9.3.4 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 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 the course of weeks, months or even years and each phase is characterised by a specific threshold, the point at which this next part of the process is inevitable and almost unavoidable

‘It’s not you, it’s me…no, scratch that: it really is YOU!’

• The Intra-Psychic Phase:
  • This begins when one of the people in the relationship begins to feel 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 for this phase may be expressed as, ‘I’m so sick of this; things have to change’

• The Dyadic Phase:
  • At this point the person who has originally felt dissatisfied about the relationship airs their feelings with their partner (or it could be that both partners have come to feel dissatisfied independently of each other)
  • It is likely that this phase will involve each partner listing the negative qualities of their other half, identifying flaws in their relationship and in their partner; there will probably be a number of arguments/confrontations and complaints about each others’ 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 being not enough
  • There will probably only be two outcomes to this phase: either the couple decide to work on their relationship or they decide to split
  • The threshold for this phase may be expressed as, ‘Clearly this relationship is not working and I don’t know whether I even want to try to save it’

• 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 re-frame 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 partners’ many faults: to reunite means that the couple will ‘lose face’ and potentially embarrass their friends and family (picture the scene: your parents have torn your partner to bits and suddenly there you both are, at their house for Sunday lunch!)
  • The threshold for this phase may be expressed as, ’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 spin a good tale, painting their ex as unreasonable, difficult, demanding (possibly even deranged or deluded - break-ups are harsh!)
• This is the time for the relationship history to be re-written (by both partners, probably resulting in wildly different versions) and, initially at least, there is bound to be some creative re-imagining of reality e.g. one partner’s enjoyment of a gin and tonic on a Friday night is re-spun as ‘It’s pretty evident now that Patsy is dependent on alcohol, I really think she has a problem’
• 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 human beings find this response extremely difficult given the high emotion involved in break-ups)
• The threshold for this phase may be expressed as, ’It’s happened; now let’s get on with the next stage of my life’

Breaking up is hard to do…

Research which investigates Duck’s Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown

• Mitnick et al. (2009) - changes were found in the satisfaction levels (satisfaction with the relationship itself) of couples after they had become parents which was seen as a threat to the relationship and relevant to the dyadic phase

• Lefebrve et al (2012) - 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
• Duck & Rollie (2006) added an extra phase to the model: the resurrection phase in which people move beyond the trauma and pain associated with the breakup, and experience personal growth

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 break-up
• The model could be applied to couples counselling as it could be used to identify key triggers for conflict, suggesting strategies to salvage the relationship or ways in which to end it in a way which does not harm each partner unduly

Weaknesses

• The model is linear in that it charts the progression of break-up 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’

Link to Issues & Debates

The model is culturally biased as it does not account for the ways in which collectivist cultures may approach or view relationship breakdown, with its emphasis on a couple behaving as two individuals rather than as a unit. It may be difficult for people in collectivist cultures to leave a relationship as the weight of family and social expectations may put pressure on the couple to stay together, no matter how unhappy or toxic the relationship is.

The model favours the free will side of the Determinism/Free Will debate as it posits the idea that relationship breakdown is not inevitable and that it can be salvaged or reversed at any stage, depending on the individuals involved. For example, it is not set in stone that a couple will split even if phase 3 (the social phase) has occurred.