1. Welcome back
5 weeks until ½ term

2. At the end of last term we were here

3. Your Easter prep was about how relationships end
2006 Rollie & Duck Six stage model of dissolution

4. Should I stay or should I go?
Starter activity - in pairs list the reasons why you think relationships breakdown
Using what you already know about Formation, Maintenance and other areas of the course what do you think are the top ten reasons for relationship breakdown?

5. Reasons for relationship breakdown Duck (1992)
Marriages in which partners were very young
Early parenthood
Being in a lower socioeconomic group
Poor education
Partners are of different race / religion
A greater number of sexual partners before marriage.
Jealousy
People have a change of attitudes / beliefs
Relationship becomes routine and boring – lack of stimulation
Lack of sexual satisfaction
Lack of social skills – poor at conversation, may seem uninterested.
Extra marital affairs – may be a direct reaction to the other reasons discussed.

6. Duck
Duck came up with a 5 stage model of relationship dissolution (1984) Later, Rollie and Duck (2006) added to this and created a 6 stage model
Duck suggested the 3 main reasons why relationships break down
Lack of Social Skills
Boredom – lack of stimulation
Difficult to maintain the relationship (distance)

7. What would social exchange theory suggest as an explanation for relationship breakdown?
It would predict that dissolution is the result of an imbalance in rewards and costs.
It could also be the existence of a better alternative

8. Rollie and Duck (2006) Breakdown Interpsychic Phase Dydactic Phase
Social Processes
Grave Dressing
Resurrection

9. Create a mind map on Duck & Rollie’s 6 stages
Rollie & Duck
(2006)

10. Lee (1984)
Lee proposed an alternative stage theory of relationship breakdown based on a study of over 100 pre-marital relationship break-ups.
Dissatisfaction
Exposure
Negotiation
Resolution attempt
Termination

11. Evaluation
A strength of these models is they have useful application - they both indicate the possibility for repair strategies -this could be useful if marriage guidance is sought.
A weakness is that stage models are merely descriptive, they are limited as they do not explain WHY breakdown occurs.
A weakness of Duck’s model is that it focuses on the process that takes place after the breakdown whereas Lee is concerned with events leading up to the breakdown

12. What do these two words mean? What is the difference between them?
Duck (1982) – Risk Factors
His findings were from longitudinal studies, he established there were factors that threatened a relationship both dispositional (personal) and Situational (environmental) and could be classified as predisposing and precipitating
What do these two words mean?
What is the difference between them?

13. Duck (1982) – Risk Factors Predisposing Precipitating
Define:
A tendency to suffer from a particular condition, hold a particular attitude, or act in a particular way.
That which causes an event or situation to happen.
Contextualised:
Therefore beliefs or attitudes that the person holds which make breakup more likely
Situational circumstances which contribute to the breakup.

14. Risk Factors
Thus Duck suggests breakdown can be explained in terms of risk factors
1. Predisposing personal factors – bad habits, weak social skills, different back grounds, divorced parents etc
2. Precipitating factors – deception, boredom, conflict, better alternative etc
Dispositional verses situational factors

15. Research evidence
Rohfling (1998) found reduced proximity, a possible predisposing factor may not lead to breakdown. 70% of students questioned had experienced a long distance relationship. As long as the couple get to reunite regularly satisfaction in the relationship was not affected.

16. Evaluation
Risk factors provide an explanation for relationship breakdown unlike the models of dissolution that just describe them.
Risk factors only provide a limited explanation as some relationships are stable despite the presence of such factors
Some of the factors are intervening variables, e.g. low levels of education are associated with divorce but are not necessarily the cause.