Ducks Model of Relationship Breakdown Intrapsychic Phase The

Duck's Model of Relationship Breakdown

Intra-psychic Phase • The focus of this phase is on cognitive processes within the individual who is considering initiating the break-up • The dissatisfied partner considers the pros and cons of the relationship privately (and perhaps shares their feelings with an outside party) and makes plans for a possible future without the other partner

Dyadic Phase • Communication between the two partners begins, and usually involves a series of confrontations where the relationship is discussed • These conversations are usually characterised by anxiety, hostility and resentment • There are two possible outcomes: either a decision to continue with the break-up or an effort to repair it

Social Phase • Should the decision be made to proceed with the break-up the focus now shifts to the couple's social networks • The end of the relationship is made public and efforts are made to forge alliances a friends may be expected to 'choose sides' • Some friends may be supportive, others judgemental and some may contribute towards the end of the relationship through the sharing of previously withheld information • The break-up takes on a momentum driven by social forces

Grave-dressing Phase • The focus of this phase is on the aftermath of the relationship • A favourable story is elaborated by each partner to explain the break-down of the relationship, which allows them to save face and maintain a positive reputation as well as to make sense of the situation in a more personal manner

Resurrection Phase? • Rollie and Duck (2006) added a fifth phase to the original model, which they called the resurrection phase • In this phase partners turn their attention to future relationships using the experience gained from the relationship which has ended • Rollie and Duck do however emphasise that progression to this phase is not inevitable and that regression to an earlier phase may occur at any point

Supporting research • Support for the Grave-dressing phase comes from Tashiro and Frazier 2003 who reported personal growth and personal distress – hopefully not in that order. • However, their 92 undergraduates are not representative of all individuals experiencing relationship breakdown because……

Other Issues with stage models • Stage models can be seen as reductionist in their attempts to simplify complex interpersonal relationships into neat categories. This runs the risk of ignoring the difficulties in defining stages, skipping stage, or acknowledging that sometimes relationships end abruptly – sometimes as a result of no more than the biological drives of one partner or the other.

Specific criticisms • The research relating to Duck's model was retrospective, with partners describing their experiences some time after the break-up had occurred • This raises questions about the accuracy and reliability of the research • Furthermore, would interviewing partners in the early stages of a potential relationship breakdown present ethical challenges? • It is a descriptive model rather than an explanation of why relationship break-down occurs • Cultural bias - Moghaddam (1993) suggests that relationships in collectivist cultures, which are more likely to be arranged than voluntary, tend to be more enduring

Conclusions and Real-life Applications • A strength of the model is that is suggests ways of reversing a potential relationship breakdown within each of the different phases, should one be so inclined • For example, focusing on the positive aspects of one's partner may be useful in the early stage, while postponing the decision to make news of the break-up public (social phase), could minimise the impact of premature interference • However some models – such as Lee’s – focus more on negotiation, which arguably make them better suited to relationship counselling situations