jkn jgkjn ug

Outline and evaluate research (theories and/or studies) relating to the breakdown of relationships

Duck proposed that there were four phases in the dissolution of a relationship. The intra psychic phase involves a partner growing increasingly dissatisfied with the relationship, which either may not be outwardly expressed, or there may be a determination to resolve the issue. The dyadic phase is where the dissatisfaction is expressed in the open, characterised by argument. Maintenance and repair strategies may be used to repair the relationship, which can still be saved. The social phase comprises the involvement of the individuals’ social networks, in which the break-up becomes public. These people may help mend disputes between the partners but may also speed dissolution by taking sides. Social implications, such as who has the house, are discussed. The grave dressing phase begins with the ex-partners starting their post relationship lives. Individual accounts of the breakdown are favourably publicised to avoid the hindrance of future successful relationships, whilst simultaneously justifying their original commitment to the relationship.

To its advantage, the model highlights that dissolution is not just a sudden step, but a process, which is now a widely accepted underlying insight. The crucial factor it considers is that relationships are long term and recognises that they embrace many parts of an individual’s life, such as friendships, thus taking the wider social context into account, and hence breakdown cannot be a sudden event. This is demonstrated in the final two stages of the model, which highlights the essential roles friends and family play in the dissolution of a relationship. Support for Duck’s model comes from Masuda who tested the validity of the model and found that it applied equally well in Japanese cultures as it does in Western cultures. However, it can be argued that as Japan is a collectivist culture (whereas the West is individualistic), social context influences relationships as the community plays an important role in helping the couple work though problems.

Duck also identified several factors that make relationships more fragile and susceptible to break down. Some relationships become strained as partners cannot maintain close contact, such as going away to university, and although enduring romantic relationships should be strong enough to survive such pressures; it is evident that this is not always the case. Additionally, certain individuals lack the interpersonal skills required to make them mutually satisfying. They may be poor conversationalists and so are more likely to be unrewarding in their interactions with others and may find it difficult to express interest in others. Furthermore, social exchange theory states that people seek rewards in relationships; therefore, lack of stimulation would be a reason why relationships break down. Boredom or a belief that a relationship is static is often cited as reasons for breakdown; people expect their relationships to evolve and their not doing so is seen as justification to end the relationship.

These factors are the converse of initial attraction, such as proximity. Fatal attraction theory (Felmlee) suggests the opposite; factors that initially attract us (eg. humour) may later become annoying (not taking life seriously). Furthermore, although lack of maintenance is cited as a reason for relationship breakdown, evidence suggests that long distance relationships do survive. Holt and Stone found that there was little decrease in relationship dissatisfaction provided lovers were able to reunite regularly, highlighting crucial management strategies used to overcome maintenance difficulties in our increasingly mobile society. Additionally, reasons for relationship dissolution identified by Duck may only apply to certain groups of people. Non-Western relationships, such as arranged marriages, may be formed differently and it is therefore likely that different pressures will function in their dissolution. For instance, when people move to a different culture, breakdown may occur due to lack of community support previously provided by the parent culture. Similarly, there are also gender differences in factors for breakdown. Women are more likely to stress unhappiness and incompatibility, whereas men are particularly upset by ‘sexual withholding’ (Brehm and Kassin).