theories of romantic relationships - ducks model

Question 1

What is the first type of relationship breakdown?

Answer 1

1) Pre-existing Doom
The relationship was doomed to end from the start.
This could be a result of the partners simply being incompatible for each other

Question 2

What is the second type of relationship breakdown?

Answer 2

(2) Mechanical Failure
Partners who are compatible slowly grow apart over a long period of time and decide that things are no longer working.
This is the most common cause of breakups.

Question 3

What is the third type of relationship breakdown?

Answer 3

3) Sudden Death
This is where the relationship suddenly ends.
For instance, after discovering a partner has cheated or the couple has a huge argument, which swiftly ends the relationship.

Question 4

Duck also proposed 5 minor reasons which contribute to relationship dissolution. What are they?

Answer 4

• predisposing personal factors = Bad habits and / or poor personal hygiene
• precipitating factors = Things like love rivals, long work hours, boredom.
• lack of skills = If your partner is sexually inexperienced or doesn’t fulfil your sexual needs. Poor cooking skills etc could also contribute.
• lack of motivation = Previous theories cover this - e.g., inequity. Perhaps an individual does not put the effort into the relationship.
• lack of maintenance = Spending much time apart, not setting time aside for the relationship, independence too much of a feature.

Question 5

What are the 5 stages couples go through whilst breaking up over a long period?

Answer 5

1. Intrapsychic Phase
   One partner privately begins to feel dissatisfaction with the relationship.
2. Dyadic Phase
   Dissatisfaction is discussed with partner. If nothing changes, the next stage is activated.
3. Social Phase
   The breakdown is made public to friends and family. Negotiations may occur (with children, finances, etc.)

4) Grave Dressing Phase
Post-relationship perception is created. Ex-partners now rebuild their life towards new relationships.

5) Resurrection Phase
Reconfiguring oneself for future relationships.

Question 6

What are the positive evaluations of Ducks model of relationship breakdowns?

Answer 6

• There is evidence to support some aspects of Duck’s theory of relationship breakdown.
  Tashiro & Frazier (2003) surveyed 92 students about relationship breakdown and found that a number of personal growth factors that had developed from breakdowns helped them in the future.
  For instance, they suggested they had gained wisdom from past relationships and learnt lessons from their breakdowns that they carried with them into new relationships.
  This helps support the final stage (grave dressing) about recovery and personal growth following a breakdown.
• Duck’s model of relationship breakdown could offer some useful practical applications, especially to help prevent relationship breakdown. As people can be found in different stages, key advice could be tailor made for individuals.
  If someone is clearly in the intrapsychic stage, they could be encouraged to open up to their partner sooner and share concerns while they are still at the early stage of concerns.
  Whereas if someone was is the dyadic phase, they could be encouraged to have a non-confrontational way to air the concerns and be provided with more possible solutions together.
  This implies Duck’s model is useful in informing couples counselling and helping to avert relationship breakdown and help couples work through their issues and stay together.

Question 7

What are the negative evaluations of ducks model of a breakdown relationship??

Answer 7

• Ducks model starts at the point where the dissatisfaction has occurred and could be missing crucial considerations.
  The model does not consider reasons why this dissatisfaction and unhappiness has occurred which is likely to have a massive influence on the breakdown.
  For instance there is likely to be a big difference (personally and socially) between relationships that have ended due to infidelity compared to long distance obstacles.
  In this respect, Duck’s phases do not necessarily give us a complete picture of relationship breakdown, and other theories could be more informative. Therefore this model does not explain the complexities involved in breakdown of relationships.
• Ducks theory of relationship breakdown may not be universal across cultures, as the model is mostly based on research on individualistic cultures such as the USA.
  For instance, Moghaddam et al. (1993) found relationships in individualistic cultures are generally voluntary and frequently come to an end (i.e., divorce). But relationships in collectivist cultures tend to be less easy to end and involve wider family. In fact they suggested the whole conception of a romantic relationship differs between cultures.
  This suggests that we may not be able to use Duck’s model to explain relationship breakdown in all cultures, making it ethnocentric.
• There may be some ethical problems (i.e., it’s socially sensitive) when it comes to studying relationship breakdown that Duck and other researchers must be conscious of.
  For ethical reasons it’s difficult to study relationships during breakdown, this is because… it is potentially a traumatic and upsetting time for the couple involved.
  It could also be argued… that they do not wish to discuss the more personal elements of the reasons for breakdown. They also may not want to look like the person who is responsible for the breakdown, so the information may not be accurate or consistent as different versions of the same break up could be provided by each person after the relationship.
  This ultimately implies that knowledge of Duck’s model is acquired sensitively and retrospectively, so we must be aware of the potential validity and reliability problems that this creates.