Relationship Breakdown

• Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown: Breakdown (1)


  Duck claims that one of the partners becomes distressed about the way the relationship is conducted. Inequitable relationships are more likely to create dissatisfaction, this realisation that the person is no longer willing to stand the dissatisfaction is the first step of the eventual breakdown of the relationship.
• Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown: Intrapsychic Phase (2)


  Characterised by a brooding focus on the relationship and a consideration of whether they may be better off without it. Individual feels burdened with resentment and a sense of being under-benefitted. This discontentment may not be expressed verbally, it could be through a diary or social withdrawal. Some will end the relationship without discussing their dissatisfaction (ghosting).
• Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown: Dyadic Phase (3)


  Individuals confront their partners and discuss their discontentment and the future of their relationship. Brings feelings of guilt and anger. It may cause the other partner to air their concerns. Couples then become aware of the forces which bound them together (e.g. children or investments) and the social/economic costs which would be endured if the relationship ended. The relationship can be saved if couples are motivated to resolve the issue (martial therapy), or they will begin to involve others with the dissatisfaction.
• Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown: Social Phase (4)


  Partners may have kept dissatisfaction private, but now it spills to a network of friends and family. A crucial psychological moment, as once issues are made public, they are harder to deny and it is harder to bring about a reconciliation. Others may take sides, offer advice and support, or help by mending disputes. Or the involvement may speed partners towards dissolution through revelations about their partners behaviour.
• Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown: Grave-Dressing Phase (5)


  Having left, partners attempt to justify their actions. Act partner has to present themselves as being trustworthy/loyal if they are to attract a new partner. They construct a representation of the failed relationship which doesn't paint their actions unfavourably. La Gaipa claims they have to leave with their 'social credit' intact. They may strategically reinterpret their view of their partner (once rebellious, but now irresponsible).
• AO3: Fails to reflect the possibility of Personal Growth

  Duck then added a new model with the final phase of 'Resurrection Processes' (Rollie and Duck). Stressing that for many it is a stage where people can move beyond the distress associated with dissolution, and instead engage in personal growth. Tashiro and Frazier surveyed 92 undergraduates who had recently broken up with a romantic partner. Respondents typically reported that they had emotional distress but also personal growth.
• AO3: Impacts of the Social Phase varies by type of relationship

  Duck argues that for teenagers and young adults, romantic relationships are seen as more unstable, recognised as being a 'testing ground' for future long-term commitments. Meaning individuals may receive sympathy, but no real attempt at reconciliation. Older people have lower expectations of being able to find a replacement (Dickinson). The consequences of the breakup are more significant- meaning their social phase is more characterised by obvious attempts to rescue the current relationship.
• AO3: Benefits of the Grave-Dressing Phase 


  The end of a romantic relationship can be overly distressing. Monroe et al found students who has experienced a breakup in the previous year had a greater risk of developing major depressive disorder for the first time. However, Tashiro and Frazier found individuals can feel better about dissolution when the focus on the situation rather than their flaws as being responsible for the breakup. Meaning this stage can play down their role, and not threaten their psychological well-being.
• AO3: Ethical Issues in Breakdown Research

  Socially sensitive area due to p's vulnerability (experiencing distress when revisiting issues which led to dissolution), privacy (issues are intensely personal in nature), and confidentiality (specifically for victims of abuse). Benefits of research must outweigh costs, most notably the impact on the p's involved. Specifically when researching those who are trying to cope with trauma and emotional distress associated with the relationship. Psychologists must be cautious and keep the interests of the p's at the centre of their research.
• AO3: Real-World Application; Implications for Intervention

  Duck's model stresses the importance of communication. Paying attention to what people say, the topics they discuss, and how they talk about their relationship then suggests appropriate interventions by friends and family by helping the couple to patch up their differences (in the Social Phase). In the intrapsychic phase, repair involves re-establishing liking for the partner (e.g. through re-evaluating their behaviour in a more positive way).
• IDA: Culture Bias

  Model is based on relationships in individualist cultures, where ending relationships is a voluntary choice, and divorce is obtainable. In collectivist cultures relationships can be arranged or have greater family involvement in its workings. Meaning the relationship is harder to end, and it then doesn't follow the 5 stages proposed by Duck. Meaning the model is culturally bias as it assumes the breakup process is universal.
• IDA: Nomothetic

  Duck's model successfully describes how relationships breakdown, but not why. It focuses on establishing universal principles of behaviour. However, as seen in arranged marriages, the breakup process is greatly impacted by individual differences (cultural norms and values) meaning an idiographic approach may better reveal the individual reasons for the breakup, and their subjective experiences- giving a greater understanding.