Theories of romantic relationships:Ducks phase model Flashcards
(8 cards)
intrapsychic stage-stage 1
Threshold: ‘I can’t stand this anymore’ indicating a determination that something has to change.
The focus of this phase is on cognitive processes occurring within the individual. The dissatisfied partner worries about the reasons for his or her dissatisfaction, centring mostly on their partner’s shortcomings. The partner mulls their thoughts over privately, and may share them with a trusted friend. They weigh up the pros and cons of the relationship and evaluate these against the alternatives (including being alone). They begin to make plans for the future.
dyadic stage-stage 2
Threshold: They eventually come to the conclusion ‘I would be justified in withdrawing’
The focus here is on interpersonal processes between the two partners. There comes a point when they cannot avoid talking about their relationship any longer. There is a series of confrontations in which the relationship is discussed and dissatisfactions are aired. These are characterised by anxiety, hostility, probably complaints about lack of equity, resentment over imbalanced roles and a rethinking of the commitment that kept the partners together. There are two possible outcomes - a determination to continue breaking up the relationship, or a renewed desire to repair it. But if the rescue attempts fail, another threshold is reached.
Ironically, self-disclosures may become deeper and more frequent in this phase as partners express thoughts and feelings they had been withholding in the intra-psychic phase.
social stage-stage 3
Threshold: The dissatisfied partner concludes ‘I mean it’
The focus is now on wider processes involving the couple’s social networks. The break-up is made public. Partners will seek support and try to forge pacts. Mutual friends find they are expected to choose a side. Gossip is traded and encouraged. Some friends provide reinforcement and reassurance (1 always said you were too good for him). Others will place the blame on one partner or the other. Some may hasten the end of the relationship by providing previously secret information (I didn’t want to mention this but … ). Still others may pitch in and try to help repair the relationship (perhaps by acting as a go-between). This is usually the point of no return - the break-up takes on a momentum driven by social forces.
grave dressing stage-stage 4
Threshold: ‘It’s now inevitable’
The focus of this phase is on the aftermath. Once the relationship is dead, the time comes to bury it, by ‘spinning’ a favourable story about the breakdown for public consumption. This allows the partners to save face and maintain a positive reputation, usually at the expense of the other partner, showing them in a bad light. Gossip plays an important role in this phase.
It is crucial that each partner tries to retain some social credit’ (La Gaipa 1982) by blaming circumstances, your partner or other people, or everything and everyone but themselves.
Grave dressing also involves creating a personal story you can live with, which may differ from the public one. This is more to do with tidying up memories of the relationship, with a certain degree of rewriting of history. The traits you found endearing in your partner at the start of the relationship are now reinterpreted in a much more negative fashion. A’wild and unpredictable naturé is now seen as an irresponsible failure to settle down.
The dissatisfied partner finally reaches the threshold, ‘Time to get a new life’.
strength- useful real-life applications
One strength of the model is that it suggests ways in which relationship breakdown can be reversed
The model is useful because it recognises that different repair strategies are more effective at some points in the breakdown than at others. For example, Duck (1994) recommends that people in the intra-psychic phase could be encouraged to focus their worrying on the positive aspects of their partner. Also, as a feature of the dyadic phase is communication, any attempt to improve this and wider social skills could be beneficial in fostering greater stability in the relationship.
These insights can be used in relationships counselling to help people
through difficult times.
Counterpoint The model is based on research into relationship breakdown in individualist cultures, especially the US. According to Fathali Moghaddam et al. (1993), relationships in individualist cultures are generally voluntary and frequently come to an end (for example, divorce). But relationships in collectivist cultures are less easy to end and involve the wider family. In fact the whole conception of a romantic relationship differs between cultures.
This means the model’s application would not be useful in all cultures.
limitation-an incomplete model
One limitation is that the original model described on this spread is an incomplete explanation of breakdown.
Duck, together with Stephanie Rollie (2006), added a fifth phase after grave dressing, the resurrection phase. Ex-partners apply to future relationships the experiences gained from their recently-ended one. The researchers also argue that progression from one phase to the next is not inevitable because it is possible to return to an earlier point in any phase.
Finally, the processes that occur in relationship breakdown (e.g. the role of gossip in the social phase) are more important than linear movement from one phase to the next.
Therefore the original model does not account for the complexity of breakdown and its dynamic nature.
limitation-early phases less understood
Another limitation of the model (including the newer version) is that it underexplains the early phases of breakdown.
This is because much of the research is retrospective. Participants in research studies generally report their experiences some time after the relationship has ended, so what they recall might not always be accurate or reliable. This is especially true of the early stages - by definition the early phases occur longer ago. Partners can be in the intra-psychic phase for a long time so recall of it may be particularly distorted.
This means that the model may not explain the early part of the breakdown process as well as later phases.
threshold
a point at which their perception of the relationship changes. Road to the break up begins once a partner realises that they are dissatisfied with the relationship and distressed about the way things are going.
