Social Penetration Theory has been appealing since its inception more than thirty years ago. Altman and Taylor have proposed an intriguing model by which to view relational development. The theory had its beginnings during a time of openness in society. As you think about the theory’s value, take into consideration the historical time frame of the theory. That said, among the criteria for evaluating a theory, two are especially relevant for discussion: heurism and scope.

Heurism

There can be no doubt that Social Penetration Theory and the concept of self-disclosure has yielded literally hundreds of studies. Therefore, we believe SPT is a highly heuristic theory. Researchers have studied and written about the ­effects of self-disclosure, for example, on various types of relationships and across a variety of populations. Families (Turner & West, 2006), teachers (Mottet, Beebe, Raffeld, & Medlock, 2004; Russ, Simonds, & Hart, 2002), marriages (Caughlin & Petronio, 2004), and physician-patient relationships (Duggan & Parrott, 2001) have all been investigated. Further, the effects of culture on the penetration process (e.g., Gudykunst & Nishida, 1986a) have also been investigated. Scholars in the area of relationship development and its ancillary areas, including relational control (Rogers & Escudero, 2004), friendships (Johnson et al., 2004), and relational maintenance (Dindia, 2003) owe much of their thinking to social penetration writings.

Scope

One could argue that the scope of SPT is limited. Some scholars contend, for instance, that self-disclosure in particular may be too narrowly interpreted. For instance, Valerian Derlega, Sandra Metts, Sandra Petronio, and Stephen ­Margulis (1993) believe that self-disclosure depends on a number of factors, not simply the need to reveal to people over time. Because people are constantly changing, they argue that what is considered to be self-disclosure often depends on the attitudes of a relational partner. Further, Derlega and his ­colleagues indicate that self-disclosure is not always a linear event, as suggested by SPT. Derlega and colleagues conclude that “self-disclosure and close relationships do not necessarily develop over time in a parallel, incremental, and continuous fashion” (p. 26).

The scope of the theory has also been called into question by others. Mark Knapp and Anita Vangelisti (2005) reject the notion that relationship development is so linear. They believe relationships are embedded in other relationships, and in turn, these relationships affect the communication between ­partners. Therefore, other people may influence the direction of a relationship. In addition, the linearity of the theory suggests that the reversal of relational engagement (recall that Altman and Taylor likened relationship disengagement to a film shown in reverse) is relational disengagement. Leslie Baxter and Erin Sahlstein (2000) assert that the concept of information openness and closedness cannot be understood in isolation; there is much more going on in a relationship than simple self-disclosure. Further, Baxter (1984) discovered that several elements exist in relationship breakups, undercutting the linearity of ­relationship disengagement.

To be fair, Altman later revisited the social penetration processes and amended his original thinking with Taylor. Altman explained that being open and disclosive should be viewed in conjunction with being private and withdrawn (Altman, Vinsel, & Brown, 1981; Taylor & Altman, 1987). In a sense, Altman proposes what Baxter and Montgomery articulate in their theory on Relational Dialectics (Chapter 12). C. Arthur VanLear (1991) underscored this thinking by concluding that there are two competing cycles of openness and closedness in both friendships and romantic relationships. Jason LaSalle and Elise Porter from our opening story will surely experience this push and pull of self-disclosure as their relationship progresses. It is likely that as both of them share pieces of information, each will also remain private about other issues.

Despite its critics, Social Penetration Theory remains an integral theory ­pertaining to relationship development and has spawned hundreds of studies. Although its original incarnation may have been problematic, the theory resonated with interpersonal communication scholars. Relationship development can be challenging at times, and SPT helps people understand those challenges.