Specification:  Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown: intrapsychic, dyadic, social and grave- dressing phases.

Many people view relationship breakdown as a one-off event that just happens when one partner decides to leave a romantic relationship. However, social psychologist Steven Duck (2007) suggested that relationship dissolution is a process that consists of several distinctive phases.

Duck's Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown

The first phase in the relationship breakdown process is the intra-psychic stage. This is when a person admits to him or herself that they are dissatisfied with their relationship. They will spend a lot of time thinking about the reasons for this dissatisfaction and possible ways to move forward. The intra-psychic stage focuses on a person's internal thought processes which occurs before confronting the partner. Before a person moves to the next stage, they reach a threshold of thinking ‘I can't stand this anymore'.

The second phase, called dyadic, occurs when a person confronts their partner and voices their dissatisfaction. At this stage there are many complaints coming from the partner initiating the break-up; common complaints involve a partner's commitment, or lack thereof, to the relationship. The dissatisfied partner also rethinks the alternatives to their current relationships. The threshold that is reached at this stage is: 'I would be justified in withdrawing'.

If, up to this point, the couple generally kept their disagreements private, the next phase would involve friends and relatives by making their distress public. This is the social phase of relationship breakdown. According to Duck, once the conflict reaches this stage, it is more difficult for a couple to mend their relationship: friends and family will take sides, intervene in the couple's relationship and offer advice, which makes reconciliation much more problematic. The threshold at this stage is 'I mean it'. The social phase usually leads to the dissolution of the relationship.

Having left their partner, both sides construct their version of why their relationship broke down, usually minimising their faults and maximising their partner's, but at the same time trying to show themselves as trustworthy and loyal in order to attract a new partner. This process is called 'grave-dressing', signifying the closure of the previous relationship and readiness to start a new one. The threshold here is, unsurprisingly, 'It's time to start a new life'.

Research Examining Duck's Phase Model

There is research to indicate the importance of the grave-dressing stage in Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown. The dissolution of a relationship is a very stressful event and many people experience anxiety and depression whilst going through it (Monroe et al., 1999). Tashiro and Frazier (2003) found that if ex-partners viewed the situation as being responsible for the break-up, rather than their own personal fault, they often viewed the ending of the relationship in a more positive light.

Later, Duck and Rollie (2006) proposed an addition to the model: the resurrection phase. They suggested that at this stage people move beyond the pain and distress associated with ending the relationship, and experience personal growth. Existence of the resurrection stage was supported by Tashiro and Frazier’s (2003) study where participants, who were undergraduates with recent experience of a romantic relationship breakdown, reported experiencing personal growth as a result of the dissolution, after emotional distress lifted.

Lefebrve et al (2012)

Aim: To investigate Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown.

Method: A sample of 208 college students who were regular users of the social media platform Facebook, completed an online questionnaire designed to measure their use of this medium during their recent relationship breakdown.

Results: 22% of the student participants chose not to use Facebook as a medium to discuss their relationship breakdown at all. A further 22% of the sample used Facebook as a way to publicise their relationship status from ‘in a relationship’ to either ‘it’s complicated’ or ‘single’. Approximately 10% of the participants used Facebook as a way to check up on what their ex-partner was doing. A strategy of displaying positive social interactions and happy memories was also utilised by ex-partners whereby, for example, they would post photographs of having a fun night out with a group of friends, with the intention that these could be seen by the ex. Finally, ‘blocking’ or ‘unfriending’ was reported as commonplace following the breakdown of the relationship.

Conclusion: The researchers believe that many of these online behaviours and strategies employed via Facebook can be directly mapped to Ducks’ phase model of relationships. In particular, the social and grave-dressing phases are clearly evident from the results observed.

Evaluation of Duck’s Phase Model

One problem with research examining relationship breakdown is the reliance upon retrospective data. This means that the questionnaires or interviews used to ask participants about the break-up occur sometime after it happened. People's memories of the event may not be accurate, and may also be distorted by their current situation, which means that their answers may not be reliable. As a result, Duck's phase model, even though it seems to be supported by research, does not necessarily describe how break-up happens in real life, weakening the model's ability to present an accurate picture of relationship breakdown.

There are significant ethical issues involved in investigating relationship breakdown, such as privacy. This is particularly problematic if the research involves victims of domestic abuse. There are also the ethical issues of confidentiality and protection from psychological harm, as participants may experience distress in the process of the research. This makes the topic particularly difficult to investigate, as researchers may find it tricky to conduct a study where the benefits of research outweigh a possible negative impact on participants.

The social phase of Duck’s model is greatly affected by individual differences, especially in relation to age of the partners. Dickson (1995) found that friends and relatives tend to see teenagers' break-ups as less serious since the couple are young and finding their feet with regard to other potential relationships. As such, these external confidantes will not put as much effort into reconciling partners as they perhaps would for an older couple. Termination of relationships which are longer standing is seen as more distressing and those close to the couple put more effort into bringing them back together, potentially because of reduced possibilities for finding an alternative partner in the future. This shows that Duck's model cannot necessarily be applied to all couples and, as a result, suggests that the model is unable to accurately predict breakdown in different types of relationship.

Duck's model has useful real-world applications, especially in relation to couples’ counselling. Couples may be advised to use different strategies depending on the phase that they are currently experiencing. For example, Duck (1994) recommends that for a person in the intra-psychic phase it may be useful to shift their attention to the positive aspects of their partner's personality, while for a couple in the dyadic phase communication with their partner about dissatisfaction and ways to balance the relationship is crucial. Additionally, help and support can be sought from family members or friends if couples are found to be in the social stage of breakdown. This shows that Duck's model of relationship breakdown can be used successfully to help couples contemplating break-up to improve their relationships and stay together.

Extension Evaluation: Issues & Debates

Duck’s phase model is based on relationships from individualist cultures, where ending the relationships is a voluntary choice, and separation and divorce are easily obtainable and do not carry stigma. However, this may not be the case in collectivist cultures, where relationships are sometimes arranged by wider family members, and characterised by greater family involvement. This makes the relationship difficult to end, which means that the break-up process will not follow the phases proposed by Duck. As a result, Duck's phase model is culturally biased as it assumes that break-up process is universal, which is clearly not the case.

Duck's model successfully describes how relationships break down, but not why. It focuses on establishing universal principles of behaviour that would be true for all people (nomothetic approach). However, the break-up process is greatly affected by partners’ individual differences, cultural norms and values, so a more detailed idiographic approach may reveal individual reasons for break-up and the experiences different couples go through, giving psychologists a better understanding of the issue.

Possible Exam Questions

1. Identify which one of the following sequences illustrates the correct order of Duck‘s phase model of relationships. (1 mark)

a. Social, dyadic, intra-psychic, grave dressing

b. Intra-psychic, social, grave dressing, dyadic

c. Dyadic, intra-psychic, grave dressing, social

d. Intra-psychic, dyadic, social, grave dressing

2. Define what is meant by the ‘intra-psychic stage’ in relation to Duck’s phase model of relationships. (2 marks)

3. Describe the grave-dressing phase of relationship breakdown. (3 marks)

4. A psychologist has been asked by a University to design a questionnaire to investigate the relationship breakdown.

a) State three questions that could be included in this questionnaire. (3 marks)

b) Explain why these questions would be useful in investigating the break-up process. Refer to research in your answer. (6 marks)

c) Identify one ethical issue the psychologist would need to consider when conducting this research and explain how it could be dealt with it. (3 marks)

5. Briefly outline what is meant by the dyadic and social phase of Duck’s phase model of relationships. (4 marks)

6. Identify and explain any one of the phases from Duck’s phase model of romantic relationships. (4 marks).

7. Explain one limitation of Duck’s phase model. (4 marks)

8. Describe Duck’s phase model of romantic relationships. (6 marks)

9. Discuss Duck’s phase model. (8 marks)

10. Alina is unhappy in her relationship with Chris, and often thinks about how much less attentive and loving he has become lately. However, she can't bring herself to tell Chris about her unhappiness, fearing that it might make the situation worse.

Identify and explain what phase of relationship breakdown Alina is at. Suggest one possible way for her to reduce her unhappiness. (4 marks)

11. Outline and evaluate Duck's model of as a theory of romantic relationships. (16 marks)