DUCK’S MODEL OF RELATIONSHIP BREAKDOWN
SPECIFICATION: DUCK’S PHASE MODEL OF RELATIONSHIP BREAKDOWN: INTRA-PSYCHIC, DYADIC, SOCIAL AND GRAVE DRESSING PHASES
WHAT IS A PHASE/STAGE MODEL?
A phase or stage model is a theoretical framework used to describe how complex processes unfold over time in distinct steps. In the context of relationship breakdown, it suggests that relationships rarely end suddenly, especially long-term ones. Instead, they follow a progressive sequence of stages, each marked by changes in thoughts, feelings, and behaviours.
These models help us understand that breakups are rarely sudden or impulsive, especially in long-term relationships. Instead, they tend to follow a series of phases, with each stage reflecting a shift in how one or both partners think, feel, or behave.
Two well-known stage models are Duck’s Phase Model and Lee’s Five-Stage Model. Both provide a structured explanation of how relationships unravel, but they differ slightly in focus and terminology. In this section, both models will be examined and compared as frameworks for understanding the gradual disintegration of romantic partnerships.
We begin with Duck’s Phase Model
DUCK’S FIVE-STAGE MODEL OF DISSOLUTION (1982)
Duck proposed a five-stage model to explain how romantic relationships typically dissolve over time. The model suggests that breakups are not sudden but unfold through a series of psychological and social phases, each representing a deeper level of disengagement. The stages are mostly linear, although individuals may pause, repeat, or even reverse stages depending on the situation. The initiation of the next stage occurs when an individual reaches the threshold. Duck supposed there were five stages that a threshold could trigger.
The five stages are:
INTRA-PSYCHIC
DYADIC
SOCIAL
GRAVE-DRESSING
RESURRECTION
KEY POINT
Duck argued that while the five-stage model applies to most long-term relationships, it must be flexible enough to accommodate non-linear or instantaneous endings. These sudden terminations still require grave-dressing and resurrection processes (reinterpreting the past, moving forward), even if the earlier phases were skipped.
THE FIVE STAGES
INTRA-PSYCHIC PHASE
The intra-psychic phase is the first stage in Duck’s five-stage model of relationship breakdown. At this point, one or both partners begin to experience dissatisfaction with the relationship but have not yet expressed this to each other. Instead, the discontent is internalised — characterised by private reflection, inner monologues, and emotional distancing.
The dissatisfied partner begins to focus on perceived faults in the other person, such as inequity in effort, irritating habits, or emotional incompatibility. At this stage, they may evaluate whether these issues are temporary or permanent, surmountable or intractable and whether they are offset by enough positives to make the relationship worth maintaining. This is not always a linear decision; often, the individual moves back and forth between doubt and justification.
Although the process is largely cognitive and covert, some low-risk externalisation may occur. Rather than confiding in the partner, individuals often vent casually to strangers or distant acquaintances — such as a co-worker, hairdresser, or online community — precisely because these interactions are emotionally non-threatening and carry no obligation to act. If they do confide in a close friend, it’s often to seek reassurance, test the legitimacy of their feelings, or gain validation — but the partner remains unaware.
In many cases, nothing more comes of the intra-psychic phase. If venting or introspection alleviates the discontent, the individual may feel re-committed without their partner ever realising there was an issue. This is why Duck notes that many relationships may pass through this stage repeatedly without ending.
However, if the individual becomes increasingly preoccupied with their dissatisfaction, they reach a threshold—a psychological tipping point often characterised by the thought: “I can’t stand this anymore.” At this moment, the person decides that internal rumination is insufficient and must address the issue directly. This marks the end of the intra-psychic phase and the transition into the dyadic phase, where dissatisfaction becomes overt and is communicated to the partner.
DYADIC PHASE:
The Dyadic Phase emerges when the couple is dissatisfied with one or both partners. The dyad (the couple as a pair) needs to discuss and evaluate it.
The dyadic phase is the second stage in Duck’s model of relationship breakdown, and it marks the point where private dissatisfaction becomes interpersonal. Having crossed the intra-psychic threshold of “I can’t stand this anymore,” one or both partners begin to express their unhappiness openly, prompting direct discussion between the couple — the dyad.
In this stage, communication shifts from internal reflection to outward confrontation. These conversations may take many forms: calm and reflective or emotionally charged and combative. Sometimes, issues are raised as long-standing grievances; other times, the dissatisfaction shocks the other partner. Either way, both individuals must now articulate their perspectives on the relationship — often revealing previously unspoken thoughts, unmet expectations, or differing emotional experiences.
Importantly, this phase involves negotiation, blame, justification, and attempts at problem-solving. Each partner may begin to challenge the shared narrative that previously sustained the relationship. For example, one partner may now re-frame what was once understood as “normal conflict” as toxic or unresolvable. In this way, a shared view of the relationship begins to fragment, and individuals may adopt more independent or defensive positions.
The dyadic phase is pivotal because it presents the opportunity for repair. Some couples may pursue relationship counselling or therapeutic interventions, using this stage as a wake-up call. If these efforts are practical, dissatisfaction may be addressed, and the relationship can stabilise. However, reconciliation is not guaranteed. Conflict often becomes entrenched, mutual understanding erodes, and the partners begin to disengage emotionally.
At the close of this stage, another threshold is reached: “I would be justified in leaving.” This is when one or both partners mentally accept that the relationship may no longer be viable. If this threshold is crossed and no satisfactory resolution is achieved, the couple moves into the next phase of the model: the social phase, where the breakdown becomes public.
Though not all relationships move beyond the dyadic stage, their tone and outcome often determine the future trajectory toward recovery or more profound dissolution.
SOCIAL PHASE
In Duck’s model of relationship breakdown, the Social Phase marks the point where the couple's private discontent becomes public. Problems previously confined to internal thoughts or private discussions between partners are now disclosed to the broader social network—friends, family members, colleagues, and other individuals whose lives intersect with the couple’s.
At this stage, the relationship breakdown becomes a social event, and the involvement of others begins to shape how the process unfolds. Crucially, those within the couple’s wider social circle are not neutral observers. Instead, they tend to comment, advise, and sometimes intervene—offering support, taking sides, or reinforcing social norms about how people “should” respond to relationship issues, such as infidelity or dissatisfaction. Their reactions may provide validation, increase pressure, or even accelerate the split.
Friends and family become active participants, often consulted for guidance, emotional support, or reassurance. Partners may seek social approval or a moral “green light” to end the relationship, especially if they are still ambivalent. Alternatively, these conversations may justify their decision to stay, with outside perspectives helping to clarify or challenge their internal reasoning.
Notably, the relationship is now considered “officially” over in the eyes of others. This social acknowledgement has real consequences—either partner becomes perceived as available to potential new partners, and the couple’s identity as a dyad begins to dissolve in social terms. However, the fallout extends beyond the couple themselves. Friend groups may fracture, shared social events become awkward or cease altogether, and connections with in-laws or mutual acquaintances may be lost. In some cases, individuals within the social network may feel distressed by the breakdown—especially children or friends who are emotionally invested in the relationship’s success.
Duck emphasised that this broader impact is often overlooked. Very few relationships end in isolation; they ripple outward, affecting others in the relationship network. Even the perception of failure or blame may travel through these social connections, further complicating the emotional toll of the breakup.
At the end of the Social Phase, the threshold crossed is: “It’s now public”. The decision to end the relationship has moved beyond private reflection or interpersonal negotiation and entered the realm of collective awareness. At this point, the split is often seen as inevitable, and the couple prepares to transition from crisis to closure.
GRAVE-DRESSING PHASE:
The Grave-Dressing Phase is the final stage in Duck’s relationship dissolution model. It occurs once the relationship has ended and both individuals begin to make sense of the breakup—constructing personal narratives that allow them to move on with their lives. This psychological and social process involves reflection, justification, and reputation management.
At this stage, individuals engage in emotional repair and identity reconstruction. Each person formulates a version of events that protects their self-esteem and helps restore a coherent sense of self. This often involves selective memory, minimisation of personal responsibility, and the reframing of past events in ways that align with the individual’s desired self-image.
The metaphor of "grave-dressing" is apt—it’s the symbolic burial of the relationship, accompanied by a story about why it ended and what lessons were learned. Just as people create a narrative to make sense of a literal death, individuals create one to make sense of the death of a relationship.
These stories may be shared with friends, family, or future partners and often differ from the ex-partner’s version. Importantly, the grave-dressing account is rarely objective—it is shaped by self-preservation, social desirability, and a desire to appear justified in one’s actions.
Additionally, this phase has a social purpose: it allows individuals to maintain their social reputation, especially when perceived wrongdoing exists. It helps them frame themselves as the victim, the survivor, or the one who made the right decision. This is particularly important in maintaining future relationship potential—nobody wants to appear emotionally unstable, irresponsible, or untrustworthy.
In Duck’s model, the threshold crossed here is: "It’s over." At this point, the individual is no longer attempting to save or reflect on the relationship with the goal of recovery. Instead, they are finalising the emotional and social closure required to move forward.
Example
Consider the case of a man whose wife left him after discovering he had been unfaithful. In his version of the breakup, he might engage in grave-dressing by saying:
"The relationship had been dead for years. We were more like housemates than partners. I made a mistake, yes—but it came from a place of emotional neglect. She stopped caring long before anything happened. Honestly, I think cheating was a symptom, not the cause. She just used it as the final excuse."
Here, the man constructs a narrative that downplays his responsibility, reframes the affair as the result of marital dissatisfaction, and implies mutual failure. This allows him to save face, avoid appearing morally flawed, and regain control of the story in the eyes of others. The affair, which in his wife's account may have been the sole reason for the breakup, is reinterpreted as inevitable or understandable.
RESURRECTION PHASE
Although not part of Duck’s original four stages, the Resurrection Phase was later added to reflect what happens after the grave-dressing stage. Here, individuals begin to move on from the relationship and reframe their understanding of it. They reflect on what went wrong, what they’ve learned, and how they might approach future relationships differently.
This is a phase of personal growth and identity reconstruction. Individuals often revise their expectations, redefine their needs, and prepare themselves emotionally to enter a new relationship—ideally with a stronger sense of self and clearer relational goals. This stage can also involve behavioural changes, such as avoiding previous patterns, pursuing self-improvement, or setting new boundaries.
RECURRING THEMES IN THE STAGES
Each stage is defined by who is aware that the relationship is in trouble:
In the intra-psychic phase, only the person dissatisfied is aware of the negativity surrounding the relationship.
In the dyadic phase, the partner airs their feelings, and the other partner is aware. They can now discuss the problems.
Friends and family are informed of the relationship issues in the social phase.
In the grave-dressing phase, the breakup is curated for public knowledge and is being explained.
In the resurrection phase, the individuals prepare for future relationships.
THRESHOLDS BETWEEN STAGES
At the end of each stage, a psychological threshold is crossed—a mental shift that moves the individual (or both partners) to the next phase. These thresholds represent emotional tipping points or decisive moments such as:
"I mean it" – transitioning from silent dissatisfaction (intra-psychic) to raising concerns (dyadic)
"I can't do this anymore" – from private discussions (dyadic) to informing others (social)
"It’s now public" – a shared narrative form about the breakdown (social)
"It’s definitely over" – moving into self-justification and emotional detachment (grave-dressing)
POSSIBILITY OF RESOLUTION
At the end of each stage, there is potential for repair or reconciliation, but this becomes progressively less likely as the process continues:
In the intra-psychic phase, the dissatisfied partner may decide to let go of the issue without confronting their partner.
During the dyadic phase, open communication might lead to problem-solving or recommitment.
In the social phase, others' involvement can offer support—or pressure—to fix the relationship or end it.
In the grave-dressing phase, the narrative has usually solidified, and the relationship is formally over.
The resurrection phase marks emotional closure; the resolution applies only to personal growth, not saving the relationship.
SUDDEN DEATH END TO RELATIONSHIPS
Duck (1999) did acknowledge the possibility of "sudden death" breakups within his broader model of relationship dissolution.
While the primary model outlines a gradual, staged breakdown (intra-psychic → dyadic → social → grave-dressing → resurrection), Duck recognised that not all relationships follow this linear path. In some cases, relationships end abruptly due to a critical incident — a severe event that bypasses the earlier stages altogether. These are referred to as "sudden death" breakups.
EXAMPLES OF SUDDEN DEATH:
Infidelity or betrayal discovered suddenly
Abuse or violence
A significant lie or deception revealed
Unexpected revelations (e.g. secret second family, financial fraud)
One partner abruptly left without warning
The thresholds and emotional build-up described in the standard model are bypassed in such cases. Instead of gradually moving from dissatisfaction to confrontation, the relationship ends immediately, often accompanied by shock, confusion, or irreversible loss of trust.
CONCLUSION
Duck’s model emphasises that relationship breakdown is not a single event but a complex, multi-stage process. Each phase involves intrapersonal reflection and interpersonal negotiation, often shaped by broader social contexts. Breakups are rarely abrupt, especially in long-term relationships—they unfold over time, influenced by communication patterns, support networks, and emotional thresholds.
By framing dissolution as a gradual sequence of phases, Duck’s model highlights the emotional depth and social embeddedness of relationship breakdown. It reminds us that ending a relationship is not just about loss—but also adaptation, reconstruction, and sometimes renewal.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE FOR DUCK’S PHASE MODEL
JOURARD (1971) – Self-disclosure and well-being
🔎 What was done: Explored the importance of openness for emotional health and relational success.
✅ Supports: Intra-psychic Phase – highlights internal dissatisfaction and the emotional value of self-expression.
📌 Method: Theoretical/observational
ALTMAN & TAYLOR (1973) – Social Penetration Theory
🔎 What was done: Proposed that intimacy develops through a gradual process of self-disclosure.
✅ Supports: Overall model, but especially the reversal of intimacy during breakdown in early stages.
📌 Method: Theoretical
ARGYLE & HENDERSON (1985) – Relational rules and breakdown
🔎 What was done: Identified standard “rules” in relationships (e.g., trust, confidentiality) and found that violations often trigger a breakdown.
✅ Supports: Intra-psychic and Dyadic Phases – dissatisfaction and confrontation often stem from broken rules.
📌 Criticism: Highlights that Duck’s model omits this factor.
📌 Method: Questionnaire/survey
LEE (1984) – Alternative stage model of breakdown
🔎 What was done: Developed a six-phase separation model based on individual interviews.
✅ Supports: The staged approach in Dyadic and Social Phases, offering alternative perspectives.
📌 Method: Interview-based theoretical model
BAXTER (1984) – Disengagement strategies
🔎 What was done: Used interviews to explore the language and behaviour patterns leading up to breakups.
✅ Supports: Intra-psychic and Dyadic Phases – early signs of emotional and communicative withdrawal.
📌 Method: Qualitative
DUCK (1982) – Topography of relationship disengagement
🔎 What was done: Introduced the original four-phase model of relationship breakdown.
✅ Supports: All phases — serve as the foundational model itself.
📌 Method: Theoretical model
FELMLEE ET AL. (1990) – Causes of romantic breakups
🔎 What was done: Surveyed university students on reasons for ending relationships.
✅ Supports: Intra-psychic Phase, mainly early-stage dissatisfaction and disengagement.
📌 Method: Quantitative survey
COLLINS & MILLER (1994) – Disclosure and attraction
🔎 What was done: It found that self-disclosure increases liking and intimacy.
✅ Supports: Intra-psychic and Dyadic Phases – the role of mutual openness in building and challenging relational satisfaction.
📌 Method: Longitudinal and correlational
SPRECHER (1994) – Framing breakup narratives
🔎 What was done: Investigated how people explain their role in breakups, depending on whether they were the initiator.
✅ Supports: Grave-Dressing Phase, showing how narratives are selectively shaped.
📌 Method: Self-report surveys
📌 Criticism: Reveals individual differences that the model doesn’t fully explain.
AKERT (1998) – The emotional aftermath of breakups
🔎 What was done: Found that the emotional impact of a breakup depends on whether a person initiated it or was “dumped.”
✅ Supports: Grave-Dressing Phase – differences in emotional experience depending on the person’s agency.
📌 Criticism: The model is reductionist, failing to account for power dynamics or emotional asymmetry.
📌 Method: Questionnaire/survey
SPRECHER ET AL. (1998) – Longitudinal adjustment post-breakup
🔎 What was done: Followed participants to assess emotional recovery and adaptation over time.
✅ Supports: Grave-Dressing and Resurrection Phases
📌 Method: Longitudinal study
SEGRIN (2000) – Withdrawal and relational dissatisfaction
🔎 What was done: Found that unhappy individuals withdraw emotionally and socially before confrontation.
✅ Supports: Intra-psychic Phase – aligns with internal brooding before open dialogue.
📌 Method: Observational
DUCK (2001) – Narratives and self-presentation after breakups
🔎 What was done: Analysed how individuals construct post-breakup stories to protect their self-image and appear relationship-ready.
✅ Supports: Grave-Dressing Phase – confirms this as a psychological and social strategy.
📌 Method: Discourse analysis
TASHIRO & FRAZIER (2003) – Growth after breakups
🔎 What was done: Surveyed people post-breakup and found many reported self-reflection and personal growth.
✅ Supports: Grave-Dressing and Resurrection Phases – highlights post-relationship meaning-making.
📌 Method: Survey
ROLLIE & DUCK (2006) – Updated model with the fifth phase
🔎 What was done: Added the Resurrection Phase and formalised the idea of thresholds (e.g., “I mean it,” “I can’t stand it anymore”).
✅ Supports: Entire model – shows flexibility, recursion, and personal growth post-breakup.
📌 Method: Theoretical revision
The model has good applications for repairing relationships, showing that it is valuable because it can predict and change behaviour in the real world. This is also a demonstration of its external validity, as the model considers the potential growth of relationships. It can be used in relationship counselling to pinpoint problems.
EVALUATION
VALIDITY ISSUES IN RESEARCH SUPPORTING DUCK’S PHASE MODEL
Although a wide range of studies supports Duck’s model, the scientific validity of this evidence base is limited by methodological weaknesses. Most of the research cited is non-experimental, relying heavily on retrospective accounts, self-reports, or theoretical models, which restricts the model’s testability, objectivity, and predictive power.
LACK OF EXPERIMENTAL CONTROL
Most studies (e.g. COLLINS & MILLER, 1994; SPRECHER, 1994; FELMLEE ET AL., 1990) use correlational, survey-based, or qualitative methods. These cannot establish cause-and-effect relationships. For example, SEGRIN (2000) links emotional withdrawal to dissatisfaction, but we cannot be sure which causes the other.
Due to ethical and practical constraints, accurate experimental studies on genuine relationships breaking down are nearly impossible. This makes the model scientifically tricky to test, even if it remains intuitively appealing.
RELIANCE ON SELF-REPORT AND RETROSPECTIVE DATA
Many studies (e.g. AKERT, 1998; SPRECHER, 1994; TASHIRO & FRAZIER, 2003) use retrospective self-reports where individuals reflect on past breakups. These are prone to:
Memory distortion
Self-serving bias
Social desirability bias
As DUCK (2001) highlights, individuals tend to construct breakup narratives that preserve their self-image — which aligns with the grave-dressing phase but undermines objectivity.
SAMPLING BIAS AND LACK OF GENERALISABILITY
Much of the early research (e.g. BAXTER, 1984; LEE, 1984; FELMLEE ET AL., 1990) is based on college students or young adults. These individuals often have short-term, less committed relationships, limiting population validity. For example:,
In some samples, only one social group was targeted—i.e., unmarried and young. These groups may not show as much commitment as older social groups and are, therefore, not necessarily representative of the entire population, lacking external validity.
Moreover, most studies are conducted in Western, individualistic cultures, ignoring:
Collectivist values (e.g. family pressure, religious obligations)
Gendered relationship dynamics
Differences in the stigma of divorce or relationship dissolution
This cultural bias reduces the cross-cultural applicability of Duck’s model.
THEORETICAL NATURE OF CORE STUDIES
Several key elements of the model are based on theoretical propositions, not testable empirical hypotheses. For example:
DUCK (1982) – four-phase model
ROLLIE & DUCK (2006) – fifth resurrection phase and thresholds
ALTMAN & TAYLOR (1973) – Social Penetration Theory
While conceptually sound, these cannot be empirically falsified, weakening the model's scientific status.
CONTEXT DEPENDENCE AND AMBIGUITY
Later studies (e.g. SPRECHER ET AL., 1998; TASHIRO & FRAZIER, 2003) acknowledge post-breakup growth, supporting the resurrection phase. However, the recovery experience is highly individualised and non-linear, making it hard to capture with a structured, staged model.
The thresholds described by ROLLIE & DUCK (2006) (e.g. “I mean it”, “I can’t stand it anymore”) are useful heuristics but are internally experienced and difficult to verify objectively.
CONCLUSION
The research supporting Duck’s Phase Model is rich and varied and offers valuable real-world insight, particularly for therapists, counsellors, and individuals processing breakups. However, from a scientific standpoint, the model is limited by:
A lack of falsifiability
Heavy reliance on subjective, retrospective accounts
Cultural and sampling biases
A primarily descriptive (rather than explanatory) nature
Despite this, the model remains practically helpful and psychologically insightful, especially when paired with other theories that better explain the causes of relational declines, such as LEE’s model, Femlee’s fatal attraction hypothesis, or attachment theory.
LACK OF EXPLANATORY POWER
A key criticism of Duck’s model is that it is mainly descriptive rather than explanatory. While it outlines the process of relationship breakdown in a precise, stage-based sequence, it does not identify the underlying causes that trigger dissatisfaction in the first place. This limits its usefulness, as understanding the root causes of breakdown is essential if we are to intervene early or prevent dissolution altogether.
For example, Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) theory of problem-focused coping suggests that individuals can directly address and resolve relational issues when the source of dissatisfaction is clearly understood. Without identifying the “why” behind the breakdown, Duck’s model cannot guide partners towards effective conflict resolution or preventative strategies.
Similarly, Femlee’s (1995) Fatal Attraction Hypothesis offers an alternative explanation of relational decline: traits that initially attract us to a partner — such as confidence, independence, or spontaneity — may later become sources of irritation or conflict (e.g. arrogance, emotional distance, or unreliability). Duck’s model does not account for this perceptual shift or why individuals’ feelings change over time. This limits its explanatory depth and leaves out critical psychological mechanisms contributing to relationship disillusionment.
IMPACT OF WHO INITIATES THE BREAKUP
One significant limitation of Duck’s phase model is that it primarily reflects the perspective of the person initiating the breakup. Akert (1998) found that the emotional impact of a breakup varies greatly depending on whether an individual initiated the separation or was on the receiving end. Her research revealed that individuals who were "dumped" experienced significantly more emotional distress, including anxiety, sadness, and lower self-esteem, compared to those who ended the relationship themselves, who tended to feel more in control—although often guilty.
This suggests that the psychological journey through a breakup is not shared equally. Duck’s model presents a structured, phased process—starting with private dissatisfaction and ending with narrative reconstruction—but this may only accurately describe the experience of the person who chooses to leave. The non-initiator may be thrust into the later phases without warning, skipping the earlier reflective stages and moving directly into emotional crisis or confusion.
Therefore, the model risks being reductionist, implying a universal sequence of events when, in reality, the breakup experience is asymmetric. One partner may be months into the internal decision to leave, while the other is only beginning to realise the relationship is in jeopardy. This also raises questions about the model’s validity in explaining mutual breakups or highly imbalanced power dynamics—contexts where the phases may be experienced entirely differently or not at all by one party.
In short, Duck’s model may be better understood as a cognitive and emotional roadmap for the leaver, not a universally shared framework. This reduces its explanatory power for understanding breakups from both sides of the relational dynamic.
COMPARISON WITH OTHER STAGE MODELS
Duck’s model describes the sequence of phases after relationship dissatisfaction has emerged, providing insight into how relationships typically deteriorate once problems are entrenched. In contrast, Lee’s (1984) model explicitly addresses the initial emergence of dissatisfaction, identifying early emotional shifts and sources of relational stress before these issues become critical. This focus arguably makes Lee’s model more practical for early interventions, as it provides more apparent opportunities to detect and address relationship issues proactively, unlike Duck’s retrospective, process-oriented approach, which is more suited to managing relationship breakdown after it has already begun.
However, both models have value. Duck’s model can guide support and coping strategies during and after a breakup. In contrast, Lee’s model may be better suited for preventative work, helping individuals understand and address the gradual build-up of dissatisfaction that can threaten long-term relational stability.
Additionally, Femlee’s (1995) Fatal Attraction Hypothesis identifies specific psychological mechanisms underlying relationship deterioration, highlighting how traits initially found attractive—such as spontaneity or confidence—can later become primary sources of irritation or dissatisfaction. Femlee’s approach complements both models by clarifying the underlying psychological reasons for relational dissatisfaction, further enhancing practitioners' ability to anticipate, understand, and intervene effectively at earlier relationship stages.
LIMITATIONS IN EXPLAINING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Duck’s model adequately explains relationship breakdown in abusive contexts. It assumes that dissatisfaction is internally recognised and communicated progressively through clear, identifiable stages (intra-psychic, dyadic, social, grave-dressing, and resurrection). However, in abusive relationships, the abused partner often feels unable or unsafe to express dissatisfaction openly, thus bypassing Duck’s structured communication phases entirely. Fear, coercion, financial dependence, threats, or psychological manipulation by the abusive partner may prevent the abused individual from reaching or acting on the thresholds described by Duck.
Additionally, Duck’s model presumes that partners have relatively equal power and autonomy within the relationship to negotiate openly during the dyadic phase. This overlooks the reality that abused partners might silently endure their dissatisfaction or experience sudden "forced" termination without prior negotiation or social acknowledgement. Consequently, the staged model fails to reflect the complexities and psychological dynamics—such as trauma bonding, learned helplessness, or coercive control—that frequently characterise abusive relationships. Therefore, Duck’s phase model can be criticised for lacking validity and explanatory power in contexts involving abuse or severe relational asymmetry.
CULTURAL BIAS
Duck’s Phase Model of relationship breakdown has been criticised for its cultural bias, as it predominantly reflects the norms and relationship values of Western, individualistic societies. The model assumes that relationships are freely chosen, self-focused, and easily dissolvable—assumptions which do not hold across all cultural contexts. Family expectations, social obligations, and community honour often influence relationships in many collectivist cultures. Marriages—especially arranged ones—may be seen as long-term family alliances rather than just emotional bonds between individuals.
For example, MOGHADDAM et al. (1993) found that North American relationships tend to be individualistic, voluntary, and temporary, whereas non-Western relationships are often collective, obligatory, and expected to be permanent. This fundamental cultural divergence means that the progression and even the concept of relationship “breakdown” may differ. In cultures where divorce is stigmatised or legally restricted, the process described in Duck’s model may not unfold or may do so in covert or indirect ways.
Additional cultural variables also challenge the model’s universality. In some societies, divorce is rare or heavily stigmatised, especially for women, due to the shame attached to marital failure, the loss of social standing, or religious prohibitions. Women in these contexts may lack the financial independence, legal protections, or custodial rights that would allow them to leave unsatisfying or even abusive relationships. The role of emancipation, access to education, economic self-sufficiency, and child custody laws differ dramatically across cultures and subcultures, further complicating the applicability of a fixed, linear model like Duck’s.
While Duck’s model may offer insight into relationship breakdowns in Western settings, it does not fully account for the global cultural, legal, and socio-economic factors that shape relational dynamics. This undermines its generalisability and highlights the need for emic (culture-specific) models that reflect diverse relational realities.
Consequently, Duck’s model might best be viewed as a culture-specific (etic) framework rather than universally applicable, necessitating culturally sensitive adaptations or complementary models to accurately reflect relationship dynamics globally.
ZEITGEIST AND SOCIAL CHANGE: HOW CULTURAL SHIFTS SINCE THE 1960s AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF DUCK’S MODEL
Duck’s model of relationship breakdown was formulated in the late 20th century and reflects the social attitudes and relational expectations of that era. However, significant shifts in social norms, legal structures, and gender roles — particularly since the late 1960s — raise questions about whether the model remains universally applicable in its original form.
THE PILL AND THE ABORTION ACT: CHANGING RELATIONAL ENTRY POINTS
The introduction of the contraceptive pill and the Abortion Act (1967) allowed individuals — particularly women — to engage in romantic and sexual relationships without the immediate fear of pregnancy or social condemnation. These changes removed some of the pressures to commit prematurely and gave rise to more exploratory or trial-based relationships ("try-before-you-buy" dynamics).
As a result, modern relationships are often filtered for compatibility earlier, meaning that many low-satisfaction or unstable relationships dissolve before reaching the depth that Duck’s model assumes. This shift may reduce the frequency of couples progressing through all five model stages or compress the stages into shorter, less distinct episodes.
ECONOMIC AND LEGAL EMANCIPATION OF WOMEN
In the 1960s, economic dependency often kept women in unsatisfying or even harmful relationships. Divorce was legally and socially tricky, and marriage was usually a financial necessity. Today, with greater economic independence, equal pay legislation, and improved divorce accessibility, individuals — particularly women — are more empowered to leave unfulfilling relationships.
This may mean that modern breakups are less delayed, and individuals may not remain in the intra-psychic or dyadic phases for as long as in previous generations. Moreover, leaving a relationship no longer requires as much social justification, potentially weakening the need for grave-dressing narratives or protracted social phases.
SHIFTING GENDER NORMS AND SEXUAL AUTONOMY
The 1960s and 70s also marked a turning point in gender roles and relational power dynamics. Before reforms such as the criminalisation of marital rape (1991, UK) and modern feminist movements (e.g. #MeToo, SlutWalk), women were more likely to be subservient, less critical, or to tolerate inequality in relationships. Duck’s model assumes reasoned, conscious dissatisfaction, yet historical constraints may have suppressed that discontent or made open conflict less socially acceptable.
In modern contexts, individuals are likelier to assert dissatisfaction, challenge unequal dynamics, or terminate relationships for reasons less visible in traditional relational discourse. This complicates the assumption that breakups follow a predictable, rational, and linear sequence of events.
SEXUAL FREEDOM, LATER MARRIAGE, AND REDUCED STIGMA
The increased sexual freedom of the post-1960s period allowed individuals to engage in relationships for reasons beyond reproduction or social expectations. Marriage now occurs later, if at all, and is no longer seen as the default life path. This broadens the range of relationship types — including cohabiting couples, long-term casual partnerships, and digital relationships — which Duck’s model may not wholly accommodate.
Additionally, breakups no longer carry the same social stigma, particularly for women. This may accelerate transitions between stages, reduce the reliance on grave-dressing narratives, and challenge the assumption that dissolution is always a crisis requiring social mediation.
Thus, socio-cultural shifts since the 1960s potentially reduce the predictive validity and universal applicability of Duck’s original model, suggesting it may require updating or reconceptualisation to reflect modern relationship dynamics better.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Despite its theoretical and methodological limitations, Duck’s model has significant practical value, especially within therapeutic contexts such as relationship counselling and marriage guidance. Therapists can use the model as a diagnostic tool to help couples pinpoint their current stage of relationship breakdown. By doing so, interventions become more targeted. For example, therapists can encourage open dialogue and problem-solving during the dyadic phase or assist individuals in constructively reframing their breakup narratives during the grave-dressing and resurrection phases. Thus, the staged nature of Duck’s model enables tailored strategies, making it a helpful framework for supporting clients through the complexities of relationship dissolution and personal recovery.
LEE’S MODEL OF RELATIONSHIP DISSOLUTION (BREAKDOWN)
Lee proposed a five-stage model of relationship breakdown, similar to Duck’s theory, which describes breakups as occurring gradually over time rather than as a single event. Lee’s theory was developed through analysing data collected from relationship break-ups.
The five stages Lee identified are:
DISSATISFACTION: One partner becomes unhappy or dissatisfied with the relationship.
EXPOSURE: This dissatisfaction is openly revealed to their partner.
NEGOTIATION: Partners discuss and negotiate the issues that led to dissatisfaction.
RESOLUTION: Efforts are made to resolve the dissatisfaction and repair the relationship.
TERMINATION: If resolution attempts fail, the relationship ends.
Lee’s theory was derived from surveying 112 cases of breakups among non-marital romantic relationships. Results indicated that participants found the EXPOSURE and NEGOTIATION stages particularly distressing and emotionally draining. Those individuals who skipped directly to the termination stage typically had less intimate relationships. Conversely, individuals who went through each stage comprehensively experienced greater lingering feelings of attraction, loss, and loneliness after termination.
Argyle and Henderson further examined relationship breakdowns by asking participants whether "rule violations" were responsible for ending personal relationships. They found rule violations—such as jealousy, intolerance for third-party friendships, revealing confidences, failure to provide help, and public criticism—to be significant contributors. This suggests Lee’s model might be incomplete, as it does not explicitly address these critical contributing factors.
Additionally, Lee’s theory may be criticised as simplistic because it cannot fully explain the diverse range of relationship types or all the reasons for breakdown. Although Lee’s research had notable strengths, including substantial sample size and detailed data collection, the sample consisted solely of students in premarital relationships. Therefore, its findings may not generalise well to other types of relationships, especially long-term committed relationships involving shared responsibilities or children.
Unlike Duck’s model, Lee’s model is arguably more favourable for practical applications, such as counselling, because it highlights more clearly defined opportunities for relationship repair. For instance, counsellors can focus on re-establishing intimacy and affection during the EXPOSURE stage.
However, like Duck’s model, Lee’s theory struggles to explain abusive relationships where the abused partner might not initiate or even express dissatisfaction clearly. In these situations, the abused partner may remain in the relationship despite unhappiness or abruptly leave without openly communicating issues.
Furthermore, both Duck and Lee’s stage theories effectively describe the sequential process of breakups but fall short in explaining precisely why dissatisfaction and breakdown occur in the first place. Both theories also share similar cultural limitations: they are predominantly based on Western relationship norms and do not adequately address relationship breakdown dynamics in cultures involving arranged marriages or greater family involvement.
Lastly, both Duck’s and Lee’s theories are reductionist to some extent, primarily focusing on heterosexual romantic relationships, thereby limiting their relevance for understanding friendship breakdowns, homosexual relationships, and other relational forms.
