Relationship Dissolution: Theories, Stages, and Breakup Strategies

Introduction to Relationship Dissolution

Few events in life are able to cause more suffering, misery, and distress than the loss or dissolution of a cherished relationship. This loss can be one of the most traumatic experiences that life can present (Simpson, 1987). Divorce rates in the United States have risen astronomically over the past three decades, and almost half of recent first marriages end in divorce. Compounding these statistics, the rate of domestic partner relationships is steadily increasing, and with that increase comes a parallel rise in the dissolution of such relationships (Bucher, 2006).

According to Duck's model, relationship dissolution refers to the course of terminating a relationship when at least one partner makes the choice to do so. This definition applies only to the mindful and intentional ending of relationships; it does not take bereavement into account, nor does it apply to relationships that end by default — for example, friends who drift apart and deliberately allow their contacts to dwindle (Duck & Rollie, 1982, 1998).

Duck's Model of Relationship Dissolution

According to Duck's model, there are four phases in the dissolution of relationships, with a possible fifth phase:

Relationship phase. The relationship is reasonably healthy, but unhappiness builds up with feelings of "there's something wrong." In time, the "I can't stand this any more" feelings accumulate to the point at which one person enters the breakdown stages.

Intrapsychic phase. Nothing much is said outwardly, but the focus shifts to the faults of the other partner. Evidence is sought by which the other person can be blamed for any problems. When enough evidence has been accumulated, the person feels justified in withdrawing.

Dyadic phase. The breakdown is now revealed, and one or the other person says, "I'm leaving" or "I'm thinking of leaving." Reality must now be faced by both partners, and thorough discussions may arise. The focus is on the partnership itself. In due course, the pressure of "I really mean it" makes itself felt, and the situation becomes known to others.

Social phase. Now the focus turns outward to the thoughts and opinions of other people. Friends may be recruited as ammunition, and social groups may break into verbal battles over who is to blame and what should be done. The breakup eventually becomes inevitable, and concerns move on to the next phase.

There can also be a fifth phase: the Grave-dressing phase. The relationship is officially buried and explanations are put in place. These explanations may or may not be entirely accurate.

Social Penetration Theory and Relational Withdrawal

In the past, researchers looked for the cause of breakups within the relationship itself, so some rationalizations rested on the incompatibility of couples (their personalities were not well-matched), flaws in the technical aspects of a relationship (too many fights), and dissolution as "instant death" (an occurrence created by the impulsive or careless actions of one partner). Such analysis tended to view the breakup as a single incident — declared by one partner to the other at a specific moment, or brought about by the final acknowledgment that incompatibility was too much to bear. However, Social Penetration Theory holds that the failure of relationships mirrors the development of relationships, only in reverse: partners slowly withdraw from the relationship in ways similar to the ways in which they originally entered it (Duck & Rollie, 1982, 1998).

Altman and Taylor coined the phrase "Social Penetration Theory," defining it as "the process of increasing disclosure and intimacy in a relationship" (Allensworth, 1998). Social Penetration Theory contains four stages:

1. Orientation — ritualized conversation and disclosure of superficial information.

2. Exploratory affective exchange — superficial information is expanded and there is movement toward deeper layers of the personality.

3. Affective exchange — moves even closer to the central layers of the personality.

4. Stable exchange — rarely achieved.

If one were to apply Social Penetration Theory to the dissolution of relationships, these four stages would begin at stage four and work their way back to stage one, by which point the relationship will have all but disintegrated.

Later research on relationship dissolution took into account additional factors, noting the effects of various impediments such as the presence of children in a marriage. Researchers observed that couples might first consider the effect that divorce would have on their children rather than basing the decision solely on their own personal feelings. Some research suggested that concerns about neighbors' and family members' reactions might outweigh the unhappiness felt within the relationship, causing partners to simply press on (Duck & Rollie, 1982, 1998).

All of these perspectives tend to frame divorce as a "botched" relationship and view a breakup as an intrinsically negative event that violates social expectations about marriage. Even so, many researchers now view liberation from harmful relationships — such as abusive ones — as a success rather than a failure. Researchers have attempted to move away from equating staying power in a marriage with its success, although society continues to associate endurance with accomplishment, which is why we celebrate milestones through wedding anniversaries. Nevertheless, those facing the prospect of divorce or breakup often must contend with the added pressure of feeling that they have "failed." This sense of failure is frequently rooted in what is perceived to be "normal": society expects people to have a secure and steady life partner by a certain age or stage of life (Duck & Rollie, 1982, 1998).

More recently, researchers have examined the long-term developments of separation and the ways in which children, friends, and relatives affect the entire process. Such models of dissolution recognize that relationships always take place within a broader network of other relationships — each partner knows other people, has friends and family members, and will likely discuss their relational troubles and achievements with those in their social network. These other people can have a profound effect on whether and how a couple ultimately breaks up. For instance, friends may offer reassurance that relationships have inherent difficulties and that "this too shall pass," or they might reveal that they never liked the partner in the first place (Duck & Rollie, 1982, 1998).

References

Allensworth, N. (1998). Social penetration: A description, research, and evaluation. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp

Bucher, E. (2006). Relationship dissolution planning (nuptial agreements part 1).

DeVito, J. A. (1995). The interpersonal communication book. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

Duck, S. (1982). Terminating relationships. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/terminating_relationships.htm

Duck, S., & Rollie, S. (1982, 1998). Relationship dissolution — Duck's model, relationships after breakup — conclusion. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from http://family.jrank.org/pages/1356/Relationship-Dissolution.html

Felmlee, D. (1994). Who's on top? Power in romantic relationships. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 275.

Kunkel, A., Wilson, S., Olufowote, J., & Robson, S. (2003). Identity implications of influence goals. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1166360/Identity-implications-of-influence-goals.html

McGraw Hill. (1994). The life cycle of a relationship (7th ed.). McGraw Hill, Inc. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from http://sosc2311.thetalkpage.com/additional_readings/Life%20Cycle%20of%20Relationship.doc

Paul, M. (1997). Ending relationships gracefully. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from http://www.innerbonding.com/index.lasso?did=content&content.article=311

Simpson, J. (1987). The dissolution of romantic relationships: Factors involved in relationship stability and emotional distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 683–692.