Discuss two theories of the breakdown of relationships
There are some common reasons for the breakdown of a relationship. For example; dissatisfaction or boredom with the relationship, breaking agreed rules and interference from other relationships. In our culture, relationships are considered ‘successful’ if partners stay together, and those relationships that end ‘prematurely’ are considered failures. This is despite the fact that many so-called successful relationships continue even though neither partner is really committed to the relationship. Likewise, ending an unhappy relationship may help each partner to find a new and happy life elsewhere with a new partner.
Duck developed a four phase model to describe the termination of close or intimate relationships. Firstly, the intra-psychic phase is where one of the partners or friends becomes more and more dissatisfied with the relationship. They do not tell their partner. If the dissatisfaction is great enough, there is progression to the next phase. The next phase is called the Dyadic phase. Here the other person becomes involved. In this phase the partners discuss their discontent and talk about the different parts in their relationship and seeing if there is a way to get around the problems. If the dissatisfaction is not acceptably resolved, there is progression to the next phase. This phase is known as the Social phase. This is where the break up is ‘aired’ and made public, e.g. to family and friends. It is also where the social implications, such as care of children, are negotiated. If the relationship is not saved here, by the intervention of family or counselling, it goes to the final stage. The Grave-dressing phase is where the ex-partners begin the organisation of their post-relationship lives. They begin publicizing their own accounts of the breakdown and what, if any, is the nature of the new relationship with the ex-partner. Partners who develop their own versions of where the blame for the breakdown actually lies, frequently employ the self-serving attributional bias.
However, Lee created a five stage model to describe how relationships end. He surveyed 112 break-ups of premarital relationships, which provided evidence of these distinct phases. The first stage was where partners discover that they are dissatisfied with the relationship. Next, exposing the dissatisfaction and identifying problems. Exposure of dissatisfaction may lead to negotiation with the other partner concerning the nature of the dissatisfaction. Attempts are then made to resolve the problem. If attempts to resolve the problem fail, the relationship is terminated. The stages of exposing and negotiating are most exhausting. Whereas not all relationship breakdowns go through all five stages. Lee suggests that partners who take longer to move through stages feel more attracted to their ex-partner and experience greater loneliness.
Lee’s research is direct research evidence of the pattern relationship breakdown follows. However, he used a survey which could be subjective. Also, answers may not be truthful because of leading questions or social desirability bias. Lee’s sample was of premarital students which is not representative of the entire population therefore this reduces the population validity of the study and reduces its generalisability.
A major reason why relationships break down is that one or both partners have an extramarital affair. Boekhout et al. showed how such affairs might be a direct reaction to the received lack of skills and/or stimulation in the current relationship. They asked undergraduates to rate various sexual and emotional reasons for men and women to be unfaithful in a committed relationship. Participants judged that sexual reasons for infidelity would be more likely to be used by men, whereas emotional reasons for infidelity would be more likely to be used by women.
The importance of social skills deficits in relationship breakdown has led to the development of training programmes that attempt to enhance relationship skills in distressed couples. The Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET) programme aims to sensitise couples to issues of equity and respect in their relationship and to improve communication and problem-solving skills. Cina et al. compared 50 couples who received CCET with a control group who did not. Results showed that the CCET group reported much higher marital quality after training compared to the control group. This shows real-world application to the theories of breakdown and increases the validity.
Rollie and Duck’s model stresses the importance of communication in relationship breakdown. Paying attention to the things that people say, the topics that they discuss and the ways in which they talk about their relationship offers both an insight into their stage and also suggests interventions appropriate to that stage. If the relationship was in the intrapsychic stage for example, repair might involve re-establishing liking for the partner, perhaps by re-evaluating their behaviour in a more positive light. In the later stages, different strategies of repair are appropriate. For example, people outside the relationship may help the partners patch up their differences.
Carrying out research in this sensitive area raises particular issue of vulnerability as participants may experience distress when revisiting the issues that led to breakdown, privacy and confidentiality. For example, a woman in an abusive relationship may fear recrimination from her abuser should he discover her participation in the research. Ultimately the researcher faces a choice of pursuing valuable information or terminating their involvement with a participant to prevent any further harm befalling them.
Women are more likely to stress unhappiness and incompatibility as reasons for dissolution, whereas men are particularly upset by ‘sexual withholding’. Women have more desire to stay friends after a relationship has broken up, whereas men want to ‘cut their losses’ and move on.
However, these theories don’t take individual differences into account and research evidence suggests these models don’t show how complex relationship dissolution can be. Rusbult and Zembrodt said some people in relationship breakdowns actively lead the process whereas others are passive. Akert said people who do the breaking up are less likely to be upset and show physical symptoms. Finally, these theories don’t take cultural differences in relationships into account.