The basics of this situation are that two people, Jack and Jill, met through their mutual friend, Brian. Jack and Jill become close friends very quickly and start spending a lot of time together. Eventually, Jack develops romantic feelings for Jill; however, he is afraid to reveal his secret to Jill because he doesn't want to strain the relationship. On top of that, Brian has had feelings for Jill for a long time and at one point told her about them. Unfortunately for Brian, Jill did not reciprocate. Jack knows all of this because Brian told him.
One of the theories I will use to assess this situation is Sunnafrank's Predicted Outcome Value Theory. The basis of this theory is that during the first encounter between two people they determine their predicted outcome values for one another, or POVs. A POV is the value that you assign to someone that determines how much you are willing to get to know them. If this value is high then the likelihood of becoming closer becomes higher; likewise, having a low POV eventually leads to a lower chance of developing relational closeness. Throughout the course of the relationship, POVs will either increase or decrease. The initial POV value assigned determines the likelihood of the relationship getting stronger or diminishing.
It's a chain reaction, if during the first encounter the person you meet demonstrates key aspects (i.e. verbal communication, body language, openness) in a way that you find appealing then chances are that you will get to know the person more and that will in turn lead to a greater quantity and better quality of interactions. According to Sunnafrank (1986), during initial conversations predicted outcome value is strongly and positively related to the amount of verbal communication, intimacy of communication content, nonverbal affiliation, liking and perceived similarity (Sunnafrank, 1986).
[...] The onion starts with the outside layer being superficial details (i.e. tastes, job, home address, name) but by the time you get to the core you really know the innermost secrets and desires of the person (i.e. goals, hopes, dreams, fears). This metaphor can also be used to describe the various stages of penetration, starting with the sharing of peripheral items to, if not tended properly, depenetration and withdrawal to the outer edges of the core. However, this metaphor only describes what exists at each layer of intimacy, it does not describe at what pace these secrets should be revealed. [...]
[...] After all, according to Berger, Roloff and Roskos-Ewoldsen (2010), people tend to focus and discuss topics in conversations that facilitate positive predicted outcomes (Berger, Roloff & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2010). But, as it says on the last slide of the Predicted Outcome Value Theory power point, relationships are not always predictable. Sometimes a great first impression can lead to ill-advised decisions about a not so great person; likewise, a bad first impression can lead to great opportunities missed. The second theory I'm choosing to use is the Social Penetration theory. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
