Ducks phase model of breakdown

• Duck (2007) suggested that there is a process of relationship breakdown, which occurs in 4 distinct stages, each marked by a ‘threshold’ or a change in each partner’s perception of the relationship, which leads them to enter the next stage.
• Stages of breakdown:

  1. Intra-psychic stage - Focuses upon cognitive elements. One or both partners have reached the point/threshold that they are evaluating the costs and rewards of their relationship, and reconsidering the profitability as compared to the investments. However, most of these processes are private, and are unlikely to be shared, unless potentially with a trusted friend.
• Stages of breakdown:

  2. Dyadic phase - Previously private thoughts about the future of the relationship are now openly discussed between the partners, who may voice concerns over inequity, jealousy, increasing costs of the relationship etc. This may either provoke the partners to work to salvage the relationship, or may trigger the beginning of a public breakdown.
• Stages of breakdown:

  3. Social phase - The break-up has been made public. This triggers friends of the couple to evaluate the relationship to either give reassurance/support or place blame on one of the partners, which inevitably results in the majority of the mutual friends having to take sides. A final attempt at salvaging the relationship may be made by these friends, perhaps by offering their advice or helping resolve equity issues.
• Stages of breakdown:

  4. Grave-dressing stage - Confirms the end of the relationship and signifies both members to ‘move on’. Key to this face is ‘keeping good face’ and maintaining a positive social image. This may involve fabricating false stories about the cause of the end of the relationship to make it more socially-acceptable (eg - the infidelity of one partner may be blamed on the unattractiveness of the other). Both partners make new plans to carry on with their lives, taking with them valuable lessons learnt from the previous relationship.
• Strengths of Duck's model:

  • Real world application - The model suggests that some repair strategies might be more effective at one stage of relationship breakdown rather than another. For example, in the intra-psychic stage partners could worry more positively about each other. Improving communication skills is beneficial in the dyadic phase. This suggests that the model can provide supportive insights to help people through difficult times in their lives.
• Limitations of Duck's model:

  • Limited explanation - Rollie and Duck suggest there may be a fifth stage, the resurrection phase, where individuals learn from experiences of their previous relationships. However, they also suggest that a breakdown model should be a dynamic progression as opposed to a set sequence of stages. The social dynamics can affect the chances of exes reuniting, (eg - rumours spreading during the dyadic or social phases). This means the model may be oversimplified and has little ecological validity because it cannot represent the progression of real-life relationships.
• Limitation of Duck's model:

  • Alternative explanations - Flemlee’s ‘fatal attraction hypothesis’ may be a more valid explanation of relationship breakdown. This is because the hypothesis suggests that the initially desirable characteristics become less so as the relationship progresses, actually explaining the cause of relationship breakdown as opposed to simply the progression of the breakdown. This means that Duck’s model may lack ecological validity because it is a general description of a universal sequence of stages involved in relationship breakdown, as opposed to a concrete explanation.
• Limitations of Duck's model:

  • Methodological issues - Much of the research features self-report measures which are completed retrospectively after the end of the relationship. This means that data may rely too much on the respondents’ accuracy of memory. In addition, since researchers are unwilling to intervene at the early stages of breakdown, this makes these stages mostly speculative and their workings inferred from the later stages. Therefore, these methodological issues draws doubts over the validity and accuracy of Duck’s Phase Model as an explanation for relationship breakdown