Duck’s phase model | AQA A-Level Psychology Revision
- Revision Notes
- Aug 5
- 16 min read
Updated: 1 day ago
For 7182 specification, first teach in September 2025
AQA A-Level Psychology | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 55 minutes
Duck’s phase model explains relationship breakdown as a process involving changes in private thoughts, communication between partners and the wider social group. These Duck’s phase model A-Level Psychology revision notes cover the intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave-dressing phases required by AQA. You will learn to recognise each phase in unfamiliar scenarios and evaluate whether breakdown always follows a fixed sequence. The model follows explanations of relationship commitment and persistence by examining what may happen when a relationship begins to end.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define relationship breakdown as a process rather than a single event.
Describe the intra-psychic and dyadic phases.
Describe the social and grave-dressing phases.
Distinguish private dissatisfaction from open discussion and social involvement.
Apply the four phases to unfamiliar relationship scenarios.
Evaluate Duck’s phase model as an explanation of relationship breakdown.
Revision Notes 📚
Duck’s phase model A-Level Psychology revision overview
Duck’s phase model describes relationship breakdown as a sequence of four phases:
Intra-psychic phase
Dyadic phase
Social phase
Grave-dressing phase
The model proposes that a relationship does not usually end at one precise moment. Instead, breakdown may develop through:
Private dissatisfaction.
Discussion between the partners.
Involvement of friends and family.
The construction of an account of why the relationship ended.
The four phases named in the current AQA specification are intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave dressing.
Overview of the four phases
Phase | Main focus | Who is involved? | Central process |
Intra-psychic | Private dissatisfaction | Primarily one partner | Thinking about problems and considering the relationship |
Dyadic | Open discussion | Both partners | Confronting and discussing the difficulties |
Social | Wider involvement | Partners, friends and family | Making the breakdown public and negotiating arrangements |
Grave-dressing | Explaining the breakdown | Former partners and their social groups | Creating an account of events and rebuilding after the relationship |
📌 Exam tip: Learn both the names and the correct order. The 2023 examiner report noted that some students confused the names or placed the phases in the wrong sequence.
Phase 1: The intra-psychic phase
The intra-psychic phase occurs within the thoughts of one dissatisfied partner.
Intra-psychic means taking place within the individual’s mind.
During this phase, the dissatisfied partner may:
Focus on their partner’s faults.
Think repeatedly about the relationship’s problems.
Consider whether the relationship still meets their needs.
Evaluate the costs of remaining.
Imagine what life might be like outside the relationship.
Keep these thoughts private.
The central feature is that dissatisfaction has not yet been openly discussed with the partner.
The person may communicate their concerns to someone outside the relationship, but the problem remains primarily an internal and private concern.
Rumination during the intra-psychic phase
Rumination means repeatedly thinking about the same problem.
A dissatisfied partner may continually revisit:
Previous arguments.
Unmet needs.
Perceived unfairness.
Declining rewards.
Their partner’s behaviour.
Possible alternatives to the relationship.
This phase can connect with earlier relationship theories.
For example:
Declining rewards and increasing costs may relate to evaluations of relationship outcomes.
A perceived unfair balance may relate to equity and inequity.
Low satisfaction or attractive alternatives may relate to Rusbult’s investment model.
These theories may help explain why dissatisfaction develops, while Duck’s model describes how the breakdown may then progress.
Recognising the intra-psychic phase
Look for scenario phrases such as:
“She has not told her partner how she feels.”
“He keeps thinking about everything that is wrong.”
“They privately wonder whether the relationship has a future.”
“One partner considers leaving but keeps it to themselves.”
“She focuses increasingly on her partner’s faults.”
A developed application should explain why the detail represents private dissatisfaction.
For example:
“Nadia repeatedly thinks about the arguments but has not discussed her concerns with Lee. This represents the intra-psychic phase because the dissatisfaction remains within Nadia’s private thoughts.”
Phase 2: The dyadic phase
The dyadic phase begins when the relationship problems are openly discussed between the partners.
A dyad is a pair of people. In this phase, the private problem becomes an issue for the couple.
The dissatisfied partner may:
Confront their partner.
Explain why they are unhappy.
Discuss the relationship’s difficulties.
Ask for changes.
Attempt to negotiate.
Decide whether the relationship can be repaired.
The focus shifts from:
“I am unhappy.”
to:
“We need to discuss what is happening in our relationship.”
Possible outcomes of the dyadic phase
The dyadic phase does not automatically produce relationship breakdown.
Open discussion may lead to:
Reconciliation.
Changes in behaviour.
Renegotiation of responsibilities.
Attempts to restore satisfaction or fairness.
Agreement that the relationship should end.
The relationship may therefore be repaired, or breakdown may continue.
This is important because Duck’s model describes a process in which communication between the partners can affect what happens next.
Recognising the dyadic phase
Look for evidence that both partners are now involved.
Scenario phrases may include:
“They discuss their problems.”
“One partner confronts the other.”
“They argue about whether the relationship can continue.”
“They agree to make changes.”
“They decide together that separation may be necessary.”
For example:
“Nadia tells Lee that she is unhappy and they discuss whether they can resolve their disagreements. This represents the dyadic phase because the relationship problems are now being addressed by both partners.”
Intra-psychic and dyadic phases compared
Intra-psychic phase | Dyadic phase |
The dissatisfaction remains mainly private | The dissatisfaction is openly discussed |
One partner is the main focus | Both partners become involved |
The person thinks and ruminates | The couple communicates and negotiates |
No direct confrontation is required | Direct discussion or confrontation occurs |
Concerns may remain unspoken | Concerns are expressed to the partner |
A common exam error is identifying a private thought as dyadic simply because it concerns the relationship.
The distinction depends on whether the partner has been told.
Phase 3: The social phase
The social phase begins when the breakdown becomes known outside the relationship.
Friends, relatives and other members of the social network may become involved.
During this phase:
Partners tell other people about the difficulties.
Friends and relatives may offer support or advice.
Members of the social group may react to the breakdown.
The couple may negotiate practical arrangements.
Shared relationships, responsibilities or possessions may need to be reorganised.
The breakdown becomes increasingly public.
The issue has moved from the private world of the couple into the wider social environment.
Why the social network matters
Romantic relationships usually exist within a wider network.
Partners may share:
Friends.
Family connections.
Social activities.
Living arrangements.
Responsibilities.
Possessions.
Pets or childcare arrangements.
Relationship breakdown can therefore affect more than the two partners.
Friends and family may:
Provide emotional support.
Encourage reconciliation.
Support the decision to separate.
Become involved in practical arrangements.
Adjust their own relationships with each former partner.
This phase recognises that romantic breakdown has a social context.
Negotiating arrangements
The social phase may involve practical decisions about:
Housing.
Shared possessions.
Finances.
Friendship groups.
Responsibilities.
Future contact.
The exact arrangements depend on the relationship, but the key point is that the breakdown now has consequences outside the partners’ private discussions.
Recognising the social phase
Look for scenario phrases such as:
“They tell their families that they are separating.”
“Their friends begin offering advice.”
“They decide who will remain in the shared home.”
“Their friendship group becomes aware of the disagreement.”
“Relatives help them make practical arrangements.”
For example:
“Nadia and Lee tell their friends that they intend to separate and begin deciding how to divide their shared possessions. This represents the social phase because the breakdown is now public and practical arrangements are being negotiated.”
Phase 4: The grave-dressing phase
The grave-dressing phase occurs after the relationship has ended or when breakdown has become established.
The name suggests creating a final account of a relationship that has ended.
During this phase, former partners may:
Construct an explanation of why the relationship failed.
Decide how to present the breakdown to other people.
Reinterpret past events.
Protect their reputation or sense of self.
Emphasise what they have learned.
Begin rebuilding their lives and identities.
The person creates a narrative that makes sense of the breakdown.
Creating an account of the relationship
A relationship is likely to have contained both positive and negative experiences.
After breakdown, former partners may organise these experiences into a coherent explanation.
For example, one partner might say:
“We wanted different things and eventually realised we were no longer compatible.”
Another might say:
“I tried to make the relationship work, but the same problems kept returning.”
These accounts may help former partners:
Explain the breakup to friends and relatives.
Understand their own behaviour.
Maintain a favourable identity.
Reduce uncertainty.
Prepare for future relationships.
Rebuilding after relationship breakdown
Grave dressing is not simply about blaming the former partner.
It may also involve:
Reflecting on personal mistakes.
Identifying what the person wants from future relationships.
Rebuilding confidence.
Developing a new identity outside the couple.
Learning from the experience.
The phase therefore provides a psychological and social conclusion to the breakdown process.
Recognising the grave-dressing phase
Look for phrases such as:
“She explains to friends why the relationship failed.”
“He describes the breakup as a learning experience.”
“They create different accounts of what happened.”
“She begins rebuilding her confidence.”
“He decides what he would do differently in a future relationship.”
For example:
“Several months later, Nadia tells friends that the relationship ended because she and Lee had developed different priorities. She says the experience has helped her understand what she wants in the future. This represents grave dressing because she is constructing an account of the breakdown and rebuilding afterwards.”
Social and grave-dressing phases compared
Social phase | Grave-dressing phase |
The breakdown becomes public | An explanation of the breakdown is constructed |
Friends and relatives become involved | Former partners present accounts to themselves and others |
Practical arrangements may be negotiated | Personal identity and reputation may be rebuilt |
The relationship may still be in the process of ending | The focus is on understanding and moving beyond the ended relationship |
The full sequence
Duck’s model can be summarised as:
private dissatisfaction → discussion between partners → wider social involvement → explanation and rebuilding
More precisely:
intra-psychic → dyadic → social → grave dressing
The AQA specimen assessment has tested students’ knowledge of this exact order.
A complete application example
Consider the following scenario:
For several months, Ellis has privately focused on problems in the relationship with Robin. Ellis repeatedly thinks that Robin no longer provides emotional support but says nothing. Eventually, Ellis explains these concerns to Robin. They argue and discuss whether changes could save the relationship. Later, they tell their families that they intend to separate and decide how to organise their shared home and care of their dog. After the relationship ends, Ellis tells friends that the breakup happened because both partners had changed. Ellis begins thinking about what could be done differently in a future relationship.
Intra-psychic phase
Ellis privately focuses on relationship problems.
Ellis ruminates about the lack of emotional support.
The concerns have not yet been disclosed to Robin.
Dyadic phase
Ellis openly raises the problem.
Both partners discuss the relationship.
They consider whether changes could repair it.
Social phase
The families are informed.
The breakdown becomes public.
Practical arrangements concerning the home and dog are negotiated.
Grave-dressing phase
Ellis constructs an explanation of why the relationship ended.
The breakup is presented as the result of both partners changing.
Ellis reflects on future relationships and begins rebuilding.
A strategy for application questions
Use the following steps.
Identify who knows about the problem.
Only one partner knows: likely intra-psychic.
Both partners discuss it: likely dyadic.
Friends or family know: likely social.
Look for practical arrangements.
Negotiating shared responsibilities or possessions usually indicates the social phase.
Look for a story about the ended relationship.
Explaining the breakup and rebuilding usually indicates grave dressing.
Quote or paraphrase a precise detail.
Explain why that detail represents the phase.
Use this structure:
Scenario detail → phase → psychological explanation
Relationship breakdown is a process
A strength of Duck’s model is that it recognises that relationship breakdown is not necessarily one sudden event.
There may be substantial psychological and social activity before and after the partners separate.
The model includes:
Private thought.
Communication.
Social consequences.
Post-relationship interpretation.
This provides a broader account than simply identifying the moment when one partner leaves.
Evaluating Duck’s phase model
Strength: it treats breakdown as a process
The model recognises that relationship breakdown can develop over time.
A breakup may involve:
A period of private dissatisfaction.
Attempts to discuss or repair the relationship.
The involvement of social networks.
Reflection after the relationship ends.
This is useful because the end of a relationship is not always represented accurately by one final argument or decision.
The model identifies several psychologically different tasks that may occur during breakdown.
Strength: it includes the social context
The social phase recognises that a romantic relationship does not exist in isolation.
Breakdown may affect:
Families.
Friends.
Shared responsibilities.
Living arrangements.
Wider social identities.
This gives the model a broader focus than an explanation concerned only with the private thoughts of the two partners.
It also helps explain why some breakups become more difficult once the wider social group is involved.
Strength: the grave-dressing phase has a constructive function
The grave-dressing phase recognises that people need to make sense of an ended relationship.
Constructing an account may help someone:
Protect or rebuild their identity.
Understand what happened.
Learn from the experience.
Prepare for future relationships.
The model therefore covers psychological adjustment after separation, rather than ending as soon as the couple breaks up.
Strength: the model may have practical applications
Because the phases identify different processes, relationship support could be tailored to the stage reached.
For example:
During the intra-psychic phase, attention could be given to the dissatisfied partner’s private thoughts.
During the dyadic phase, the partners could focus on communication and negotiation.
During the social phase, attention may turn to practical arrangements and social consequences.
During grave dressing, a person could be supported in developing a realistic account of the breakdown.
This practical value supports the usefulness of viewing breakdown as a process with different psychological needs.
Limitation: the model describes more than it explains
Duck’s model describes what may happen after dissatisfaction has developed.
It does not fully explain:
Why dissatisfaction began.
Why one problem becomes serious while another does not.
Why some couples repair their relationship.
Why similar difficulties produce breakdown in one couple but not another.
Earlier theories may provide explanations for the initial dissatisfaction.
For example:
Rewards may have fallen below costs.
A partner may perceive inequity.
Satisfaction may be low and alternatives attractive.
Duck’s model mainly describes how breakdown progresses rather than providing a complete explanation of its original cause.
Limitation: breakdown may not follow a fixed order
The four phases are presented in a sequence, but real breakdown may be less orderly.
For example:
A partner may tell friends before confronting the other partner.
A couple may enter the dyadic phase and then repair the relationship.
Private rumination may continue during social involvement.
Former partners may revise their account of the breakup repeatedly.
Partners may return to earlier discussions after practical arrangements have begun.
The AQA mark scheme recognises that the phases may not always occur in the same order and that partners can return to earlier phases depending on communication.
The model should therefore not be treated as a rigid, irreversible staircase.
Limitation: retrospective self-report evidence may be inaccurate
Evidence about relationship breakdown is often collected after the relationship has ended.
Participants may be asked to remember:
When dissatisfaction began.
What they thought privately.
When problems were first discussed.
How friends and relatives became involved.
Why the relationship ended.
Such accounts may be affected by:
Forgetting.
Reconstructing memories.
The desire to appear reasonable.
Blaming the former partner.
Creating a more coherent story than the original events justify.
This is particularly relevant because grave dressing itself involves constructing an account of the breakup.
The evidence used to support the phases may therefore reflect how people later explain the relationship rather than exactly how events occurred.
Limitation: the model may reflect Western relationship expectations
The model assumes that individual partners have considerable freedom to:
Decide whether to continue a relationship.
Confront their partner.
Publicly announce the breakdown.
Construct their own account of events.
The process may differ in cultures where:
Families have greater influence over relationships.
Separation is less socially accepted.
Marriage is understood as an alliance between families or groups.
Public disclosure of relationship problems is discouraged.
The model may therefore have limited cultural generalisability.
Limitation: not every relationship reaches every phase
Some relationships may end:
Suddenly.
Without extended private rumination.
Without detailed discussion.
Without substantial involvement from friends or family.
Without a clear final explanation.
In other relationships, the partners may remain in one phase for a long period or repair the relationship during the dyadic phase.
This suggests the model describes a common possible pattern rather than a universal law of breakdown.
Duck’s model compared with Rusbult’s investment model
Duck’s model and Rusbult’s investment model address related but different questions.
Duck’s phase model | Rusbult’s investment model |
Describes the process of relationship breakdown | Explains commitment and relationship persistence |
Focuses on four phases | Focuses on satisfaction, alternatives and investment |
Includes communication and social involvement | Includes the resources that would be lost by leaving |
Explains how a breakdown may unfold | Explains why a partner may remain or leave |
Includes adjustment after separation | Predicts the strength of commitment |
The models may work together.
Low satisfaction, attractive alternatives and limited investment may reduce commitment. Duck’s model may then describe how the resulting breakdown progresses.
Overall conclusion
Duck’s phase model provides a structured account of relationship breakdown.
Its four phases show how a problem may move from:
Private dissatisfaction.
To communication between partners.
To wider social involvement.
To explanation and rebuilding after separation.
The model is valuable because it treats breakdown as a psychological and social process rather than a single event. However, it describes the progression of breakdown more effectively than it explains the original dissatisfaction, and real relationships may not pass through every phase in a fixed order.
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Learn the four phases in the correct order. In 2023, most students provided a reasonable account, but some incorrectly named or reordered the phases.
Examiner hint: Keep the defining feature of each phase clear:
Intra-psychic means private thought.
Dyadic means discussion between partners.
Social means wider network involvement.
Grave dressing means post-relationship explanation and rebuilding.
Examiner hint: Do not describe the dyadic phase as involving friends and family. Wider social involvement belongs to the social phase.
Examiner hint: In the 2023 8-mark question, more marks were available for discussion than description. Accurate knowledge alone was therefore insufficient for the highest level.
Examiner hint: Develop evaluation points. Do not merely state that the model is culturally biased or based on self-report. Explain how this reduces its ability to describe all relationship breakdowns accurately.
Examiner hint: Use specialist terminology accurately. Strong answers refer to rumination, dyadic discussion, social networks, practical arrangements, rationalisation and rebuilding where relevant.
Examiner hint: Do not treat the phases as completely rigid. The mark scheme accepts the criticism that stages may occur in a different order or that partners may return to earlier phases.
Examiner hint: Keep your evaluation focused on the model. The 2023 report noted that evaluation was generally strong when students directly addressed limitations of the phase account and its cultural applicability.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Putting the phases in the wrong order
Why this is incorrect:
The AQA sequence is intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave dressing.
How to improve:
Use the memory structure:
Think privately → talk together → tell others → explain afterwards.
Mistake: Confusing the intra-psychic and dyadic phases
Why this is incorrect:
Intra-psychic dissatisfaction remains mainly within one person’s thoughts. The dyadic phase begins when the partners discuss the problem.
How to improve:
Ask whether the dissatisfied person has spoken directly to their partner.
Mistake: Saying the dyadic phase always ends the relationship
Why this is incorrect:
Discussion may lead to reconciliation, change or continued breakdown.
How to improve:
Explain that the couple negotiates and considers whether the relationship can be repaired.
Mistake: Treating telling one’s partner as the social phase
Why this is incorrect:
Telling the romantic partner is dyadic. The social phase involves people outside the couple.
How to improve:
Look for friends, relatives or wider social groups.
Mistake: Describing the social phase only as asking friends for advice
Why this is incomplete:
The phase may also involve making the breakdown public and negotiating practical arrangements.
How to improve:
Explain the effect of wider social involvement on the relationship and its consequences.
Mistake: Describing grave dressing as arranging a funeral
Why this is incorrect:
The term is metaphorical. It refers to creating an account of an ended relationship.
How to improve:
Link grave dressing to rationalisation, identity, reputation, reflection and rebuilding.
Mistake: Assuming every relationship follows the phases perfectly
Why this is incorrect:
Partners may skip phases, return to earlier phases or repair the relationship.
How to improve:
Describe the sequence as a proposed process rather than an unbreakable rule.
Mistake: Claiming that the model explains why dissatisfaction starts
Why this is incorrect:
The model mainly describes what happens after dissatisfaction develops.
How to improve:
Use social exchange, equity or investment concepts to explain possible origins of dissatisfaction.
Mistake: Naming an evaluation point without explaining its consequence
Why this is incorrect:
Writing “the model is culturally biased” does not show why this matters.
How to improve:
Explain that family influence, social rules or reduced freedom to leave may produce a different breakdown process.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Questions
1. Which sequence shows the correct order of Duck’s phases of relationship breakdown?[1 mark]
A. Dyadic, intra-psychic, social, grave dressing
B. Intra-psychic, dyadic, social, grave dressing
C. Intra-psychic, social, dyadic, grave dressing
D. Social, dyadic, intra-psychic, grave dressing
Answer
B, intra-psychic, dyadic, social, grave dressing.
2. Outline what happens during the intra-psychic and dyadic phases.[4 marks]
Answer
Award up to four marks:
During the intra-psychic phase, one partner privately experiences dissatisfaction.
They may ruminate about their partner, the relationship’s problems or possible alternatives.
During the dyadic phase, the dissatisfaction is openly raised with the partner.
Both partners discuss, confront or negotiate the relationship problems and whether the relationship can be repaired.
3. Explain one difference between the social phase and the grave-dressing phase.[3 marks]
Answer
Award up to three marks:
The social phase involves people outside the couple becoming aware of or involved in the breakdown.
It may include social support or negotiation of practical arrangements.
Grave dressing occurs after the relationship has ended or breakdown is established and involves constructing an account, protecting or rebuilding identity, and learning from events.
4. Morgan privately thinks that the relationship with Ash has become unrewarding but does not say anything. Several weeks later, Morgan confronts Ash and they discuss whether changes could save the relationship.
Explain which two phases of Duck’s model are illustrated.[4 marks]
Answer
Award up to four marks:
Morgan’s private belief that the relationship is unrewarding represents the intra-psychic phase.
The concern remains within Morgan’s thoughts and has not been disclosed to Ash.
Confronting Ash represents movement into the dyadic phase.
Both partners now discuss whether the problems can be resolved.
5. Jamie and Cameron tell their families that they intend to separate. Their friends help them decide how to divide their shared possessions. Several months later, Jamie explains that the relationship ended because they wanted different futures and says the experience has provided useful lessons.
Explain how the social and grave-dressing phases can be applied to this scenario.[4 marks]
Answer
Award up to four marks:
Telling their families means the breakdown has entered the social phase.
Friends helping to divide possessions shows wider social involvement and negotiation of arrangements.
Jamie’s explanation that they wanted different futures represents grave dressing.
Identifying lessons from the relationship shows reflection and rebuilding after the breakdown.
6. A psychologist interviews 50 people whose romantic relationships ended during the previous five years. Participants are asked to remember the order in which the phases occurred.
Explain one limitation of using this method to investigate Duck’s phase model.[3 marks]
Answer
Award up to three marks:
The interviews collect retrospective self-report evidence.
Participants may forget or reconstruct the order of events over five years.
Their current explanation of the breakup may influence their memories, reducing the validity of conclusions about whether the phases occurred in the proposed sequence.
7. Compare Duck’s phase model with Rusbult’s investment model.[6 marks]
Answer
Award up to six marks for a clear comparison.
Possible content:
Both models concern the maintenance or ending of romantic relationships.
Rusbult’s model explains commitment using satisfaction, alternatives and investment.
Duck’s model describes the process through which breakdown may occur.
Rusbult predicts whether commitment is likely to be strong or weak.
Duck describes private, interpersonal, social and post-relationship processes.
Rusbult includes resources that could be lost by leaving.
Duck includes communication between partners and involvement of social networks.
Low commitment predicted by Rusbult may precede the phases described by Duck.
Duck explains the progression of breakdown but not its initial cause as effectively as Rusbult explains declining commitment.
Higher marks require direct comparisons rather than two separate descriptions.
8. Discuss Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown.[8 marks]
Answer
A strong response should include:
Knowledge and understanding
Relationship breakdown as a process.
The intra-psychic phase.
Private dissatisfaction and rumination.
The dyadic phase.
Discussion and negotiation between partners.
The social phase.
Wider social involvement and practical arrangements.
The grave-dressing phase.
Rationalisation and rebuilding.
Evaluation
The model recognises that breakdown is a process rather than a single event.
It includes the wider social context.
Grave dressing may help people learn and rebuild.
The phases may have practical applications.
The model describes breakdown more successfully than it explains initial dissatisfaction.
Phases may occur in a different order or be revisited.
Retrospective self-report evidence may lack validity.
The model may have limited cultural generalisability.
Not every relationship reaches every phase.
Higher-level responses will use the phase names accurately, keep them in the correct sequence and develop evaluation points by explaining their consequences for the usefulness of the model.
Comments