Film Shrek: The Social Penetration Theory

Based on the Social penetration model, the breadth only goes so far between the two, during the session. They both can't seem to disclose any of their actual feeling, and make it seem like it's hard to do so. The depth doesn't go far either, especially from Amy when she does not disclose everything to her husband. The benefit disclosure between the two, is the catharsis, because they both got things out in the open. The risk, is the loss of influence, which apply's mostly to Amy. Amy and Jake, both seem to not

1. In the film, Lord Farquaad is the antithesis of what a valiant prince/knight-in-shining armor is expected to look like. Instead of a "Prince Charming," who would stereotypically be young, tall, and good-looking, Lord Farquaad is old(er), short, and although he has a strong jawline, which would be associated with rugged good looks, he comes off as sleazy and villainous. Lord Farquaad hilariously attempts to make up for his shortcomings by standing on stools in public and by wearing a suit of armor specifically designed to make his arms and legs look longer.

For most people, movies are made for entertainment. However, there are also movies that go beyond merely entertaining its audience. There are films that have been created making use of psychological principles, which enrich the movie-viewing experience of audiences. This paper will focus on the movie Shrek, which was released in 2001, directed by Andrew Adamson and Vicky Jenson.

Shrek is a movie that is very different from any movies that one could see so far. It is a computer-animated American comedy film, directed by Andrew Adamson and Vicky Jenson, and starring the voices of Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Cameron Diaz, and John Lithgow. It was based on William Steig's 1990 fairy tale picture book Shrek!, and was produced by DreamWorks Animation. Clearly displaying its difference, Shrek was the first film to win an Academy Award for Best Animated Feature in 2001. Looking at all the three movies that have been produced so far, on can see that the characters of Shrek, who is an ogre and his love Fiona, who is originally a beautiful princess but then becomes an

The first stage of the Social Penetration Process is the orientation stage which occurs at a public level, revealing small parts about ourselves. Rose and Jack enter this stage when Jack sees Rose standing at the edge of the boat. He approached her for the first time and talked her out of committing suicide. The only interaction they have at this stage is an introduction. The next day, Rose finds Jack and thanks him for helping her. While talking they seem to disclose more and more information about each other. They now enter the exploratory stage. They now expand to public areas about themselves about their hobbies and personal situations. Jack and Rose were quite comfortable with each other and entered the third stage of the process; the affective exchange stage. Social penetration in this stage is spontaneous and comfortable. They begin to show reciprocity, which is when one person’s openness leads to the others openness. Jack does this by asking if she loves her fiancé, a very personal question. It seems as if the more they disclose about each other, the more they like each other, and the more they seem to have in common. This leads Jack and Rose into the stable exchange stage which pertains to complete openness and spontaneous. At this point in the movie it is evident that both Jack and Rose have feelings for each other.

The Social Penetration Theory, adapted by Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor, is based on the idea that people are layered like onions, (Griffin 133). These layers are made up by different things that hide an individual’s true self. One’s true self can include his or her hopes, fears, likes, dislikes, aspirations and other things that one thinks about. For individuals to become close, they must get past all of the facades and disclose their true selves to one another. In the movie The Breakfast Club, each of the main characters exemplifies this theory. At the beginning of the movie, characters Claire, John, Andrew, Allison, and Brian are each individuals who separate themselves from one

You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view-” “-until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.” (Lee 30).

Theory explains why as relationships develop, communication moves from less intimate levels to more intimate, more personal levels.

In this sense, we could also think of other relationship stages which are categorized before and after having a sexual relationships or having offspring with the sexual/romantic partner (or corresponding events such as having married/cohabited). Moreover, we could also add a biological component to the model to consider what kinds of adaptive problems we face when choosing and assessing potential or existing partners. Both men and women should react to familiarity with their partners with the ultimate aim to attain whatever qualities they need to solve adaptive problems effectively. For instance, when people themselves are in the stage of choosing mates or friends, familiarity should be a prerequisite to assess their quality as a desirable mating or cooperative partner, so that familiarity should promote a form of attraction designed to gather more information. On the other hand, once people get enough information and decide to commit to a relationship with the target, such as they are in the

Self-disclosure is an important part of any close relationship. Without sharing our own fears and weaknesses, we can

Self-disclosure is the voluntary sharing of personal history, preferences, attitudes, feelings, values, secrets, etc. with another person (Griffin, p. 97). As stated in the introduction Altman and Taylor look at relationships as an “onions.” The different layers are representative of different feelings of a person. When

Then again, in this study, when advisors looked past confidentiality as the main or even essential moral thought in connection to an infidelity mystery and were given the test of adjusting the full broadness of contending individual, social, and treatment morals that become possibly the most important factor encompassing relationship-applicable data, there was a transcendence assessment for encouraged exposure. Further, the dominant part of specialists recognize that divulgence manages the best seek after recuperating and connection security. They express that recuperating and connection security may be difficult to accomplish or inside and out of span where misdirection and mystery secretively contaminate couple and treatment communications. On the other hand, in spite of these solid perspectives, specialists are separated concerning whether they will eventually concede to the culpable accomplice's choice with respect to divulgence. On the other hand, they feel that they can't evade proficient obligation to advocate for the sold out accomplice through guaranteeing he or she has entry to all relationship-pertinent data (Butler,

Murray (2005) gives an example of an argument between a couple and how their level of closeness could impact one’s willingness to fuel the argument through reciprocating negative remarks. Murray (2005) also looked at certain behaviors that would be reciprocated to avoid sending negative impressions to a potential mate (i.e. feelings of rejection), which include inferences about their partner’s perceptions of risk, inferences about their perceptions of risk, and promoting the relationship versus promoting self-interest. These notions of preserving the relationship even through perceived threats and risk really help relate how risk reduction reciprocity can be seen in the formation of romantic relationships. This is seen through the reducing perceived risks and threats by cooperating with another individual on a more romantic level. For example, if a guy feels lonely, but another guy feels self-conscious about his body, so much so that they may be willing to engage in self-harm. Then, it is possible that by getting involved with one another they reduce the risk that they will engage in self-harm, and they reciprocate by helping one another to gain confidence. Romantic relationships contain many examples of risk reduction reciprocity, but there is also potential for free riding. For example, free riders could be cheaters, lovers that don’t reciprocate affection, partners that desire lust over love, etc…, and with these free riders the risk

Individuals have different levels of disclosure and when combined with another individual’s disclosure level can have positive or negative outcomes. The decision to communicate can also cause uncertainty within relationships. Prior research was conducted to try and measure what exactly causes the uncertainty and negative results to show up in a relationship. Intimacy, security, problematic events, and irritations are all different elements that can be stronger or weaker in the relationship based on the disclosure (Theiss and Solomon 2006).

My mother and I moved back in a positive direction on the interpersonal relationship continuum. During the whole divorce me and my mother quickly moved from the intimate section to the middle of acquaintance and friend. It could be a bit of an exaggeration, but in the moment that’s how it felt being fourteen years old and barely being able to have a full conversation with your mother. According to one of the lectures self-disclosure is an indicator of where people are on the continuum, because we build and maintain relationships by communication and move through the relational continuum. Without that communication my mother and I no doubt moved in the negative direction. Now that the communication is being satisfied in a direct correlation our “pin” on the continuum, as previously stated, is moving along