DUCK’S PHASE MODEL: THEORY OF RELATIONSHIP BREAKDOWN

→ This model suggests that the ending of a relationship is a process that goes through 4 distinct phases

→ Each phase is marked by one partner (or both) reaching a threshold at which point their perception of the relationship changes

~PHASE 1: INTRA-PSYCHIC PHASE~

  • The threshold is ‘I can’t stand this anymore’

  • Focuses on the cognitive process occurring within the dissatisfied partner who spends a lot of time thinking about the reasons for this dissatisfaction

  • Thoughts are mulled over privately and may be shared with a trusted friend

  • They weigh up rewards and costs of the relationship, and evaluate these against alternatives

~PHASE 2: DYADIC PHASE~

  • The threshold is ‘I would be justified in withdrawing’

  • Focuses on interpersonal process between the two partners

  • There comes a point where they cannot avoid talking about their relationship any longer

  • There are a series of confrontations in which the relationship is discussed and dissatisfactions are aired

  • At this point, the relationship may be saved if both partners are motivated to resolve the issues they face

  • If the rescue attempts fail, another threshold is reached

~PHASE 3: SOCIAL PHASE~

  • The threshold is ‘I mean it’

  • This phase usually leads to the dissolution of the relationship

  • Focuses on the couple’s social networks, making their disagreements public to friends and relatives

  • According to Duck, at this stage it is more difficult for a couple to mend their relationship: friends and family take sides and offer advice which makes the reconciliation much more problematic

~PHASE 4: GRAVE-DRESSING PHASE~

  • The threshold is ‘It’s time to start a new life’

  • Focuses on the aftermath

  • Both sides construct their version of why their relationship broke down, usually minimising their faults and maximising their partner’s

  • Each partner tries to show themselves as trustworthy and loyal in order to maintains a positive reputation

  • Many also strategically reinterpret their view of their partner; traits they found attractive at the start (e.g. a wild and unpredictable nature) are now seen in a negative light (e.g. irresponsibility and unwillingness to settle down)

EVALUATION

Research Support:

→ REAL-WORLD APPLICATION

  • One strength of Duck’s Phase Model is its practical real-world application, particularly in relationship counselling.

  • Duck’s model highlights that different repair strategies are more effective during specific phases of relationship breakdown. For example, in the intra-psychic phase, individuals can be encouraged to improve communication skills, improving relationship stability.

  • This insight can be applied to counselling practices to help couples navigate difficulties more effectively.

  • This shows that Duck’s model can be used successfully to help couples contemplating break-up to improve their relationship and stay together.

Conflicting Evidence:

→ OVERSIMPLIFIED MODEL

  • One weakness is that it has been suggested that Duck’s Phase Model is an incomplete and oversimplified model of relationship breakdown.

  • Psychologists modified the original phase model to add a 5th phase after grave-dressing which they named the ‘Resurrection Phase’. During this phase, ex-partners turn their attention to future relationships using the experiences gained from their recently ended one.

  • They also argued that relationship breakdown is not strictly linear, and couples may not progress in that fixed order.

  • This shows that the model is a limited explanation of relationship breakdown as it doesn’t account for the dynamic nature of break ups with all their complexity.

    → UNDEREXPLAINS THE EARLY PHASES OF BREAKDOWN

  • Another limitation of Duck’s model is that it underexplains the early phases of relationship breakdown.

  • Duck’s research relies on retrospective data, where participants recall their experiences long after the relationship ended. Memories of the early phases may be inaccurate and distorted due to the time elapsed.

  • This makes the model less reliable in explaining the early stages of breakdown compared to the later phases.

  • This weakens the model’s ability to present an accurate picture of relationship breakdown.

→ CULTURE BIAS

  • A further limitation of Duck’s model is that it is based solely on relationships from individualistic cultures, where ending relationships is a voluntary choice, and divorce does not carry the same stigma.

  • This may not be the case in collectivising cultures, where relationships are sometimes arranged and characterised by greater family involvement.

  • This makes the relationship more difficult to end, meaning the break-up process will not follow the phases proposed by Duck.

  • As a result, the model is culturally biased as it assumes that the break-up process in universal, which is clearly not the case.