Outline two theories of relationship breakdown

A support of this theory is that it may explain extramarital affairs, which is a reason for many relationships breakdowns. Boekhout et al showed how such affairs might be a direct reaction to the perceived lack of skills and/ or stimulation. Therefore this supports Duck’s theory as extramarital affairs can be explained by the theory and therefore proves that the theory has real-world application, so it is not lacking mundane realism.  

The importance of social skills in a relationship which is involved in this theory has led to the development of training programmes that attempt to enhance relationships skills in couples that are not very happy. Cina et al research showed that that couples that were involved in training programmes reported much high marital quality after training compared to the control group. This supports this theory as it proves that social skills are a very important factor to relationships and a lack of them may result in less marital quality.

However a limitation of this theory is that maintenance difficulties may not be reliable. Holt and stone found that there was little decrease in relationship satisfaction as long as lovers are able to reunite regularly.  Therefore this theory lacks reliability as it shows that long term distance relationships may not always lead to the breakdown of relationships and often result in a successful relationship that lasts.

A second theory is Rollie and Duck’s model of relationship breakdown. According to this the breakdown happens in a series of phases.  The first phase is the intrapsychic phase where one partner is not happy about the way the relationship is conducted, which involves social withdrawal, resentment for the other partner, as they focus on the negative aspects of the relationship and their partner’s faults. If these problems are not resolved it leads to the dyadic phase. The dyadic phase involves one partner confronting the other about their problems and issues with the relationship, by discussing their feelings and the future. This may result in the attempts to resolve their problems and improve the relationship, saving it. If resolution attempts fail this leads to the social phase, in which partners start involving and seeking support from others about their dissatisfaction with the relationship. This phase may speed the partners towards dissolution, and by reaching this stage the relationship is very likely to end soon, as tidy up memories and  partners think of face-saving accounts and stories for why the relationship ended, presenting themselves positively to others for future relationships.  The relationship then enters the grave-dressing phase, where it has ended. Partners now strategically reinterpret their view of their partner. In the final phase, resurrection partners prepare themselves for new future relationships, defining their wants and needs for future relationships.

This theory is supported by observations of real-life breakups.   Tashiro and Frazier surveyed undergraduates who had recently broken up with their partner.  They reported that grave-dressing and resurrection phase allowed them to put the original relationship to rest and get on with their lives. This shows that the theory is reliable and many individuals can relate to the theory and believe it is accurate when comparing it to their own past or relationships.

A limitation is there are ethical issues in breakdown research. The research into breakdown of relationships may lead of issues of vulnerability, privacy and confidentiality. For example in past violent and abusive relationships may not be comfortable taking part and may be fearful that their partner finds out that they took part in the research.  Therefore the research does not include relationships such as abusive ones and therefore lacks generalisation of all relationships.