Duck's phase model

• Duck (2007) proposed that relationship breakdown is a process, not a single event. He identified four distinct phases, each marked by one or both partners reaching a threshold where their perception of the relationship changes.
• The first phase of relationship breakdown is the Intra-Psychic Phase ("I can’t stand this anymore."):

  • The dissatisfied partner privately considers their dissatisfaction, centring mostly on their partner's shortcomings.
  • They weigh the pros and cons of the relationship and compare it to alternatives.
  • They may confide in a trusted friend but have not yet expressed dissatisfaction to their partner.
• The second stage of relationship breakdown is the Dyadic Phase ("I would be justified in withdrawing."):

  • `The relationship is discussed in a series of confrontations, dissatisfaction is aired.
  • These are characteristised by anxiety, hostility, complaints about equity etc.
  • This phase may lead to resolution if issues are addressed, or if this fails, another threshold is reached.
• The third stage of relationship breakdown is the Social Phase ("I mean it."):

  • The breakup is made public within the couple’s social network.
  • Friends and family take sides and may mediate or reinforce the decision to break up.
  • Social forces make the breakup feel more final and difficult to reverse.
• The fourth stage of relationship breakdown is the Grave-Dressing Phase ("It’s now inevitable."):

  • Partners construct a personal narrative to justify the breakup and protect their self-esteem.
  • They may rewrite history to make their ex-partner seem less desirable.
  • Gossip helps shape a public story of the breakup to maintain a positive social image.
• One strength of Duck’s model is that it has practical applications in relationship counselling. The model suggests that intervention strategies should be tailored to the specific phase of breakdown. For example, if a couple is in the intra-psychic phase, therapists might encourage them to focus on the positives of the relationship. If they are in the dyadic phase, communication skills and conflict resolution strategies may be more useful. This strengthens the model as it has not only explanatory power but also real-world benefits in helping couples repair relationships.
• A limitation of the model is that it may be oversimplified. Duck & Rollie (2006) later added a fifth phase: the resurrection phase, where individuals reflect on the breakup and prepare for future relationships. This suggests that breakdown is a more complex and dynamic process than the original four-phase model implies. By failing to account for personal growth and learning after a breakup, the model may provide an incomplete explanation of relationship breakdown.
• A weakness is that most research into relationship breakdown is retrospective, meaning participants are asked to recall their breakup after it has occurred. This can lead to memory distortion and inaccuracy, reducing the validity of findings. Due to ethical reasons studying breakdown as it happens is difficult, as researchers cannot interfere with people’s relationships in real time as they could make things worse or hasten relationship breakdown. This means the model is largely based on subjective, potentially unreliable recall, limiting its scientific credibility.
• A limitation is that the model may be culturally biased, as it is based on research from Western, individualistic cultures, where relationships are voluntary and often end. However, Moghaddam et al. (1993) argued that in collectivist cultures, family and social obligations make relationships harder to end. In such cultures, arranged marriages are common and may involve greater social involvement throughout, not just in the social phase. This suggests that Duck’s model may not be universally applicable, as it assumes all breakups follow the same stages.