Duck's phase model. Flashcards
Why do relationships break down?
Duck (1997) believes we can and has devised a comprehensive model of relationship breakdown that’s widely accepted.
Limitation of Duck’s phase model: cultural bias.
P: One limitation is that much research is based on individualistic cultures.
E: Mogghaddam et al (1993) 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 breakdown is likely to differ.
C: This is a limitation as it can only be applied to some cultures and is therefore culturally biased.
Reasons for break ups:
- Pre-existing doom: incompatibility and failure are guaranteed from the start of the relationship.
- Mechanical failure: two compatible, well-meaning people grow apart and find they cannot live together any longer.
- Sudden death: discovery of infidelity or occurrence of traumatic incident (such as huge argument) leads to immediate ending of relationship.
Duck - relationship ending is a process.
- Duck argued the ending of relationship is not one-off event, but process that takes time and goes through 4 distinct phases.
- Each phase is marked by one partner reaching a ‘threshold’, a point at which their perception of relationship changes.
- Road to break up begins once partner realises they are dissatisfied with the relationship and distressed about way things are going.
Phase 1: Intra-psychic phase.
Threshold: ‘I can’t stand this anymore’.
- Focus of this phase is on cognitive processes.
- Dissatisfied partner broods on reasons for their dissatisfaction, centring mostly on their partners shortcomings.
- Partner contemplates their thoughts privately.
- Weight up pros and cons of relationship and evaluate these against alternatives and begin to make plans of future.
Phase 2: Dyadic Phase.
Threshold: ‘I would be justified in withdrawing’.
- Focus is on interpersonal processes between two partners - cannot avoid talking about their relationship any longer.
- Series of confrontations over period of time, in which relationship is discussed and dissatisfactions are aired.
- Characterised by anxiety, hostility, complaints about lack of equity, resentment over imbalanced roles and re-thinking of commitment that kept them both together.
- Two possible outcomes = break up or repair relationships.
Phase 3: Social Phase.
Threshold: ‘I mean it.’
- Focus on wider processes involving social networks - break-up made public.
- Partners will seek support and try to forge pacts, mutual friends find they are expected to choose a side - gossip traded and encouraged.
- Some friends provide reinforcement and reassurance. Other will be judgemental and place blame on one partner.
- Negotiate post-break up state with partner (finances, children, family, friends).
Phase 4: Grave-dressing Phase.
Threshold: ‘It’s now inevitable.’
- Focus of this phase is on the aftermath - once relationship is dead, time comes to bury it by spinning a favourable story about breakdown for public consumption.
- Allows patterns to save face and maintain positive reputation - usually at the expense of the other partner and showing them in bad light.
- Grave-dressing also involves creating personal story you can live with to protect their self-esteem and rebuild towards new life.
- Dissatisfied partner concludes ‘time to get a new life’.
- Able to leave the relationship without guilt.
Blackburn and Brody (2014) - recent research on phase 4.
- Considered effect of Facebook in their research.
- Recruited 208 uni students who had been through relationship breakup within previous 2 years.
- Gathered qualitative data from their p’s mainly by asking open questions in an online questionnaire.
- Then analysed data using methods resembling content analysis to establish 5 major categories.
Blackburn and Brody (2014) - recent research on phase 4. - Findings:
- Relational cleansing - most common category. Ex-partners attempt to remove all traces of relationship from online history.
- Minimal or no Facebook activity - second common category. More than 20% of p’s reported they suspended Facebook activities during breakdown.
- Facebook surveillance - some p’s felt need to monitor their ex-partner’s activities.
- Withdrawing access - involved deleting, blocking or defriending the ex-partner and their family and friends.
- Impression management - present upbeat and positive image to social network of someone who is over the breakup.
Criticisms of the Model:
- Neglects external factors - focusing solely on interpersonal dynamics and neglecting how external factors like social pressures.
- Assuming linearity and inevitability - believing once relationship enters the model, breakdown is inevitable.
- Simplifying the complexity of relationships - relationships complex and unique, Ducks model argued to be more of a framework rather than precise roadmap. Means it’s not definitive explanation for all relationship breakdowns.
Limitation of Duck’s phase model: incomplete model.
P: One limitation of the model is that it is incomplete.
E: Rollie and Duck (2006) added a fifth resurrection phase in which ex partners begin to use what they have learned from the last relationship to prepare for a future one. The refined version also clarifies the point that movement across stages is neither linear nor inevitable and partners may return to an earlier phase.
C: Therefore, it is not a full explanation of relationships and cannot explain all types of relationships.
Limitation of Duck’s phase model: retrospective data.
P: Another limitation is that supporting evidence is based on retrospective data.
E: Retrospective data is used e.g. hard to study a break up whilst its happening so have to study it after its happened so therefore impossible to
study earlier stages of breakdown.
C: This means that the model is based on limited info about the start of the breakdown process and so is incomplete as a description.
Limitation of Duck’s phase model: focus on how, not why.
P: A limitation is that the model focuses on HOW rather than WHY breakdown occurs.
E: Some things partners find attractive at the start are no longer seen as attractive e.g. funny but then turns into fails to take life seriously.
C: This highlights the fact that Duck’s model tells us what happens and not why and is therefore a limited model of relationship breakdown.
