Duck's phase model of relationship breakdown Flashcards
The Phase Model.
An explanation of the stages people goes through when their relationship is not working.
Once one partner is dissatisfied, there are 4 phases in the process, each with a different focus.
Intra-psychic phase.
Focuses on cognitive processes occurring within the individual.
The dissatisfied partner worries about the reasons for his or her dissatisfaction, centring mostly on their partner’s shortcomings.
The partner mulls their thoughts over privately, and may share them with a trusted friend.
They weigh up the pros and cons of the relationship and evaluate these against the alternatives.
They begin to make plans for the future.
Dyadic phase.
Focuses on interpersonal processes between the 2 partners.
Comes a point when they cannot avoid talking about their relationship any longer.
Is a series of confrontations in which the relationship is discussed and dissatisfaction are aired.
Characterised by anxiety, hostility, probably complaints about lack of equity, resentment over imbalanced roles and a rethinking of the commitment that kept the partners together.
2 outcomes - determination to continue breaking up the relationship, or a renewed desire to repair it.
If the rescue attempts fail, another threshold is reached/
Social phase.
Focus on wider processes involving the couple’s social networks.
Breakup - now public and 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, others put blame on the other partner or hasten the end of the relationship by providing previously secret information.
Grave dressing phase.
Focus - aftermath.
Dead relationship, time comes to bury it by spinning a favourable story about the breakdown for public consumption. - Allows partners to save face and maintain a positive reputation.
Gossip’s crucial and each partner tries to retain some ‘social credit’.
More to do with tidying up memories of relationship, with a certain degree of rewriting of history; once desired traits are now interpreted negative.
Limitation: It underexplains the early phases of breakdown.
This is because much of the research is retrospective. Ppts in research studies generally report their experiences some time after the relationship has ended, so what they recall might not always be accurate or reliable.
This is especially true of the early stages - by definition the early phases occur ‘longer ago’. Partners can be in the intra-psychic phase for a long time so recall of it may be particularly distorted.
This means that the model may not explain the early part of the breakdown processes as well as later phases.
Limitation: The model is an incomplete explanation of breakdown.
Duck, together with Rollie (2006), added a fifth phase after grave dressing, the resurrection phase. Ex-partners apply to future relationships the experiences gained from their recently-ended one. The researchers also argue that progression from one phase to the next is not inevitable because it is possible to return to an earlier point in any phase. Finally, the processes that occur in relationship breakdown are more important than linear movement from one phase to the next.
Therefore the original model doesn’t account for the complexity of breakdown and its dynamic nature.
Strength: The model suggests ways in which relationship breakdown can be reversed.
(include counterpoint).
The model is useful because it recognises that different repair strategies are more effective at some points in the breakdown than at others.
For example, Duck (1994) recommends that ppl in the intra-psychic phase could be encouraged to focus their worrying on the positive aspects of their partner. Also, as a feature of the dyadic phase is communication, any attempt to improve this and wider social skills could be beneficial in fostering greater stability in the relationship.
The model is based on research into relationship breakdown in individualistic cultures, especially in the US. According to Moghaddam et al (1993), relationships in individualistic cultures are generally voluntary and frequently come to an end. But relationships in collectivist cultures are less easy to end and involve the wider family. In fact the whole conception of a romantic relationship differs between cultures.
This means the model’s application wouldn’t be useful in all cultures.
Limitation: There are significant ethical issues involved in investigating relationship breakdown, such as privacy.
This is particularly problematic if the research involves victims of domestic abuse. There are also the
ethical issues of confidentiality and protection from psychological harm, as participants may
experience distress in the process of the research. This makes the topic particularly difficult to
investigate, as researchers may find it tricky to conduct a study where the benefits of research
outweigh a possible negative impact on participants.
Limitation: One problem with research examining relationship breakdown is the reliance upon retrospective data.
This means that the questionnaires or interviews used to ask participants about the break-up occur
sometime after it happened. People’s memories of the event may not be accurate, and may also be
distorted by their current situation, which means that their answers may not be reliable. As a result,
Duck’s phase model, even though it seems to be supported by research, does not necessarily describe
how break-up happens in real life, weakening the model’s ability to present an accurate picture of
relationship breakdown.
