Three depths, and the way back
Lesson 5 of 7 in this module · about 7 minutes · Communication
The idea
A conversation can sit at one of three depths. They are this course’s own stages, not a tested sequence and not taken from anyone’s program.
- Comfort and curiosity. Everyday interests, small experiences, what someone has enjoyed lately. “What have you been into lately?”
- Values and meaning. What someone cares about, why, and what has changed for them. “What’s something you value more now than you used to?”
- Mutual openness. How each of you likes to be understood, shared only when both of you choose to. “What helps you feel understood by someone?”
The four rungs of M04-L3, from facts to preferences to enthusiasms to values, fit inside the first two depths.
Social penetration theory argues that closeness grows as sharing moves gradually from lighter to more personal layers and the other person matches it, but the theory as a whole has not been tested 1. Studies test only pieces of it 1.
Some of those pieces have support. In a 45-minute procedure, strangers who took turns answering gradually more personal questions felt closer afterward than strangers doing small talk, and later experiments found people expected deep talk to be more awkward than it was 2. The outcome was self-rated closeness, not attraction, and both people had agreed to the task, so the finding does not show that a deep question from someone you have just met is welcome 2.
Depth also has a ceiling. One role-play experiment found that very intimate disclosure from someone just met lowered liking, and a second study found that intimate posts shared in public were judged less appropriate 3. The first used 30 women and is from an older era, and the second concerned online posts, not a face-to-face first meeting 3.
What you do with an answer matters too. In two diary studies, closeness tended to build when one person shared and the other responded with understanding, validation and care 4. The diaries were self-reported and covered conversations with anyone, not first meetings 4.
Deeper is not better, and the stages are not a ladder you climb once. Either person can lower the depth at any time: answer lightly, ask something easier, or return to what is in front of you. A deeper question is an invitation, and accepting it, answering lightly or passing are all fine. No question is safe from a no, and none needs to be.
Choose a depth from what the conversation has shown: how personal the other person’s answers have been, whether they share unasked, whether they ask you something at the same depth. None of that tells you how they feel about you. It tells you what depth they have chosen for now. When the cues are thin, “Insufficient information” is a fair answer, and staying where you are costs nothing.
Why it matters
Pushing for a depth the other person has not offered can make a conversation heavier than either of you wanted. In one role-play study, very intimate disclosure from someone just met lowered liking 3. Knowing the way back keeps a deeper question an invitation.
What it looks like
Example
In a community garden, you and Ines, 41, have talked about tomatoes and the school where she works. You say, “I switched jobs two years ago and still can’t tell if it was brave or just tired. Have you ever made a change like that?” She answers at length, then asks about your move. You tell her, and you both drift back to the tomatoes.
The same moment, handled the other way
Counterexample
Same garden, ten minutes in. You ask, “What’s the thing you’re most afraid of?” Ines says, “That’s a big one for a garden,” smiles and turns back to the tomatoes. The question skipped two depths and offered nothing of yours first.
The leap treated depth as something to reach. Going back to the tomatoes was the right reply.
The one thing to remember
The rule
Offer one depth at a time, and go back to lighter talk whenever either of you wants to.
Check what the other person has offered before you choose a depth. If the cues are thin, stay where you are. If they go lighter, go with them. This is a course principle, not a research finding.
Try it now
Item 1 of this lesson’s set: Which depth is it?
In the real world (optional)
If you like, think of one recent conversation with a friend. Name which depth it reached, and what you shared at that depth.
What this doesn’t tell you
The three depths and their example questions are this course’s own. The research is about strangers who agreed to take part, mostly Western students, and it does not say how fast to go with any one person. Nothing here says that deeper talk makes anyone like you.
Why do we believe this?
Each numbered mark in the text opens the evidence behind that sentence. Every claim in this course carries one of five labels.
- Well supported
- A meta-analysis or several independent studies agree, with no serious failure to replicate.
- Supported with caveats
- Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings.
- Plausible
- One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question.
- Speculative
- An idea or argument that hasn't been directly tested.
- Marketing claim
- Something a seller says about their product, without published evidence.
Evidence: SpeculativeSocial penetration theory proposes that relationships deepen as disclosure moves gradually from lighter to more personal layers and is matched by the other person; the evidence here supports parts of that picture but does not test the theory as a whole.
Why this label
An idea or argument that hasn't been directly tested. The theory is the standard framework behind 'go a little deeper, and let the other person do the same'. Experiments on gradual escalation, reciprocal exchange and the dip at high intimacy fit it, but each tests one part, and the book is a theoretical statement rather than a test.
What it does not show
- Theory source: the book itself was not read here.
- Supporting studies test pieces (escalation, reciprocity, appropriateness), not the full sequence.
- Mostly Western student samples; pace norms vary by culture and relationship.
- A decline or hesitation from the other person is a reason to ease back, which this evidence is consistent with but does not itself establish.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Altman, I., Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: the development of interpersonal relationships, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
- Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., Bator, R. J. (1997). The Experimental Generation of Interpersonal Closeness: A Procedure and Some Preliminary Findings, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
- Cozby, P. C. (1972). Self-Disclosure, Reciprocity and Liking, Sociometry 35(1), 151.
- SPRECHER, S., TREGER, S. (2015). The benefits of turn‐taking reciprocal self‐disclosure in get‐acquainted interactions, Personal Relationships 22(3), 460-475.
Evidence: Supported with caveatsConversations that gradually moved to more personal topics produced more closeness, and deeper conversations felt less awkward and more connecting than people expected.
Why this label
Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. A 45-minute escalating-disclosure procedure generated more closeness than small talk, and later experiments showed strangers over-predicted awkwardness of deep talk and under-predicted partners' interest in their disclosures.
What it does not show
- Outcome in the 1997 procedure was self-rated closeness between strangers, not romantic love or attraction.
- Studies 2-3 in the same paper found no effect of attitude matching or an explicit goal of getting close.
- Lab and online samples, largely Western and student or crowdsourced.
- Sessions were structured and mutually agreed; they do not show that unsolicited deep disclosure in a first meeting is welcome.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., Bator, R. J. (1997). The Experimental Generation of Interpersonal Closeness: A Procedure and Some Preliminary Findings, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
- Kardas, M., Kumar, A., Epley, N. (2022). Overly shallow?: Miscalibrated expectations create a barrier to deeper conversation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Evidence: PlausibleVery intimate disclosure from someone you have just met can lower liking and make them seem less well adjusted, or out of place, even though disclosure usually raises liking.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. In a role-play experiment, liking was highest for a medium discloser and lower for a high one, and the high discloser was rated less well adjusted. In a Facebook study, intimate disclosures shared in a public setting were judged less appropriate and the discloser was liked less. This qualifies the broad finding that intimate disclosers are liked more.
What it does not show
- The 1972 experiment used 30 women and role-play of a stranger; dating from an older era.
- The second study concerns online posts and a public versus private setting, not a face-to-face first meeting.
- Two studies in different settings; no meta-analytic test of the dip at high intimacy.
- Appropriateness depends on setting, relationship and culture.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Cozby, P. C. (1972). Self-Disclosure, Reciprocity and Liking, Sociometry 35(1), 151.
- Bazarova, N. N. (2012). Public Intimacy: Disclosure Interpretation and Social Judgments on Facebook, Journal of Communication 62(5), 815-832.
- Collins, N. L., Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review, Psychological Bulletin.
Evidence: PlausibleCloseness tends to build when one person shares and the other responds with understanding, validation and care, at the level of individual interactions.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. The interpersonal process model of intimacy holds that disclosure, partner disclosure and perceived responsiveness combine within interactions. Laurenceau and colleagues tested it with diaries of participants' everyday social interactions, with whoever they talked to, not only with romantic partners.
What it does not show
- One paper (two diary studies); abstract seen, full text not read.
- Diaries kept over one or two weeks about everyday interactions with any partner, not first meetings or dates in particular.
- Self-reported diary data.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
More practice
The rest of the set, Three depths, and the way back: six items: about 8 minutes. Choose or order the ways of saying a line that fit what you mean. Open the exercise set.
Go further
Outside talks, videos and pages on the topics this lesson cites. Nothing from them loads until you follow a link, and a link is not an endorsement: read the note under each one.
Vanessa Van Edwards: 10 Quirky Questions to Ask On Your Next Date
Example open-ended, curiosity-led questions to ask on a date, relevant to responsiveness and to restarting a conversation that has stalled.
Keep in mind. Light entertainment format; questions are prompts, not a technique that guarantees liking.