Why Relationships may
Change or End
By Mr Daniel Hansson
Models of Relationship Dissolution
Lee’s sequences of
separation model
(1984)
Duck’s model of
dissolution (1999)
Lee’s Sequences of Separation
Model (1984)
Based on a survey on 112
romantic break ups of premarital
couples, Lee identified
the following stages:
•
Dissatisfaction-Recognising
there is a problem
•
Exposure- Problem brought
out into open.
•
Negotiation- Discussion
about issue raised
•
Resolution Attempts-Each
partner attempts to problem
solve.
•
Termination-Resolution
attempts are unsuccessful.
Duck’s Model of Dissolution (1999)
Duck supposed there were five stages
which could be triggered by a threshold.
1. Breakdown-Dissatisfaction leads to
crisis. Repair strategy: correct own
faults
2. Intra-psychic phase-Thinking about
relationship in private, then with close
friend. Repair strategy- re-establish
liking for partner.
3. Dyadic phase- Deciding to break
up/repair: repair strategy- recalculate
rules for future.
4. Social phase. Include others in your
argument i.e. take your side. Repair
strategy outsiders encourage reunion.
5. Grave Dressing- Public & private
dissection of relationship. Repair
strategy- Try to salvage friendship and
agree upon acceptable version of
events.
Evaluation
These models show that dissolution is
not a sudden step but a process
They identify stages where things
start to go wrong
Some Reasons for Break Ups
Withdrawal (social penetration theory)
Rule violations
Individual Differences (e.g.
communication, cultural, gender)
Reduced proximity
Changes in lifestyle
Negative emotion and poor
communication
Rule Violations
Argyle & Henderson (1984): 160
participants aged 17-34 were asked on the
dissolution of friendships
The most critical rule violations were
jealousy, lack of tolerance for a third party
relationship, disclosing confidences,
publicly criticizing the person and not
volunteering when helping
Individual differences: Women identified
emotional support, younger participants
public criticism, over 20s lack of respect or
request for personal advice
Individual Differences
Brehm & Kassin, 1996: Women are more likely to
stress unhappiness and incompatibility whereas
men are more upset by sexual withholding
Caspi & Herbener (1990): A longitudinal study of
135 married couples found that similarity between
was related to marital satisfaction
Hill, Rubin, & Peplau (1976): A two year study of
dating relationships among college students.
Found differences such as age, education,
intelligence, unequal involvement in the
relationship, and physical attractiveness. The
desire to break up was seldom mutual.
Reduced Proximity
Shaver et al. (1985): Moving away
from each other often leads to the
dissolution of relationships
Holt and Stone (1988): Found out
that there was little decrease in
relationship satisfaction for long
distance relationships if lovers were
able to unite regularly.
Changes in Lifestyle
Hays & Oxley (1986): Found that the
most adaptive social networks for
first-year university students involved
new friends who were also university
students rather than old school or
neighborhood friends.
Negative emotion
Rogge, 2010: 222 volunteers in
romantic relationship conducted a
computer task where they were to
associate their partner’s first name
with positive or negative words.
Volunteers who found it easy to
associate their partner with bad words
and difficult to associate her with
good things were more likely to
separate over the next year.
Negative emotion
Gottman (1988) has developed a model to predict
which newlywed couples will remain married and
which will divorce four to six years later. He claims
that his model has 80-90% accuracy. His
prediction method relies on Paul Ekman's method
of analyzing microexpressions of couples in the
laboratory (observation analyzed by content
analysis). Gottman believes that the four
emotional reactions that are most destructive for
relationships are defensiveness, stonewalling
(withdrawal from relationship), criticism and
contempt. He considers contempt to be the best
predictor for marital success.