Breakdown of relationships

Maintenance difficulties refer to when there is a geographical separation (reduced proximity) where the partners cannot see each other enough resulting in a breakdown (Shaver at al, 1985). However, research has shown that this is not always the case. Stone and Hale argue against Shaver et al’s claim and say there is little decrease in satisfaction of the relationship as long as lovers re-unite regularly. Also, long distance romantic relationships (LDRR) and long distance friendships (LDF) are more common than we think as a study by Rohlfind, 1985 found that 70% of students had at least one LDRR and 90% had one LDF.

However, this theory does not take into account cultural differences as many of the research studies e.g. Rohlfing’s was carried out in America and so what may happen in one culture cannot be applied to another. For example, in Western societies (individualistic cultures) there is a high degree of relationship choice and decide whether to end the relationship. The same cannot be said for collectivist cultures where ties to family and religion may play a role in holding a relationship together.

Gender differences also need to be considered as men and women give different reasons for a break-up which has been proven by Boekhaut et al and Brehm and Kessin. Also, Akert (1998) found that women are more likely to want to stay friends after the relationship ahs eroded while men would like to ‘cut their losses’ and move on.

Another theory regarding the breakdown of a relationship was proposed by Rollie and Duck (2006). There are six stages to this theory:

1) Breakdown – the partner is dissatisfied with the relationship.

2) Intra-psychic – the partner thinks about what went wrong and thinks about costs and other alternatives.

3) Dyadic process – the person thinks about the difficulties.

4) Social processes – support is seeked from the public.

5) Grave-dressing process – a story is created about the break down e.g. to save face.

6) Resurrection phase – you prepare for future relationships.

There is a threshold of each stage where the person then tips into the next stage. For example, stage 2 ends where the person feels they are justified to end the relationship and can talk about it openly.

Tashiro and Frazer (2003) carried out a study on undergraduates who had recently broken up and they said that breaking up with their partner had given them new insights which supports the resurrection phase of the model. However, as with a lot of relationship studies, this study was carried out on students who had not been in very long term relationships and so the results cannot be generalised to e.g. adults who have been married a long time with children. Also, ethical issues need to be considered when conducting such studies as the participant may experience distress when recalling the experience, as well as privacy and confidentiality looked at.

A strength of this theory is that it can be used as marriage guidance to see at what stage the couple are at and find out what problems are occurring.

However, this theory is largely descriptive in the sense that it only describes the stage of a breakdown and does not state why breakdowns occur. Duck (1999) suggested that they occur due to lack of skills, stimulation or maintenance difficulties. However, such explanations can only be applied to short-term relationships in individualistic cultures.