Duck’s phase model - theories of RR

• Duck’s phase model of relationships breakdown

  • 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
• 1. 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 individualist cultures, 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