Duck's phase model: Theories of romantic relationships

• Duck proposed a phase model of relationship breakdown
• Duck argued that the ending of a relationship is not a one-off event but a process that takes time and goes through four distinct phases
• Each phase is characterised by a partner reaching a threshold where their perception of the relationship changes. The partner may reassess and decide the relationship isn't so bad, halting the process of breakdown- or they cross the threshold and move on to the next stage of the model
• What are the four phases?

  1. Intra-psychic phase
  2. Dyadic phase
  3. Social phase
  4. Grave-dressing phase
• Intra-psychic phase:

  Threshold- 'I cant stand this anymore', indicates a determination that something has to change.

  A partner becomes dissatisfied with the relationship in its current form. They then brood on the reasons for this and this will usually focus on their partner's shortcomings.

  The dissatisfied partner tends to keep this to themselves but may share their thoughts with a trusted friend, weighing up the pros and cons of continuing
• Dyadic phase:

  Threshold- 'I would be justified in withdrawing'

  Once a partner concludes that they are justified in ending the relationship they have to discuss this with their partner. Dissatisfactions about equity, commitment, etc. are aired

  The phase may vary in length and in intensity of hostility and anxiety
• Social phase:

  Threshold- the dissatisfied partner concludes, 'I mean it'

  Once a partner wants to end the relationship they will seek support particularly from joint friends

  These friends may be encouraged to choose a side but others may try and prevent the break-up by acting as a go-between

  Once the news is public, though, this is usually the point of no return
• Grave-dressing phase:

  Threshold- 'It's now inevitable'

  Once the end becomes inevitable then a suitable story of the relationship and its end is prepared for wider consumption

  This is likely to include an attempt to ensure that the storyteller will be judged most favourably

  This creation of a personal story in addition to the public one is necessary so the partner can 'move on'
• Strength: application to helping people reverse the process

  The model suggests that some repair strategies might be more effective at one stage rather than another. For example, in the intra-psychic stage partners could brood more positively. It would be less helpful to encourage brooding if a person had already reached the social phase. This suggests that the model can lead to supportive suggestions that may help people through this difficult time in their life
• Limitation: supporting evidence based on retrospective data

  Interviews about the process tend to take place after the breakdown, not during it. Such retrospective data may not be reliable. It is almost impossible to study breakdown in the earlier stages without potentially interfering with the ongoing process. This means that the model is based on limited information about the start of the breakdown process and so is an incomplete as a description
• Limitation: research based on individualist cultures

  Moghaddam et al. propose relationships in individualist cultures are mostly voluntary and end quite often, whilst in collectivist cultures relationships are more frequently 'obligatory' and less easy to end. The whole concept of a relationship differs between cultures and therefore the process of relationship breakdown is likely to differ. This is a limitation because it means that the model can only be applied to some cultures and types of relationship
• Limitation: focuses on how rather than why breakdown occurs

  Flemlee suggests a 'fatal attraction' theory stating that the attributes that partners found attractive at the start of a relationship can become too much. For example, someone who was attracted to a funny partner may then decide to end the relationship because the other person 'fails to take life seriously'. This highlights the fact that Duck's model only tells us what happens and not why