. I attempted to find a citation to support this, but was unable to find one. I replaced this example with one I found on a study of self-disclosure among Hindus and Muslims in India. The results showed that Hindus, which are a religious majority in India, tend to disclose personal information more often than Muslims do. I wrote that people of a religious minority might feel less inclined to self-disclose personal information. The examples reads as follows, "One might feel less inclined to disclose personal information if doing so would violate their religious beliefs. Being part of a religious minority could also influence how much one feels comfortable in disclosing personal information." The citation for this example is below:
Croucher, Stephen M.; Faulkner, Sandra L.; Oommen, Deepa; Long, Bridget. (2010). "Demographic and Religious Differences in the Dimensions of Self-Disclosure Among Hindus and Muslims in India." Journal of Intercultural Communication Research. 39. 29-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2010.520837. MichaelNW (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from MichaelNW 

message: Hello, I am a graduate student at Georgetown University who is editing the Social Penetration Theory article as part of an assignment for class. I made the following edit:
In the barriers section, there is an example about how men are less likely to self-disclose to the stigma that comes with gender and expressing emotion. This was a good example, but it did not have a citation to support it. I found an article on the difference in self-disclosure between males and females in romantic relationships. I added a sentence about how women are more likely to self disclose than men. The new sentence reads as follows, "In romantic relationships, women are more likely to self-disclose than their male counterparts." The citation for this example is below:
Horne, Rebecca M.; Johnson, Matthew D. (2018). "Gender Role Attitudes, Relationships Efficacy, and Self-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships." The Journal of Social Psychology. 158. 37-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1297288. MichaelNW (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from MichaelNW 

message: Hello, I am a graduate student at Georgetown University who is editing the Social Penetration Theory article as part of an assignment for class. I made the following edit:
In the Applications section, there was a subsection titled Self-disclosure in minority communication. This subsection only had one example, which was about self-disclosure in the lesbian community. I added an example about self-disclosure of sexual orientation among LGBT youths. The study I cited examines the coming out experiences of LGBT youths, looking at who they chose to disclose this information to and whether it had a positive or negative affect on their relationships. 
Since both examples in the subsections are specifically about the LGBT community, I felt that it would be appropriate to change the name to Self-disclosure in the LGBT community. The citation for this example is below:
Varjas, Kris; Kiperman, Sarah; Meyers, Joel. (2016). "Disclosure Experiences of Urban, Ethnically Diverse LGBT High School Students: Implications for School Personnel." School Psychology Forum. 10. 78-92. MichaelNW (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from MichaelNW 

message: Hello, I am a graduate student at Georgetown University who is editing the Social Penetration Theory article as part of an assignment for class. I made the following edit:
I added some information to the Self-disclosure in the LGBT community section about how LGBT professionals choose whether to disclose their sexual orientation to their colleagues. The citation for this example is below:
Marrs, Sarah A.; Staton, A. Renne. (2016). "Negotiating Difficult Decisions: Coming Out versus Passing in the Workplace." Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling. 10. 40-54.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2015.1138097.  MichaelNW (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from MichaelNW 

message: Hello, I am a graduate student at Georgetown University who is editing the Social Penetration Theory article as part of an assignment for class. I made the following edits:
I added some information to the Social networking part of the Computer-mediated communication subsection of the Applications section about how the information that one discloses online depends on the type of website they are using. The citation for this example is below:
Attrill, Alison. (2012). "Sharing Only Parts of Me: Selective Self-Disclosure Across Internet Arenas". International Journal of Internet Science. 7. 55-77. 
I added some information to the Online dating part of the Computer-mediated communication subsection about the reasons in which one might choose disclose honest information versus positive information in online dating. The citation for this example is below:
Gibbs, Jennifer L.; Ellison, Nicole B.; Heino, Rebecca D. (2006). "Self-Presentations in Online Personals: The Role of Anticipated Future Interaction, Self-Disclosure, and Perceived Success in Internet Dating." Communication Research. 33. 152-177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205285368. MichaelNW (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from MichaelNW 

message: Hello, I am a graduate student at Georgetown University who is editing the Social Penetration Theory article as part of an assignment for class. I made the following edits:
I added some information to the Online dating part of the Computer-mediated communication subsection of the Applications section about how users of an online dating site might present an ideal depiction of themselves as opposed to an honest one. The citation for this example is below:
Ellison, Nicole; Heino, Rebecca; Gibbs, Jennifer. (2006). "Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 11. 415-441. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1083-6101.2006.00020.x. 
I added some information to the Interpersonal communication subsection of the Application section. I cited an article that examines marital happiness using the SPT model along with the Attraction Paradigm. The citation for this example is below:
Honeycutt, James M. (1986). "A Model of Marital Functioning Based on an Attraction Paradigm and Social-Penetration Dimensions." Journal of Marriage and the Family. 48. 651-659. MichaelNW (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from MichaelNW 

message: Hi!
In general this page has successfully introduced the basic concepts and multiple applications of the Social penetration theory, and the picture of onion layers is super. Also, I am glad to see the Social Exchange Theory is connected and shown on this page. However, under the "Rewards and costs assessment", the introduction about Social exchange theory definitely needs precise in-text citations which can enable the readers to find the original sources. These three paragraphs had mentioned so many authors without proper citations and that could be a problem. Besides, though many applications of the theory were mentioned and well-organized, critiques of this theory are not fully explicated. It is better for readers to understand a theory more completely by introducing its limitations as well. Lyjslife (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review  

message: Hi! I am a student from Georgetown University Communication Theory/Framework Standard course, here are my peer review suggestions:
(1)Structure
The structure of this article provides detailed knowledge covering big sections "assumptions," "self-disclosure," "rewards and costs assessment," and "applications." I would like to recommend to add another big section "critiques" explaining the limitation of this theory such as a relative narrow scope of the SPT.
The article has one legible image of an onion exemplifying the SPT. It can be added more pictures illustrating the examples and theoretical frameworks.
(2) Organization
The organization of this article needs to be further improved. The big section "Self-Disclosure" includes lots of small sections such as "onion metaphor," "Sexual communication anxiety among couples," "Stranger-on-the-train phenomenon," and "stages" which I think shouldn't be placed there. Self-disclosure is the core of the SPT, so it's understandable to list many small sections within this big section. But, these small sections focus on different areas such as "stages" is about the process while "sexual communication anxiety among couples" is studying a focused area. Therefore, it is suggested that:
"Stages" as a strategy of the social penetration process should be listed as an another new big section and be detailed explained with more examples. 
"Sexual communication anxiety among couples" should be moved to the application section.
"Onion metaphor" is a good instance so I think it will be better to put it in the beginning part. 
"Stranger-on-the-train" could be moved to the critique part or the end of the "Self-Disclosure" section.
(3) Evidence
This article uses 42 sources, thus more references need to be added.
The citation form is also problematic. The big section "Rewards and costs assessment" doesn't have any references and citations. For the beginning part, "Assumption" part, "Self Disclosure" introduction part, I think the citations didn't strictly follow the rule. They might need to be fixed.  
(4) Content
Many areas need to further fixed and some key concepts need to be covered.
"Transgression" this key word is not mentioned in the article, which should be one possible direction of depenetration.
The section "Rewards and Costs assessment" only explains some core ideas of the social exchange theory, while it forgets to connect how the SET is related and contributive to the SPT.
In the application section, it is obvious that "organization communication" and "Media-mediated Communication" are less addressed, since this theory mainly focuses on interpersonal communication. So maybe "media-mediated communication" and "computer-mediated communication" can combine together to form a "media" section. 
Suggested References:
Since nowadays many communication happen in the virtual space and it is not the same as face-to-face communication, the social penetration process is influenced and shaped by the media change. Though the article referred lots of sources about CMC, researches regarding to social media is relatively less than other big parts.
Also, celebrities are utilizing their social media as a method of forming a interpersonal relation with their fans, while the small section "Celebrity's self-disclosure on social media" is relatively less studied. So I think it is worthwhile to contribute one source about this topic. 
Utz, S. (2015). The function of self-disclosure on social network sites: Not only intimate, but also positive and entertaining self-disclosures increase the feeling of connection. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.076
Chung, S., & Cho, H. (2017). Fostering Parasocial Relationships with Celebrities on Social Media: Implications for Celebrity Endorsement. Psychology & Marketing, 34(4), 481–495. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21001
ZLyuLililalawawa (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  CCT 2020 Peer Review from ZL 

message: In the Self-Disclosure section, an addition of Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) could be added to show a connection between the two relational theories at play in relationships (SPT and URT). Although the two are quite similar in the initial definition and understanding of each, the two can be used in conjunction to show how both theories supplement one another in relationships. Bua327 (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection between Social Penetration Theory and Uncertainty Reduction Theory 

message: In the Computer Mediated Communication section, additional info needs to be added to include current data and research surrounding online dating. Bua327 (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  CMC Edits 

message: Whoever looks at this article next could help by appropriately citing sources. Wikipedia uses a citation system that differs from major ones like MLA or APA (confer Wikipedia:REFBEGIN). Many of the inline (presumably APA) citations appear to be found in the §Further reading section, so it's mostly just moving the citations to the appropriate sentences. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyeditor passing by 

message: — Assignment last updated by Mdg076 (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Communication Theory