Discuss Ducks Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown PDF

Preview

Summary

ESSAY ON DUCK PHASE MODEL...

Description

Discuss Duck’s Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown Duck’s model includes four stages; the first stage is the intrapsychic stage which involves social withdrawal, resentment, concentrating on a partner’s faults and the costs of the relationship, and reevaluation of alternatives. After this stage is complete individuals move onto the dyadic phase. This involves uncertainty and anxiety about progressing on from the relationships. There is a discussion around the discontent of the relationship, and the equity of it, with a reassessment of one’s goals, and commitments. The third stage is called the social stage. This is when you go public and seek support from others – building alliances. The final stage is grave dressing. This is tidying up memories and saving face. There is evidence to support the benefits of the grave dressing phase; Tashiro and Frazier surveyed undergraduates who had recently broken up with a romantic partner. They often reported they had experienced emotional distress and personal growth. Breaking up with their partners had given them new insights into themselves and a clearer idea about what they want from future partners. They found that focusing on the situation and not personal flaws helped individuals to cope better as there was less threat to their psychological wellbeing. This implies duck’s phase model can be useful in helping people go through relationship breakdowns and can be used to explain behavior during that time. Furthermore, the theory is supported by its practical application. It helps in understanding issues in relationships and how to reverse them. It recognizes repair strategies which are helpful during some phases, but not others. Duch says that the intra-psychic stage could be used to persuade individuals to focus on the positive aspect of their partner. Furthermore, communication is a key role in the dyadic phase, and improving this may be beneficial to repairing the relationship. Such insights can be used in relationship counselling and can have positive effects for individuals. Despite this, the model cannot be used cross-culturally. It is based in western cultures, particularly the USA. Moghaddam says that relationships in individualist cultures are voluntary and tend to end, whereas collectivist cultures are more likely to have obligatory relationships, which are less easy to end as they involve the wider family and are sometimes arranged. Thus, the ideas and freedom around relationships varies between cultures, making it unlikely that the theory can apply universally. In addition, the theory is limited as it ignores other influences. It does not tell us why the phases happen; Flemlee’s fatal attraction hypothesis claims the causes can be found in the attractive qualities that bought the partners together. They are often threatened by getting too much of what they were looking for, resulting in the breakdown of the relationship. Thus, it may be beneficial to look at external factors which influence the phases....