Rela onships lesson 8- Theories of roman c rela onships: Duck’s phase model of rela onship
breakdown
The ending of a rela onship is not a one-o event but goes through a series of dis nct phases. Each
phase is marked by one partner (or both) reaching a “threshold” – a point at which their percep on
of the rela onship changes (usually for the worse).
STAGES OF BREAKDOWN
Intra-psychic phase- Threshold: “I can’t stand this anymore.” showing a determina on that
something has to change
Characterised by nega vity and (privately) thinking that you might be be er o out of the
rela onship. During this phase, the individual may not say anything about their dissa sfac on to
their partner, but they may express their discontentment in other ways. e.g. in a personal diary entry
or through social withdrawal while they take stock of their partner and the rela onship.
Dyadic phase- Threshold: A conclusion is eventually reached “I would be jus ed in withdrawing.”
Individuals confront their partner & begin to discuss feelings about their discontentment.
Feelings of guilt and anger are likely to surface as part of these discussions. They may well discover
that the partner also has concerns to air. At this point, couples may become aware of the forces that
bind them together (e.g. children and other investments made in the rela onship) and the costs that
would be incurred (e.g. the social and economic costs) should the rela onship be terminated.
Social phase- Threshold: The dissa s ed partner concludes- “I mean it.”
Partners let friends/family know about the breakup, it is made public. Up to this point, partners
might have kept their dissa sfac on fairly private, but now it spills over to a network of friends and
family as it reaches the social phase of the breakdown. This is a crucial psychological moment, as
the distress experienced by one or both partners is now made public. This makes it harder for the
two partners to deny that there really is a problem with their rela onship and also harder for
them to subsequently bring about a reconcilia on. Others may take sides, o er advice and support,
or may help in mending any disputes between the two sides. The involvement of others may even
speed the partners toward dissolu on through revela ons about one or other of the partners’
behaviour.
Grave-dressing phase- Threshold: “It’s now inevitable.”
The rela onship is ‘buried.’ Each person a empts to jus fy their ac ons & spin their rela onship in a
favourable way, showing them in a posi ve light. This grave-dressing phase is important, as each
partner must present themselves to others as being trustworthy and loyal – key a ributes if they are
to a ract a new partner. Partners strive to construct a representa on of the failed rela onship that
does not paint their contribu on to it in unfavourable terms. La Gaipa (1982) makes the point that
every person who leaves a rela onship has to leave with their ‘social credit’ intact for future use,
i.e. they must leave in such a way that they are not debarred from future rela onships.
, Duck’s phase model of rela onship breakdown
Rollie and Duck extended the original model in 2006. They added two stages breakdown (came
before intra-psychic) and resurrec on (which came a er grave-dressing)
The newer model also emphasised the idea that linear progression from stages is not inevitable and
it is possible to return to an earlier point in the process at any me
Evalua on
Point- Duck's model has useful applica ons, especially in rela on to couples’ counselling.
Evidence- Couples may be advised to use di erent strategies depending on the phase they are
currently in. For example, for a person in the intra-psychic phase it may be more useful to shi their
a en on to the posi ve aspects of their partner's personality, while for a couple in the dyadic phase
communica on about dissa sfac on and ways to balance rela onships is crucial.
Link back- This is a strength as it shows that Duck's model of rela onship breakdown can be used
successfully to help couples contempla ng break-up to improve their rela onships and stay
together.
Point- The models applica on may be culturally biased
Evidence- Moghaddam et al. (1993) argue the model is based on breakdown in individualist cultures
where rela onships are mostly voluntary and o en end. Rela onships in collec vist cultures are
o en ‘obligatory’ and less easy to end- the whole concept of roman c rela onship di ers between
cultures.
Link back- This is a weakness as the models applica on to reverse the breakdown can only be
applied in some cultures.
Point- One limita on is that the model is incomplete.
Evidence- Duck acknowledged that his 1982 model was oversimpli ed and failed to re ect the
possibility of personal growth following breakdown. In 2006, it was modi ed to add in resurrec on
processes a er grave dressing. Ex- partners turn to future rela onships using the experiences gained
from past ones. Research support for this came from Tashiro and Frazier (2003) in which a survey of
92 undergraduates who had recently broken up with a roman c partner reported not only emo onal
distress but also personal growth as predicted by this later model.
Link back- This study therefore provided evidence for the Grave-dressing and Resurrec on phases
of the model.
Point- A further limita on is that the early phases of the model are less well explained.
Evidence- Research par cipants recall rela onship breakdown retrospec vely, so the reports may not
be accurate (especially recalling the early phases). The intrapsychic-phase happens ‘longer ago’ and
partners may spend a long me in it, so recall of what happened could be especially distorted.
breakdown
The ending of a rela onship is not a one-o event but goes through a series of dis nct phases. Each
phase is marked by one partner (or both) reaching a “threshold” – a point at which their percep on
of the rela onship changes (usually for the worse).
STAGES OF BREAKDOWN
Intra-psychic phase- Threshold: “I can’t stand this anymore.” showing a determina on that
something has to change
Characterised by nega vity and (privately) thinking that you might be be er o out of the
rela onship. During this phase, the individual may not say anything about their dissa sfac on to
their partner, but they may express their discontentment in other ways. e.g. in a personal diary entry
or through social withdrawal while they take stock of their partner and the rela onship.
Dyadic phase- Threshold: A conclusion is eventually reached “I would be jus ed in withdrawing.”
Individuals confront their partner & begin to discuss feelings about their discontentment.
Feelings of guilt and anger are likely to surface as part of these discussions. They may well discover
that the partner also has concerns to air. At this point, couples may become aware of the forces that
bind them together (e.g. children and other investments made in the rela onship) and the costs that
would be incurred (e.g. the social and economic costs) should the rela onship be terminated.
Social phase- Threshold: The dissa s ed partner concludes- “I mean it.”
Partners let friends/family know about the breakup, it is made public. Up to this point, partners
might have kept their dissa sfac on fairly private, but now it spills over to a network of friends and
family as it reaches the social phase of the breakdown. This is a crucial psychological moment, as
the distress experienced by one or both partners is now made public. This makes it harder for the
two partners to deny that there really is a problem with their rela onship and also harder for
them to subsequently bring about a reconcilia on. Others may take sides, o er advice and support,
or may help in mending any disputes between the two sides. The involvement of others may even
speed the partners toward dissolu on through revela ons about one or other of the partners’
behaviour.
Grave-dressing phase- Threshold: “It’s now inevitable.”
The rela onship is ‘buried.’ Each person a empts to jus fy their ac ons & spin their rela onship in a
favourable way, showing them in a posi ve light. This grave-dressing phase is important, as each
partner must present themselves to others as being trustworthy and loyal – key a ributes if they are
to a ract a new partner. Partners strive to construct a representa on of the failed rela onship that
does not paint their contribu on to it in unfavourable terms. La Gaipa (1982) makes the point that
every person who leaves a rela onship has to leave with their ‘social credit’ intact for future use,
i.e. they must leave in such a way that they are not debarred from future rela onships.
, Duck’s phase model of rela onship breakdown
Rollie and Duck extended the original model in 2006. They added two stages breakdown (came
before intra-psychic) and resurrec on (which came a er grave-dressing)
The newer model also emphasised the idea that linear progression from stages is not inevitable and
it is possible to return to an earlier point in the process at any me
Evalua on
Point- Duck's model has useful applica ons, especially in rela on to couples’ counselling.
Evidence- Couples may be advised to use di erent strategies depending on the phase they are
currently in. For example, for a person in the intra-psychic phase it may be more useful to shi their
a en on to the posi ve aspects of their partner's personality, while for a couple in the dyadic phase
communica on about dissa sfac on and ways to balance rela onships is crucial.
Link back- This is a strength as it shows that Duck's model of rela onship breakdown can be used
successfully to help couples contempla ng break-up to improve their rela onships and stay
together.
Point- The models applica on may be culturally biased
Evidence- Moghaddam et al. (1993) argue the model is based on breakdown in individualist cultures
where rela onships are mostly voluntary and o en end. Rela onships in collec vist cultures are
o en ‘obligatory’ and less easy to end- the whole concept of roman c rela onship di ers between
cultures.
Link back- This is a weakness as the models applica on to reverse the breakdown can only be
applied in some cultures.
Point- One limita on is that the model is incomplete.
Evidence- Duck acknowledged that his 1982 model was oversimpli ed and failed to re ect the
possibility of personal growth following breakdown. In 2006, it was modi ed to add in resurrec on
processes a er grave dressing. Ex- partners turn to future rela onships using the experiences gained
from past ones. Research support for this came from Tashiro and Frazier (2003) in which a survey of
92 undergraduates who had recently broken up with a roman c partner reported not only emo onal
distress but also personal growth as predicted by this later model.
Link back- This study therefore provided evidence for the Grave-dressing and Resurrec on phases
of the model.
Point- A further limita on is that the early phases of the model are less well explained.
Evidence- Research par cipants recall rela onship breakdown retrospec vely, so the reports may not
be accurate (especially recalling the early phases). The intrapsychic-phase happens ‘longer ago’ and
partners may spend a long me in it, so recall of what happened could be especially distorted.
