Outline and evalute the breakdown of relationships
A01- Duck skills maintenance
A02-Shavier, Rofhling
IDA- gender bias
PA- ccet - china
A01-rollie and duck -stages of breakdown
A02 - Tashiro and Frazier
A03- methological flaws
IDA - determinsitic

Duck suggested that relationships breakdown due to various of reasons, such as lack of skills. This means that people in the relationships have a lack of interpersonal skills to make eachother mutally satisfyimg, if a person lacks interpersonal skills or social skills have poor conversational skills and are bad at indicatomg they like a particular person it could lead the other partner to believe they are unintresting, unrewarding in their interactions. This then leading to the breakdown of a relationship.

Additionally, Duck suggested that if a raltaionship is lacking in stimulation then breakdown will occur. Lack of stiumulation is when you expect the relationship to change and develop but does not. This results in the partner being unsatisfied thus forming the relationship to stop.

Maintenance diffulties is another reason why relationships breakdown. This is where there is a strain caused in a realtionship e.g if a couple can not see eachother for various of reasons. This may be due to not living close together or that their jobs causes them to find it difficult to spend time with eachother. Therefore if a relationship has maintenance difficulties Duck suggests it will lead to a breakdown in the relationship.

study which supports maintenaince diffculties was conducted by Shavier et al. He looked at the maintenance difficulties in the breakdown of romantic relationships. Shavier found that when students go to university it makes it harder to see eachother regularly which then is usually the reason for the subsequent breakdown of the relationship. This supports Ducks claims about maintenaince difficulties because it shows how a relationship can breakdown if they live far from eachother and do not spend enough time with eachother.

However, despite the perception that long distance relationships are unlikely to last research by rohlfling suggests that they are more common than we think. One study found that 70% of students sampled had experinced at least one long distance relationship and 90% had experinced on long distance friendship. The reason for such increasing long distance relations may be down to the increasing mobile usage where we can keep in touch through technology. Therefore this disproves Duck and Shaviers theory that long distance relationships can not work and lead to breakdowns because in our society today lond distance relationships are becoming much more common.

Additionally there are significant gender differences which have not been taken into account when looking at the breakdown of a relationship. Bachauli asked undergraduates to rate various sexual and emotional reasons for men and women to be unfaithful in a committed relationship and found that participants judged sexual reasons for infedelity would be more likely used by men and emotional reasons to be more likely used by women. This shows women are more likely to stress unhappiness and uncompatiability for the reasons for a breakdown of a relationship whereas men tend to stress sexual dissatisfaction. This shows the model does not consider this therefore limits the theory due to generaliasation of men and women.

Due to Ducks theory, social skills have been found to be important to relationships, couples copying enchancement training (CCET) aims to increase respect and improve communication between partners. Gina et al found that couples who had CCET reported significant;y higher maritial satidfaction than the control group without CCET .This demonstrates the importance of social skills in relationships without Ducks research we would not know this.

Duck and rollie formed the process of a relationship breakdown. It begins with the breakdown where you have dissatisfaction within the relationship. the next stage is intapsychic processes this is the social withdrawel where you have resentment for your partner you brand your partners faults and look at the alternatives. Next comes the dyadic processes where anxiety behings, you reasses your goals and possibilities after that comes thhe spcoal processes upi go public, seek support from third parties. Grave dressing is next where you tidy up your memories of the relationship. Latsly the stage of ressucerection this is where you refrain from the past and recreate your sense pf social social value. Rollie and Duck look at the process of relationship breakdown and the stages partners go through when relationships are breaking down.

There is emprical evidence by Tashiro and Frazier to support Duck and Rollies model. They surveyed undergraduates who had recently broken up with their partners. Students reported to have experinced emotional distress as well as peronality growth, statomg that these breakdpwns had given them a clearer idea about future relationships. This provides evidence for both the grave-dressing and ressurection processes in the models. Findings suggested that the breakdown of romantic relationships is in fact broken down into staged as the theory siggests. Therefore suppoting Rollie and Ducks model aswell as improving the theorys internal validity.

However supporting emprical evidence from Tashiro and Frazier can be criticised for containing a methodological flaw. By containing a sample of under raduates the study is criticised for being unrepresentative as findings can not be generated to relationships other than those of undergraduates. This reduces the population validity of the study and therefore reduces the external validity of the theory and its under generalisation. If a couple were married then the fact of getting a divorce is alot more complicated and difficult than simply breaking up as something may motivvate them to stay together. Also the students probarly do not have children or other commitments that would mootivate people to stay in a relationship. The theory has been critisiced by some psychologists for bring deterministic. The theory suggest that a brekdown of a relationship is the result of six linear stages but fsils to take into account any other factors such as choice of breaking up and how we act after the break up. The theory therefore ignores the role of free will and fails to consider for the breakdown of all romantic relationships as it is unlikely that all breakdowns of relationships occur through the six linear stages. This reduces the external reliability of the theory.
In conclusion, instead of just analysing the stage we should form a multi dimnesional approach.