Relationship Breakdown / Dissolution
AO1 OUTLINE
Duck’s 1. Intra-psychic: Privately dissatisfied / weight pros and cons
4 I can’t stand this any more -> focus on partners weaknesses
Phase 2. Dyadic: Confront discontent & issues with partner. Evaluate cost of withdrawal
model I would be justified in withdrawing -> each partner asses the other's behaviour
3. Social: Go public with breakup, negotiate division of assets, seek social support
I mean it -> partners engage in activities to get over breakdown
4. Grave-dressing: construct rational narrative & justify your decision
It’s now inevitable -> consider how breakup impacts social network
AO3 EVALUATION
(+) INCOMPLETE MODEL > DUCK AND ROLLIE > 5TH RESURRECTION PHASE > IN WHICH PPL
REFLECT ON LESSONS FROM PAST RS > PREPARE A BETTER ONE > + REALISTIC VIEW ON RL
This model is incomplete and suggests only a partial explanation of RS breakdown. More recently,
Duck and Rollie added a 5th ‘Resurrection Phase’ in which ex-partners began to use what they have
learnt from the previous relationship to prepare a new, better one in future. This addition is a
strength because it offers a more realistic view of how these processes develop in real life.
(-) LINEAR & INEVITABLE > NO FLEXIBILITY > SUGGESTS BREAKUP END IS INEVITABLE >
DETERMINISTIC > REFINED MODDLE BETTER NOT LINEOR > PARTNERS CAN RETURN TO
EARLIER STAGES, OG MODEL DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR THIS
A further limitation to the original model was its linear format. It offered little flexibility suggesting
that once a break-up starts it’s an inevitable end. This suggests no element of freewill and therefore
it can be criticised for being deterministic. In the refined model, they also agree it’s better NOT to be
linear, but that partners can return to earlier phases, which the original model didn’t account for.
(-) REDUCTIONISTIC > RS ARE UNPREDICTABLE > SO PHASE MODEL OVERSIMPLIFIED >
IGNORE IRRATIONALITY > DON'T ALWAYS FOLLOW PHASE LOGIC
In addition to this, Duck’s original linear, phase model can also be criticized for being reductionistic.
Relationships are unpredictable and do not always follow ‘phase’ logic, so this oversimplified view of
breakdown so can’t count for all relationship breakdowns and ignore the irrational nuances made
by humans in relationships.
(-) SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IS RETROSPECTIVE > RECALL OF BREAKUP RELIES ON MEMORY
(BIASED) > LIMITED FOUNDATIONS TO MODEL > CAN'T STUDY AT TIME W/O INTERFERING
Another limitation is that supporting evidence is based on retrospective data. A person who has left
a relationship has to rely on memory to document this. Therefore, it can be considered unreliable
and biased in favour of the person telling the story. However, practically, it’s impossible to study at
the time that the breakdown is actually going without potentially interfering with the ongoing
process, as we cannot identify who these couples are until they have broken up. This means that the
model is based on information which is based on limited information about the start of the
breakdown process.
(-) MODEL FOCUS ON HOW, CAUSAL EXP IGNORED > FLEMLEE > FATAL ATTRACTION
THEORY > ATTRATIVE THINGS BECOME FRUSTRATING > FUNNY TO NOT SERIOUS ENOUGH
Duck’s model benefits from telling us how relationships break down but no causal factors of why we
arrive at a point of dissatisfaction. Flemlee (1995) suggested it could be because of ‘Fatal Attraction
AO1 OUTLINE
Duck’s 1. Intra-psychic: Privately dissatisfied / weight pros and cons
4 I can’t stand this any more -> focus on partners weaknesses
Phase 2. Dyadic: Confront discontent & issues with partner. Evaluate cost of withdrawal
model I would be justified in withdrawing -> each partner asses the other's behaviour
3. Social: Go public with breakup, negotiate division of assets, seek social support
I mean it -> partners engage in activities to get over breakdown
4. Grave-dressing: construct rational narrative & justify your decision
It’s now inevitable -> consider how breakup impacts social network
AO3 EVALUATION
(+) INCOMPLETE MODEL > DUCK AND ROLLIE > 5TH RESURRECTION PHASE > IN WHICH PPL
REFLECT ON LESSONS FROM PAST RS > PREPARE A BETTER ONE > + REALISTIC VIEW ON RL
This model is incomplete and suggests only a partial explanation of RS breakdown. More recently,
Duck and Rollie added a 5th ‘Resurrection Phase’ in which ex-partners began to use what they have
learnt from the previous relationship to prepare a new, better one in future. This addition is a
strength because it offers a more realistic view of how these processes develop in real life.
(-) LINEAR & INEVITABLE > NO FLEXIBILITY > SUGGESTS BREAKUP END IS INEVITABLE >
DETERMINISTIC > REFINED MODDLE BETTER NOT LINEOR > PARTNERS CAN RETURN TO
EARLIER STAGES, OG MODEL DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR THIS
A further limitation to the original model was its linear format. It offered little flexibility suggesting
that once a break-up starts it’s an inevitable end. This suggests no element of freewill and therefore
it can be criticised for being deterministic. In the refined model, they also agree it’s better NOT to be
linear, but that partners can return to earlier phases, which the original model didn’t account for.
(-) REDUCTIONISTIC > RS ARE UNPREDICTABLE > SO PHASE MODEL OVERSIMPLIFIED >
IGNORE IRRATIONALITY > DON'T ALWAYS FOLLOW PHASE LOGIC
In addition to this, Duck’s original linear, phase model can also be criticized for being reductionistic.
Relationships are unpredictable and do not always follow ‘phase’ logic, so this oversimplified view of
breakdown so can’t count for all relationship breakdowns and ignore the irrational nuances made
by humans in relationships.
(-) SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IS RETROSPECTIVE > RECALL OF BREAKUP RELIES ON MEMORY
(BIASED) > LIMITED FOUNDATIONS TO MODEL > CAN'T STUDY AT TIME W/O INTERFERING
Another limitation is that supporting evidence is based on retrospective data. A person who has left
a relationship has to rely on memory to document this. Therefore, it can be considered unreliable
and biased in favour of the person telling the story. However, practically, it’s impossible to study at
the time that the breakdown is actually going without potentially interfering with the ongoing
process, as we cannot identify who these couples are until they have broken up. This means that the
model is based on information which is based on limited information about the start of the
breakdown process.
(-) MODEL FOCUS ON HOW, CAUSAL EXP IGNORED > FLEMLEE > FATAL ATTRACTION
THEORY > ATTRATIVE THINGS BECOME FRUSTRATING > FUNNY TO NOT SERIOUS ENOUGH
Duck’s model benefits from telling us how relationships break down but no causal factors of why we
arrive at a point of dissatisfaction. Flemlee (1995) suggested it could be because of ‘Fatal Attraction
