Openness and Honesty

Openness

To be in relationship means to be open. Early work by Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor demonstrated this by suggesting that relationships vary in the breadth and depth of topics that partners discuss. For example, a casual acquaintance relationship with a neighbor is characterized by limited breadth and depth (e.g., the new addition to one's house and the weather are all that are talked about). As such, the relationship has limited openness. If the neighbor is one known for some time and who would be considered a good friend, the breadth and depth of discussion, necessarily, increases substantially (e.g., sharing parenting struggles).

Openness implies giving a partner access to one's self. This access may be manifested in four specific ways. First, relational partners may give each other access to information. The more open one is in a relationship, the more information that is known about him or her. Second, partners may give social access. Social access is characterized by time spent together. For example, one can be open socially by talking on the phone, texting, or physically spending time together. Third is physical access. Physical access includes being open to various forms of touch, such as playful touch and affectionate touch. The final form of access is psychological. Psychological access occurs when one is open about how one feels and thinks (for example, sharing one's deepest fears).

Openness across these four dimensions increases the level of intimacy in a relationship. This increase in intimacy is a result, in part, of the relationship risk that each partner shares. This risk is the result of the increased possibility that partners might use private information in hurtful or inappropriate ways. Increased trust is necessary for partners to manage the increased vulnerability that is a [Page 1180]consequence of relational openness. As such, intimacy is developed not merely through openness, but through openness that facilitates closeness and trust.

Scholars have also identified openness as part of a dialectic that is central to most personal relationships: openness—closedness. Dialectical theorists argue that relationships experience a number of internal tensions that are the result of constant negotiation between opposing or contradictory tendencies (e.g., interdependence—independence; judgment—acceptance). From this perspective, individuals in relationships are constantly being pulled between the desire to be open with one's partner and the desire to maintain privacy.

Societal norms and expectations regarding openness made a significant shift in the 1960s. For example, 50 years ago, there was less expectation that one's romantic partner would also be one's best friend—this was especially true for lower socioeconomic couples. Arthur Bochner has suggested that the countercultural movement of the late 1960s polarized social conduct into two camps: instrumental and expressive. Instrumental conduct emphasized certainty, predictability, restraint, and strategic communication. Expressive conduct was characterized by openness, honest talk, and freedom of expression. Phrases like “tell it like it is” and “let it all hang out” illustrate the expectations that individuals in close relationships should be “totally open” with one another (perhaps with little concern for the other person's feelings). However, multiple studies have indicated that individuals in satisfying intimate relationships (e.g., married couples) are selective in their self-disclosure. Happy spouses are characterized by sharing in moderate amounts with each other. Part of this results from the high levels of self-disclosure experienced in growth stages of the relationship, but it also seems that healthy couples have the ability to sense what is important to talk about and when and where and how to talk about it.

...