Theories of romantic relationships: Duck's phase model Flashcards
who proposed the phase model?
Duck (2007)
what did Duck argue?
Duck (2007) argued that the ending of a relationship is not a one-off event but a process that takes time and goes through four phases. Each phase is marked by one partner (or both) reaching a threshold and becoming distressed.
what are the 4 phases?
intra-psychic phase
dyadic phase
social phase
grave dressing phase
intra-psychic phase
Threshold: “I can’t stand this anymore” indicating something has to change. Cognitive process occurring within the individual, focuses on partners shortcomings. Weighs up pros and cons and think privately or with a close friend.
dyadic phase
Threshold: “I would be justified in leaving”
The focus is on the interpersonal processes between the partners, cannot avoid talking about the relationship anymore. They confront and explain their dissatisfactions they either repair or end the relationship.
social phase
Threshold: Dissatisfied partner concludes “I mean it”.
Break up is made public and mutual friends choose their sides. Some friends provide reassurance and encouragement. Point of no return as break up is driven by social factors.
grave dressing phase
Threshold: “It is now inevitable”
Once relationship is dead each partner spins a favourable story, the dissatisfied partner finally reaches a threshold “time to get a new life”
evaluation of duck’s phase model (brief)
strength - real world application, however based on individualist cultures
weakness - incomplete explanation
weakness - underexplains early phases
strength of duck’s phase model
this model has real world application as it suggests ways in which relationship breakdown can be reversed. Duck (1994) recommends that people in the intra-psychic phase should be encouraged to focus their worrying on the positive aspects of their partner. These insights can be used in relationship counselling to help people through difficult times, therefore giving this model real world application. However, this model is based on research into relationship breakdown in individualist cultures. According to Moghaddam et al, relationships in individualist cultures are generally voluntary and frequently come to an end e.g. divorce. But relationships in collectivist cultures are less easy to end and involve the wider family. The whole conception of a romantic relationship differs between cultures. This means that the model’s application would not be useful in all cultures.
weaknesses of duck’s phase model
the original model is an incomplete explanation of breakdown. Duck and 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 as 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 does not account for the complexity of breakdown and its dynamic nature.
this model underexplains the early phases of breakdown. This is because much of the research is retrospective. Participants in research studies generally report their experiences sometime after the relationship has ended, so what they recall might not always be accurate or reliable. This is especially true of the early stages as they occurred longer ago. Partners may 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 process as well as later phases.
