A2 AQA "Outline and Evaluate Two Theories of the Breakdown of Romantic Relationships" My Model Answer 22/25

One renowned theory on the breakdown of romantic relationships is Duck's Dissolution model. The main hypothesis of this model was that all relationships have the same systematic and periodic method to breaking up to which there are four different stages: intrapsychic (focus on the partner e.g. "I can't stand it anymore"), dyadic (focus on the relationship e.g. "I'd be justified in withdrawing"), social (facing the public consequences e.g. "I mean it"), and grave dressing (establishing the break up and recalling what truly happened and tidying up accounts). The different phases all have specific repair focuses that try and avoid the break up, but the model generally states that by the time someone has reached the social stage, the break up is inevitable.

The evidence for this model is mainly seen from Duck himself (e.g. Duck 1992 which is his statement that people within disrupted relationships suffer greater levels of depression). But the Duck model also shows some ideas based around La Gaipa (1982) stating that we attempt to get social credit at the end of the relationship to make their reputation seem intact at the end of the relationship (which is linked in with the grave dressing phase of the break up that agrees with the trying to dignify their side of the break up).

Though a large criticism of Duck's work itself is that there is very little evidence for it. Almost all evidence for Duck's dissolution model was conceived by his own research and thus leads to the issue of circular science. Like Gardner supporting his own theory with his theory himself is it logical to support your own theory with your own evidence? Especially when there is very little other evidence supporting the theory itself. Another criticism could be the nature at which this research looks at the relationship, seems to base it's analysis on the individuals and not the relationship as a whole; this is a problem seeing as looking at relationships requires you to see how it functions as a unit as well as looking at the specific requirements of the individuals; what of the emotions of the said person breaking up? This may greatly affect this person's break up issues. What's more we have some contradictory evidence from Duck himself, Duck (1986) found that the phases were just a typical pattern and there were many exceptions to the model (e.g. break ups could be considered positive to some when this creates a very solemn manner to the whole process); showing that there isn't a solid systematic foundation to everyone's relationship breakdown.

A large theoretical issue of this model is its cultural relativity. All samples used to support the dissolution model around were American samples. Thus can we really generalise this to the whole of the world? Some parts of the world are more patriarchal (e.g. Middle Eastern Culture) and it is more likely that the break up will be more based on the male's desires as the female may play a more submissive role. Hence without a larger sample that can look at the whole of the world's sample we can not clearly accept this dissolution model as universal.

Argyle and Henderson's (1985) research states we are able to use maintenance relationship can also be used to explain breakdown. This would include the economic theories of relationship consisting of: equity theory, and social exchange theory. Equity theory looks at how people wish to gain equal amounts of satisfaction from their relationship as their other partner, and if this is not received they feel unhappy which may potentially lead to a break up and large quantities of dissatisfaction. Social Exchange theory (made by Thibaut and Kelley), a lot like equity theory states that people wish to gain rewards from a relationship; social exchange however highlights that people wish to maximise their rewards and minimise their costs; there are four stages throughout this: Sampling, Bargaining, Commitment, and Institutionalisation. What can be seen from this from the break up stand point however is that there is a chance that using comparison theory that your expectation of what to gain from previous relationships is heightened or lowered. Thus if your next relationship gives less reward than the previous one there is a chance that this may lead to dissatisfaction and eventual break up.

There is also some empirical evidence for this, Hatfield et al (1979) found that those who gained less from a relationship in contrast to their partner had less satisfaction than those couples who were equal who had the highest level of satisfaction. This supports the implications of break up with the economic theories as the couples are more dissatisfied when things are unequal. And these findings were then replicated by Buunk and VanYperen (1991) who also found that couples with equality had the highest amounts of happiness with both high and low reward returns; as long as they were equal they generally had successful marriages.

A criticism of the economic theories is their implications of selfishness. There are no signs of altruistic benevolence of entering a relationship; it is purely for your own benefit and not based on your care for others. What of those that care enough for a person that they are willing to gain less from the relationship than the other partner? There are some that would at least state they are willing to do whatever they can to please their partner (whether this is based on an overload of oxytocin is uncertain). All research was yet again, done within the states. With research from Gergen, Morse, and Gergen (1980) finding a difference between the equity wanted from European students and US students (thus we can't generalise the evidence to the whole world).

One theoretical issue that could be used for both of these theories is if they truly are apt explanations of break up in contrast to those that are much more based around our biological and evolutionary behaviour. Could we not base break up around Darwin's idea of sexual selection? If someone you had developed a desire over turned out not to provide the good genes and resources you expected them to could this not be a reason to create dissatisfaction and the eventual break up of the relationship? If good genes are a vital part of our original attraction to people then these good genes would allow for people to maintain a relationship more with these people until they considered this person unattractive or obsolete in contrast to someone they could acquire with better genes/resources. To assume that all break ups are based around inequality issues ignoring any other emotional and biological factors may be considered as rather reductionist.

Overall the break up models do try and show systematic and valid reasons why there is break up within the relationship, but with this cultural divide that hasn't been fully explored and the lack of biological and emotional factors we couldn't necessarily state all break ups follow the same patterns that these theories and models state.