Duck (1982) proposed a phase model of relationship breakdown
He argued that the ending of a relationship goes through 4 distinct phases
Each phase is marked by one partner (or both) reaching a ‘threshold’, a point at which their perception of the relationship changes (usually for the worse)
The road to break-up begins once a partner realises that they are dissatisfied with the relationship and distressed
Intra-psychic phase
Focus of this stage is on cognitive processes occurring within the individual
The dissatisfied partner thinks about the reasons for his or her dissatisfaction, focussing mainly on their partner’s shortcomings
The dissatisfied partner thinks about these problems privately and may share with a trusted friend
They weigh up pros and cons of the relationship and evaluate these against the alternatives
They begin to make plans for the future
Threshold: “I can’t stand this anymore”, indicating a determination that something has to change
2) Dyadic Phase
The focus here is on interpersonal processes between the two partners
They cannot avoid talking about the relationship any longer
There is a series of confrontations over a period of time
The relationship is discussed and dissatisfactions are aired
These may include anxiety, hostility and complaints about lack of equity
There are two possible outcomes:
A determination to continue breaking up (move on to next phase)
A renewed desire to repair it
Threshold: They eventually come to the conclusion, ‘I would be justified in withdrawing’.
3) Social phase
The focus is now on wider processes involving the couple’s social networks
The break-up is made public
Partners will seek support of friends and family to form a pact
Mutual friends find they have to choose a side
Gossip is traded and encouraged
This is usually the point of no return for the break-up
Threshold: The dissatisfied partner concludes, ‘I mean it’.
4) Grave-dressing phase
The focus of this phase is on the aftermath
Once the relationship is dead, each partner tries to create a more favourable story about the break-up to make themselves look ‘good’ to others
This allows partners to save face and maintain a positive reputation, at the expense of the other partner
Gossip plays an important role in this phase
The dissatisfied partner finally concludes, ‘time to get a new life’.
Threshold: ‘It’s now inevitable’.
AO3:
A criticism of Duck’s original phase model of relationship breakdown is that it ignores an important stage in break-ups
Rollie and Duck (2006) modified the phase model to add a fifth phase after grave-dressing – the resurrection phase
This is when ex-partners turn their attention to future relationships using experiences gained from their recently ended one
This suggests that Duck’s original phase model of relationship breakdown is not a complete explanation of break-ups
AO3:
A limitation of research relating to Duck’s phase model is that a lot of the research is retrospective
For example, participants generally give their experiences of the breakdown process some time after the relationship has ended
This is a problem because what they can recall may not always be accurate or reliable, particularly when recalling the early stages of the break-up
This suggests that Duck’s model may lack validity as the research supporting it may not include accurate accounts of relationship breakdown
AO3:
A limitation of Duck’s model is that it doesn’t actually explain why relationships break down
Flemlee’s argues that relationship breakdown is caused by partners getting too much of what they were originally looking for
E.g. They thought their partner had a fantastic sense of humour but over time they got sick and tired of it and now it annoys them
This suggests that other theories of relationship breakdown are more useful than Duck’s as they actually explain the possible cause of break-ups rather than just the description of a break-up
AO3:
A limitation of Duck’s model is that it ignores cultural differences in how relationships are experienced
For example, Moghaddam et al. (1993) suggest that in individualistcultures, individuals choose to start a relationship so they can easily and regularly end relationships too
However, they suggest that in collectivist cultures individuals do not always choose to start a relationship (e.g. Arranged marriages) so it is a lot harder to end the relationship because they involve the wider family too
AO3 continued:
This affects the validity of Duck’s model because it may not apply and generalise to the breakdown of relationships in non-Western cultures, because the whole concept of a romantic relationship differs between cultures