Relationship Breakdown

Relationship BreakdownDescribe & Evaluate Ducks model of Relationship Breakdown

Recap so far

Formation of Relationships:

1. Matching Hypothesis We form relationships with people equally matched to ourselves

2. Filter ModelWe form relationships with people who pass 3 filters (DAN)

3. Reward/Need SatisfactionWe form relationships with people who reward us by meeting our needs or are associated with pleasure

Maintenance of Relationships:

1. Social Exchange Theory (SET)We maintain relationships if they are profitable to us

2. Equity TheoryWe maintain relationships that are equitable

3. Investment TheoryWe maintain relationships that we have invested in

Thibaut & KelleyMursteinKerckhoff & DavisWalsterByrne & CloreRusbult

Thibaut & KelleyMursteinKerckhoff & DavisWalsterByrne & CloreRusbultMatching HypothesisEquity TheoryReward/Need SatisfactionInvestment ModelSocial Exchange TheoryFilter Model

Speed DatingYou will each be given a profile

According to the Filter Model, there is a perfect match for you in the room

You will be allowed to date each participant in the room for 2 minutes each

Make sure you ask the right questions

Possible QuestionsWhere are you from?How old are you?What do you do?What do you like to do in your spare time?What is your usual type?Why havent your previous relationships worked out?What are you looking for in a relationship?What is your ideal man?

Speed Dating

Speed Dating Matches

David & Rebecca

Jacob & Catherine

Matthew & Fiona

Thomas & Scarlet

Ben & Michelle

Speed Dating Matches

DavidD Upper-middle class Central LondonA Career driven/independentN Support with career

RebeccaD Upper-middle class Central LondonA Career driven/independentN Someone who is self-made

Speed Dating Matches

JacobD Working class South LondonA Value family timeN Cared for, family approval

CatherineD Working class South LondonA Value family timeN Family approval

13

Speed Dating Matches

MatthewD Outskirts of LondonA Fitness & Traditional Gender RolesN Love and support at home

FionaD Outskirts of LondonA Traditional Gender RolesN Finance/house/family

Speed Dating Matches

ThomasD East LondonA Free Spirit, travelN Freedom to explore

ScarletD East LondonA Free Spirit, travelN Care-free; not held down.

Speed Dating Matches

BenD West LondonA Money and SuccessN Financial Stability

MichelleD West LondonA Career ProgressionN Successful/Adventurous

Relationship Breakdown

Why do relationships end?With the person next to you

Discuss relationships that you have ended;Were there common reasons as to why it ended?

Discuss relationships that they ended;Were there common reasons?

Relationship Breakdown

Possible Triggers:

InfidelityBoredomBetter AlternativeMoving AwayDissatis-factionJealousySelfish PartnerIn-compatible working hoursBlameStagnantEmotional Instability

Ducks Theory of Relationship Dissolution

Steve Duck (1988)

Believed that factors which contribute to relationship break down can be categorised into;

Skill Deficiency and Stimulation Deficiency

Lack of SkillsCommunication Skills

Interpersonal Skills

Emotional Stability

Insensitivity

Lack of Stimulation

Boredom

Belief relationship is going nowhere

Not seeing each other enough

Duck & Rollies Model (2006) of Relationship DissolutionDuck & Rollies Relationship Dissolution1. Breakdown2. Intra-Psychic Phase3. Dyadic Phase4. Social Phase5. Grave Dressing6. Resurrection

Duck and Rollie (2006)1. Breakdown

At least 1 partner is dissatisfied with the relationship

I cant stand this anymore

Duck and Rollie (2006)2. Intra-Psychic Phase

Depression and resentment from dissatisfied partnerSocial WithdrawalFocus on partners faultsSense of being under-benefited

Id be justified in leaving

Duck and Rollie (2006)3. Dyadic Phase

Couple talk to one anotherReconcilliation occurs when partner accepts dissatisfaction of otherMake promises and agreements to changeProblem Solving = potential for relationship to be savedScape-goating = Relationship Breakdown

I mean it

Duck and Rollie (2006)4. Social Phase

Relationship problems are aired to family and friendsAlliances are createdYoung relationships are likely to use this stage to seek alternatives

Its inevitable

Duck and Rollie (2006)5. Grave-Dressing Phase

Justify why you were in the relationship in the first placeAttempt to Save Face Story changes for different listeners 2 likely stories involve either betrayal or fizzled out

Time to get a new life

both tried hard29

Duck and Rollie (2006)6. Resurrection phase

Preparing for future relationshipsLearning from previous relationship and discovering what you want from future partners

This time itll be different

both tried hard30

Duck & Rollies Relationship Dissolution1. Breakdown2. Intra-Psychic Phase3. Dyadic Phase4. Social Phase5. Grave Dressing6. Resurrection

Talking to each otherWe both tried hard but it just didnt work outRealising you havent been happy for a whileNext time, Im going for a more ambitious manDepression has stopped you from wanting to speak to anyoneHes just so lazy and never wants to do anything, I dont think we have long left

Duck & Rollies Relationship Dissolution1. Breakdown2. Intra-Psychic Phase3. Dyadic Phase4. Social Phase5. Grave Dressing6. Resurrection

Talking to each otherWe both tried hard but it just didn't work outRealising you havent been happy for a whileNext time, Im going for a more ambitious manDepression has stopped you from wanting to speak to anyoneHes just so lazy and never wants to do anything, I dont think we have long left

Factors that contribute to break-ups

AO1 - Duck Lack of Skills or Lack of Stimulation

AO2 - Boekhout et al (1999)

Gave questionnaires to 140 male and female Undergraduate students about their reasons behind infidelityAttempted to discover the most prevalent factors behind affairs

Boekhout et al (1999)Results differed for males and females BoredomLack of AttentionLack of Communi-cationSexually Incomp-atibleLack of Intellectual SharingGeograph-ically distant from partner

Male: Boredom / Sexual incompatibility / Geographically distant from partner

Female: Lack of attention / Lack of communication / Lack of intellectual sharing34

Boekhout et al (1999)Results differed for males and females BoredomLack of AttentionLack of Communi-cationSexually Incomp-atibleLack of Intellectual SharingGeograph-ically distant from partner

Male: Boredom / Sexual incompatibility / Geographically distant from partner

Female: Lack of attention / Lack of communication / Lack of intellectual sharing35

Factors that contribute to break-ups

However

Sample is limited, cannot be applied to longer-term, marital relationships

Questionairres may not have reflected the whole truth social desirability factors reduce internal validity

Long-term relationships70% of people experience on at some point, they work even though they dont have regular contact

AO2 strengths of Rollie and Ducks Model of Relationship Dissolution

The model reflects relationship breakdown in real life. Dissolution is seen as a process and not an event this is widely accepted.

Stresses importance of communication in relationships

Real world application in relationship counselling. Allows counselors to address where a couple are in the process of relationship dissolution.

Rollie and Duck (2006) AO2 Tashiro & Frazier (2003)

Surveyed undergraduates who had recently broken up with a romantic partner. They typically reported that they had experienced emotional distress but also personal growthStudents stated that they had gained new insights into themselves and a clearer idea about future partners

Rollie and Duck (2006) AO2 Tashiro & Frazier (2003)

Supports the grave-dressing and resurrection stages of the model.

Through these stages, individuals are able to move forward from relationship dissolution.

39

AO3

GenderReductionistEthical Guidelines?Nature vs. NurtureAnimal StudiesDeterminsm vs. Free WillEthnocentricism

40

AO3 - Gender Bias

Rollie and Ducks model fails to address possible gender differences in reaction to relationship dissolution. Research indicates that women report more post-relationship growth (resurrection) than malesMay be due to greater reliance and accessibility to social supportThe model fails to account for these gender differences in relationship dissolution and can therefore be seen as too simplistic

AO3

GenderReductionistEthical Guidelines?Nature vs. NurtureAnimal StudiesDeterminsm vs. Free WillEthnocentricism

42

AO3 - ReductionistThe model doesnt take into account break-up roles Akert (1998)Found that break-up role was the biggest predictor of negativity of dissolution experience

Victim = Most miserable; Greatest loneliness; Depression; Unhappiness; AngerPerpetrator = Guilty, Fewer negative experiences

AO3

GenderReductionistEthical Guidelines?Nature vs. NurtureAnimal StudiesDeterminsm vs. Free WillEthnocentricismSexual Orientation/Social Sensitivity

44

AO3 Sexual OrientationDifferences in homosexual relationship breakdown

Blumstein & Schwartz (1983) found that homosexual relationships are less durable than heterosexual relationships.

These differences in sexual orientation are not accounted for by Rollie & Ducks model

AO1 - Essay LayoutDuck 2 factors that effect relationship dissolution

Rollie & Ducks (2006) model of relationship dissolution BI-PDSG-DR

46

AO2 - Essay Layout Practical Application in Counselling

Boekhout (1999) Both genders express factors such as Boredom and Lack of Attention as motives of infidelity which then could lead to dissolution. Supports Ducks theory of Lack of skill and stimulation as reasons for relationship dissatisfaction.

Tashiro & Frazier (2003)

Emotional distress and personal growth experienced by students who have recently broken up. Supports the stages of resurrection in the model. Process not episode.

AO3 Essay Layout Gender BiasWomen experience more growth

Break-up Role (Akert, 1998)Victim experiences more negative emotion

Sexual Orientation, (Blumstein, 1983) Homosexual relationships less enduring, may have different relationship dissolution processes.

48

Evolutionary TheoryNext LessonEvolutionary explanations of relationships