Relationships - Breakdown + Virtual

Question 1

Duck’s phase model - summary

Answer 1

The ending of a relationship is a process that takes time and goes through four distinct phases; each phrase is marked by one partner (or both) reaching a ‘threshold’ (a point at which their perception of the relationship changes usually for the worse)

Question 2

Duck’s phase model stages

Answer 2

Intra-psychic phase
Dyadic phase
Social phase
Grave-dressing phase

Question 3

Duck’s phase model stages - Intra-psychic phase

Answer 3

“I can’t stand this anymore”

Dissatisfied partner(s) privately/with a friend focus on the reasons for their dissatisfaction - evaluating rewards+costs and make plans for the future

Question 4

Duck’s phase model stages - Dyadic phase

Answer 4

“I would be justified in withdrawing”

The previous private thoughts are shared with the partner and openly discussed which may provoke the partners to work to salvage the relationship or continue breaking up.

Question 5

Duck’s phase model stages - Social phase

Answer 5

“I mean it”

The break-up is made public which triggers friends of the couple to give reassurance/support to one of the partners, which inevitably results in the majority of mutual friends having to take these sides .

Some may try and help repair the relationship but this is usually the point of no-return

Question 6

Duck’s phase model stages - Grave-dressing phase

Answer 6

“It’s now inevitable”

Confirms the end of the relationship and signifies both both members to ‘move on’.

Key to this phase is ‘keeping good face’ and maintaining a positive social image which may involve fabricating false stories about the cause of the end of the relationship to make it more socially-acceptable.

Question 7

Strength of duck - application

Answer 7

The model helps us to identify and understand the stages of relationship breakdown but also suggests ways of reversing it;

e.g duck recommends people in the intra-psychic model to focus on the positive aspects of their partner - such insights could be used in relationship counselling (a real-life application)

Question 8

Moghaddam et al

Answer 8

States relationships in individualist cultures are voluntary and frequently come to an end (in divorce/separation)

Relationships in collectivist cultures are more likely to be obligatory, less likely to end as they involve the wider family and in some cases even arranged

The whole conception of a romantic relationship differs between cultures therefore unlikely that the process of relationship breakdown is identical across different cultures.

Question 9

Flemlee’s fatal attraction hypothesis

Answer 9

argues attractive qualities that brings partners together can be what threatens the relationship as the partner gets too much of what they were looking for e.g a fantastic sense humour at start becoming that person not being able to take anytbhing seriously later on

Question 10

Methodological issues of duck

Answer 10

Most of the research relating to duck’s model is retrospective as participants generally give their experiences of the breakdown process some time after the relationship has ended sp they recall might not be accurate/reliable.

Question 11

Self-disclosure:

Answer 11

revealing more personal information gradually as the relationship develops which strengthens a bond when used appropriately.

Question 12

Gate

Answer 12

A feature/obstacle that could interfere with the development of a relationship (FtF) e.g attractiveness or physical disability

Question 13

Absence of gating

Answer 13

Face-to-face (FtF) relationships not failing due to obstacles such as facial disfigurements that some people might find off-putting as these ‘gates’ are absent in computer-mediated communication (CMC) allowing virtual relationships to form in a way they wouldnt offline

Question 14

Reduced cues theory - Sproull and Kiesler

Answer 14

CMC relationships are less effective than FtF ones because they lack the cues that are depended on it in Ftf interactions

Lacks cues to our emotional state such as facial expression and tone of voice which encourages disinhibition in relating to others

Question 15

The hyperpersonal model - Walther

Answer 15

Online relationships can be more personal and involve greater self-disclosure that FtF ones because CMC relationships can develop very quickly and self-disclosure happens ealier

A key feature of self-disclosure in virtual relationships is selective self-presentation (selective in the information choosen to be displayed) so it is easier to promote intimacy in CMC relationships by self-presenting in a positive and idealised way

Question 16

Whitty and Joinson

Answer 16

demonstrates the effect of a virtual environment of self-disclosure as they discovered that in online discussion forums both questions and answers tend to be more direct, probing and intimate than in everyday ‘small talk’ in face-to-face interactions.

Question 17

McKenna and Bargh

Answer 17

found that lonely and socially anxious people were able to express their ‘true selves’ more than in FtF situations

70% of relationships formed online survived more than two years which is a higher proportion than for relationships formed in the offline world

Question 18

Nakanishi

Answer 18

Found that, in contrast to American culture, women in Japan preferred lower levels of self-disclosure in close relationships which demonstrates that the level of self-disclosure depends on cultural norms, and may affect the communication styles online. This lowers the validity of research into virtual relationships, limiting the range of relationships it explains.

Question 19

Walther and Tidwell

Answer 19

Argue the reduced cues theory is wrong to suggest that nonverbal cues are entirely missing from CMC as they are different rather than absent as people in online interactions use other cues such as style/timing of the messages e.g taking the right time to respond to a message or using emojis as effective subsites for facial expressions.