Theories of relationship breakdown

Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips


Rollie and Duck's model of relationship breakdown differentiates between three categories of breakup: the "Pre-existing doom", where demographic or personal differences between the partners are so pronounced that breakup is almost inevitable, "Mechanical failure", where two suitable partners of goodwill and good nature find that they cannot cope with the pressures of living together, and "Sudden death", where the discovery of a betrayal or infidelity leads to the immediate termination of a relationship. They suggested lack of skills, lack of stimulation, and maintenance difficulties as potential reasons for "mechanical failure."


When dissatisfaction with the relationship first sets in, the process of breakdown goes through five distinct phases. Firstly, intrapsychic processes, where a person broods on the shortcomings in their relationship and their partners' faults, grows resentful of their relationship problems, and re-evaluates their alternatives to the relationship. This is followed by dyadic processes, where uncertainty, anxiety and complaints lead to a discussion of the relationship, aiming to reach a conclusion about equity, roles, possibilities and commitments. If a solution cannot be reached, this leads to social processes - the couple "go public" about their breakup, seeking support from peers, build alliances, and seek new social commitments. Next are grave-dressing processes, where the ex-partners tidy up memories, make relational histories, and prepare stories for different audiences. Finally comes the resurrection processes, where the individual recreates their own sense of social value, defines their expectations for future relationships, and prepares for a different kind of relational future.


Rollie and Duck's model is supported by observations of real-life breakups. Tashiro and Frazier surveyed students who had recently gone through a romantic breakup, and found that they typically reported not only emotional distress, but also personal growth - breaking up had given them new insights into themselves and a clearer idea about future partners. Through grave-dressing and resurrection processes, they were able to put the original relationship behind, learn from it, and move on with their life.


This is a highly socially sensitive area of research, and carrying out studies raises issues of vulnerability (participants may experience emotional distress when revisiting issues that lead to breakdown), privacy (many such issues are incredibly personal) and confidentiality. For example, a participant in an abusive relationship may fear recrimination from her partner should they discover their participation in the research - the research must choose between the further pursuit of information, or terminating the participant's involvement to protect them from harm.


Research has found gender differences in relationship breakdown, suggesting that the processes do not happen in the same way for both genders. Brehm and Kassin (1996) found that women are more likely to stress unhappiness and incompatibility as reasons for dissolution, whereas men are particularly upset by "sexual withholding." Akert (1998) found that women have more desire to stay friends after a relationship has broken up, whereas men want to cut their losses and move on - both studies support the idea of gender differences in relationship breakdown.


The concept of a lack of interpersonal skills leading to relationship breakdown is supported by a study by Duck (1991), where he found that individuals lacking social skills may be poor conversationalists, poor at indicating their interest in other people, and generally unrewarding in their interactions with others. These factors often lead to relationship breakdown as others perceive them as not being interested in relating to others, so a relationship falls apart before it really gets going.


Rollie and Duck's model stresses the importance of communication in relationship breakdown. Paying attention to the things people say, the topics they discuss and the ways they talk about their relationship offers an insight into their stage of breakdown, and suggests appropriate interventions based on the stage. If the relationship was in the intrapsychic stage, for example, repair might involve re-establishing liking for their partner, maybe re-evaluating their behaviour in a more positive light. In later stages, people outside the relationship such as peers and family might be more effective at solving relationship difficulties.


The importance of social skills deficits in relationship breakdown has led to a valuable real-world application, in the development of training programs that attempt to enhance these skills in troubled couples. The Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET) aims to sensitise couples to issues of equity and respect in the relationship, and to improve communication and problem solving skills. Research has found that partners undergoing CCET reported much higher relationship quality afterwards than a control group.


Baxter (1994) found supporting evidence for a lack of stimulation being a trigger for relationship breakdown, as suggested by Rollie and Duck's model. This factor was often quoted by partners when breaking off - people expect relationships to change and develop, and when they do not, this is seen as sufficient justification to end the relationship or begin a new one (i.e. have an affair.) This is supported by Thibault and Kelly's social exchange theory, which suggests that people attempt to maximise the rewards of their relationship, and a lack of stimulation corresponds to a low level of rewards under SET.