Theories of romantic relationships: Ducks phase model

Duck’s phase model relationship breakdown

• Duck proposed a phase model of relationship breakdown

• He argued that the ending of a relationship is not a one-off event, but a process that takes time and goes through four distinct stages - the road to break up begins once partner realises they are dissatisfied with the relationship

Intra-psychic phase

Threshold: ‘ I can’t stand this anymore’ indicating determination that something has to change

• The focus of the stage is on cognitive processes occurring within the individual

• The dissatisfied partner worries about the reasons for his/her dissatisfaction

• The partner mulls their thoughts over privately, and may share them with a trusted friend to weigh out the pros and cons and evaluate these against alternatives

Dyadic phase

Threshold: They eventually come to a conclusion “I would be justified in withdrawing”

• The focus here is on interpersonal processes between 2 partners

• There comes a point where they cannot avoid talking about the relationship any longer , there is a series of confrontations in which the relationship is discussed and dissatisfactions are aired - these are characterised by anxiety, hostility, complaints about the lack of equity, resentment over imbalanced roles and so on

• There are 2 possible outcomes - determination to break up or a renewed desire to repair it

• Self disclosures may become deeper and more frequent in this phase as partners express thoughts and feelings

Social phase

Threshold: the dissatisfied partner concludes ‘I mean it’

• The focus is now on a wider process involving the couples’ social networks

• The breakup is made public. Partners will seek support, mutual friends find that they are expected to choose a side, gossip is traded and encouraged

• Some friends provide reinforcement and reassurance. Others will place the blame on one partner. Some may hasten the end of the relationship by providing previously secret information, still others may try to pitch in and try to repair the relationship.

• This is usually a point of no return

Grave dressing phase

Threshold: ‘it’s now inevitable’

• The focus of this phase is on the aftermath. Once the relationship is dead, the time comes to bury it by ‘ spinning’ a favourable story about the break up for the public. This allows the partner to maintain a good reputation, usually at the expense of the other partner. Gossip plays an important role in this phase.

• It is crucial that each partner tries to retain some ‘social credit’ by blaming others but themselves

• Grave dressing also involves creating a personal story you can live with, which may differ from the public one

• This is more to do with tidying up memories of the relationship with a certain degree of rewriting history

• The traits you like at the start of the relationship and now reinterpreted in a negative way

Strengths

• One strength of the model is that suggests ways in which relationship breakdown can be reversed - the model is useful because it recognises that different repair strategies are more effective at some points of the breakdown than others. For example, Duck recommends that people 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 also reflects social influences, particularly in the social phase, where individuals make the breakdown public and seek support from others. This highlights the role of social context in relationships. This is a strength because it provides a more holistic explanation. However, it still may not fully account for individual differences in how people handle breakups.

Limitations

• One limitation is that the original model described on the spread is an incomplete explanation of breakdown - Ducck and Rollie added a fifth phase after grave dressing - resurrection phase - ex partners apply to future relationships experiences gained from their recently ended one. The researchers also argued 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 or more important than linear movement from one phase to the next.. therefore the original model for the complexity of breakdown and its dynamic nature.

• Another limitation of the model is that it explains the early phases of breakdown - this is because much of the research is retrospective. Participants in research studies generally report their experiences after the relationship has ended, so they might not always be accurate or reliable. This is especially true of the early stages - by definition the earlier 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 process as well as later phases.

• Duck’s model may be culturally biased as it is based on Western ideas of relationships, where individual feelings and personal dissatisfaction are prioritised. In collectivist cultures, relationship breakdown may be influenced more by family or social expectations rather than individual evaluation. This suggests the model may not be universally applicable, reducing its generalisability.