Duck's Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown (AQA A Level Psychology): Revision Note

Duck's phase model of relationship breakdown

• Duck’s phase model (2007) describes the stages involved in a relationship breaking down, from the earliest phase of one person having misgivings about the relationship to the final ending of the relationship

• Although the model charts the typical course of relationship breakdown, it does not state that each stage will inevitably lead on to the next stage

  • The journey to complete relationship breakdown can be averted at any of the first three phases of the model

• Relationship breakdown, according to Duck, is not swift or easy

  • It develops over weeks, months or even years, and the start of each phase is marked by a specific threshold - a point at which the dissatisfied partner's perception of the relationship changes, usually for the worse

The four phases of Duck’s model

• The intra-psychic phase:

  • This begins when one of the people in the relationship feels that the relationship is not working, which may be due to feelings of dissatisfaction, a lack of equity, poor communication, etc.

  • The person may not give voice to these feelings, and they may even try to persuade themselves that they are being silly or unreasonable

  • Thoughts and feelings may be shared with a trusted friend or written down in a journal to make sense of them (this may involve a list of pros and cons of the partner/relationship being drawn up)

  • The person may dwell on the (real or perceived) faults and flaws of their partner, and they may use confirmation bias to reinforce their dissatisfaction, e.g., ‘There he is watching football again when I want us to watch Masterchef together’

  • The threshold that marks the start of this phase is: 'I can't stand this anymore', indicating a determination that something has to change

• The dyadic phase:

  • At this point, the person who has originally felt dissatisfied about the relationship airs their feelings with their partner

  • This phase will likely involve each partner listing the negative qualities of their other half, identifying flaws in their relationship and their partner; there will probably be several arguments/confrontations and complaints about each other’s shortcomings, lack of care/sensitivity/communication, unappreciative attitude, etc.

  • It will be at this point that inequity is discussed, where costs are emphasised and rewards are dismissed as not being enough

  • There will probably only be two outcomes to this phase

    • Either the couple decide to work on their relationship

    • Or, they decide to end their relationship

  • The threshold that marks the start of this phase is: 'I would be justified in withdrawing'

• The social phase:

  • This is the point at which each partner turns to their friends and family for solace and consolation (and as a way of affirming their decision)

  • Friends and family may be supportive in reinforcing the person’s decision, or they may try to persuade them to try to work things out with their partner

  • Some friends and family may use hindsight bias to reframe the relationship, e.g., ‘I always knew you were too good for him/her’

  • The couple may find that friends take sides, adding another dimension of conflict and negativity to the situation

  • It is difficult for couples to decide to reconcile at this phase because they have, essentially, ‘gone public’ with their grievances, bad-mouthing their partner and convincing other people of their partner’s many faults

    • To reunite means that the couple will potentially embarrass their friends and family

  • The threshold that marks the start of this phase is: ’This really is happening’

• The grave-dressing phase:

  • This rather macabrely-titled phase involves each partner trying to tell the best ‘story’ to explain the break-up in a bid to come out of the whole mess looking like the ‘good guy’

  • It is important for each partner’s self-esteem that they show their ex as unreasonable, difficult, and demanding

  • This is the time for the relationship history to be rewritten (by both partners, probably resulting in wildly different versions) and, initially at least, there is bound to be some creative re-imagining of reality

  • The most mature and rational response to the break-up is that both partners agree that they were incompatible and that they should move on (most people find this response extremely difficult, given the high emotion involved in break-ups)

  • The threshold that marks the start of this phase is: 'It's now inevitable'

  • The dissatisfied partner finally concludes: 'Time to get a new life'

Research which investigates Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown

• Duck (1994) – found that people in the intra-psychic phase could be encouraged to focus their brooding on the positive aspects of their partner, suggesting the model can identify ways of reversing breakdown at specific phases

  Lefebvre et al. (2012) – an analysis of social media posts from a sample of 208 college students showed that Duck’s model was particularly applicable to the social and grave-dressing phases of the relationships

Evaluation of Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown

Strengths

• The model does have some face validity as it reflects the experience of many people who have gone through a breakup

• The model has useful real-life application, as it recognises that different repair strategies are more effective at particular points in the breakdown than at others

  • E.g., in the dyadic phase, improving communication and wider social skills could foster greater stability

    • Such insights could be used in relationship counselling

Limitations

• The model is linear in that it charts the progression of a breakup from phase 1 to phase 4, but this is not necessarily true for every couple e.g. some couples or individuals may immediately leap into the social phase, bypassing the first two phases altogether

• The model is light on explanation as it outlines the ‘what’ of relationship breakdown but not the ‘why’

• Rollie & Duck (2006) argued that the original model was oversimplified and modified it, adding a fifth phase (the resurrection phase) in which ex-partners move beyond the pain of the breakup, turn their attention to future relationships and experience personal growth

  • The new model also makes clear that progression from one phase to the next is not inevitable (it is possible to return to an earlier point in any phase) and emphasises the processes that occur within relationship breakdown rather than linear movement between phases

    • These changes suggest the original model was a limited explanation that did not account for the dynamic nature of break-ups

Issues & Debates

• Duck’s model takes a nomothetic approach, offering a generalised sequence of stages

  • However, relationship breakdown is a highly individual experience — some people skip stages, go backwards, or experience multiple phases at once

  • This means the model may lack flexibility and ecological validity when applied to diverse relationship experiences

• The model is culturally biased, as it reflects Western, individualist values: Moghaddam et al. (1993) note that relationships in individualist cultures are generally voluntary and frequently come to an end, whereas in collectivist cultures they are more likely to be obligatory, harder to end, and involve the wider family

  • In collectivist cultures, relationships may be more influenced by family duty or social harmony, and open confrontation (dyadic/social phase) may be less common

  • This limits the cross-cultural validity of the model