Rollie and Duck (2006): 5th resurrection phase - ex-partners begin to use what they have learned from the last rel to prepare for the new one
Clarifies the point that movement through the stages isn't linear nor inevitable - partners may return to an earlier phase
Suggests: The OG phase model - only a partial explanation of the process of rel breakdown
Limitation: Supporting evidence is based on retrospective data?
Interviews about the process tend to take place after the breakdown not during - retrospective data may not be reliable
Almost impossible to study breakdown in the earlier stages without potentially interfering with the ongoing process
Model is based on limited information about the start of the breakdown process - incomplete as a description
Strength: Trying to help people reverse the process?
Suggests: some repair strategies might be more effective at one stage rather than another e.g. intra-psychic stage: partners could brood more positively
Would be less helpful to encourage brooding if a person has already reached the social phase
Suggests: model can lead to supportive suggestions - may help people through this difficult time in their lives
Limitation: Focuses on how rather than why breakdown occurs?
Flemlee (95): a 'fatal attraction' theory stating that the attributes that partners found attractive at the start of a rel can often become too much
E.g. someone who was attracted to a 'so funny' partner may then decide to end the rel as the other person 'fails to take life seriously'
Highlights: Duck's model only tells us what happens not why
Limitations: based on individualistic cultures?
Moghaddamet al (93): rels in individualistic cultures are mostly voluntary and end quite often - in collectivistic cultures rels are more frequently obligatory and less easy to end
Whole concept of a rel differs between cultures so the process of rel breakdown is likely to differ
Limitation: model can only be applied to some cultures and types of rel