1. Introduction
The separation between couples can arise for a variety of different reasons, such as ones’ pursuit of career opportunities, educational goals, military service, or parental and familial obligations. This separation, that can also be known as geographical distance, is often grasped as a challenge to romantic relationships, forming the popular belief of long-distance relationships being more difficult and likely to fail (Heldeson, 1994). However, it is still nebulous as to what specific communicative or cognitive activities help boost relational quality, reduce stress in long-distance relationships, as well as sustain intimacy.
1.1. Significance
The importance of this research is to examine long-distance relationships and its pros and cons as compared to one of a close-proximity relationship. As this paper focuses on the positive outcomes of a long-distance relationship, it is therefore important to identify and focus on the maintenance aspects of sustaining such a relationship.
2. Constructing Closeness at a Distance
Regardless of the many challenges brought about by distance, it does not act as a deterrent towards effective relational maintenance as long as partners work to readjust their implicit understanding of intimacy and how it can be sustained even without daily face-to-face interaction (Le & Agnew, 2001).
2.1. Latent Intimacy
Intimacy can be experienced in latent (i.e. internal) and manifest (i.e. external) forms. Latent intimacy is a reflection of the sense of warmth and connection that resides within partners. The experience of latent intimacy, as compared to manifest intimacy, does not rely on the physical aspects of partners being together or frequent dyadic interactions. This form of intimacy can be sustained through intrapersonal processes, such as relationship-focused cognition which has been suggested by Sternberg (1986) as the most critical factor for maintaining long-term relational stability and quality.
2.2. The Effect of Distance in Relationships
Due to the increase in geographic distance between partners, this tends to lead to limited face-to-face interaction, resulting to the proposal of scholars that geographic separation serves as a relationship stressor that generates attachment threats, psychological distress, and relationship uncertainty. (Cameron & Ross, 2007). Distance, has the ability to restrict the forms of communication in which partners engage in, thus partners must reevaluate their definition of day-to-day intimacy. Also, it is indeed a logical thing to assume that if a partner’s amount of face-to-face interaction is limited, they would experience lower relational satisfaction and intimacy than that of a close proximity relationship. However, although studies have implied that distance increases the likelihood of negative outcomes in relationships such as breakups; Others have indicated that distance is completely unrelated to breakup potential and that long-distance relationship couples experienced relationship quality equal to or higher than that of a close proximity relationship. By clarifying the different types of maintenance behaviors used in long-distance relationships, this may bring understanding towards how partners sustain relational quality and intimacy despite that limitations in face-to-face communications.
2.3. Long-Distance Maintenance
3. Positive Aspects of a Long-Distance Relationship
Research have suggested that those in long-distance relationships actually endorse even higher levels of relationship quality as compared to those of a close-proximity relationship. One reason is that the geographically distance between partners might serve as a filter; In deciding whether or not to enter into a romantic relationship with a partner, one may have to ‘set the bar’ higher when it comes to long distance relationships due to the many challenges and deprivations that accompany the relationship. This causes individuals to filter out less satisfactory partners which in turn provides further rationale as to why individuals in long-distance relationships report higher levels of relationship quality. Furthermore, partners who initially have higher functionality and connection to begin with, may be more apt to surviving and handling the challenges of a long-distance relationship. Another reason towards a long-distance relationship being of higher quality than that of a close-proximity relationship is that partners in a long-distance relationship may have less difficulty in sustaining a positive connection between each other. Participants of Sahlstein’s (2004) qualitative study on long-distance relationships concluded that partners felt the need to establish high quality time with their partner during visits, unlike close-proximity partners who are less likely to view their time together as cherished and are less motivated to take part in special activities together. One other effect of geographical separation is the heightened positive emotional and sexual response of partners when they come together in person, this is due to the routine of recurrent separation and reunion which results in a repeated ‘honeymoon effect’. In a study done by Hamilton and Meston (2010), significant spikes were found in women’s testosterone levels just prior to a reunion with a long-distance partner as well as from the long period of abstinence due to distance.
3.1. Commitment
A comparison of commitment levels in long-distance relationships to those in close-proximity relationships was previously done by Guldner and Swensen (1995), who reported that college students in long-distance relationships and close-proximity relationships had similar levels of commitment to their partners. A study was also done using Stanley and Markman’s (1992) model that divided the dimensions of commitment into 2 constructs; Dedication and constraint commitment. Dedication represents an individual’s desire to continue the relationship, to prioritize the relationship, to incorporate the relationship into their future plans, and to have a sense of shared identity with one’s partner. An important factor that could impact dedication in long-distance relationships is effort justification, also known as ones’ human tendency to heavily require high levels of effort put forth in the relationship. Constraint commitment, in contrast, refers to the internal and external factors that form as obstacles towards ending a relationship and a few of those factors include one’s perception regarding social, emotional, moral, and economical costs. Constraint commitment is believed to be what maintains the relationship when dedication is lacking, this is due to the practical limitations cause by geographical distance such as the reduced levels of material constraints, and social pressure.
3.2. Stability
Stafford and Reske (1990) found that long-distance relationships are more stable than close-proximity relationships
3.3. Idealization
Idealization in relationships refers to the tendency toward positive distortions that minimize problems (Olson, 1996). High idealization, as illustrated by “My relationship with my boyfriend is perfect, and we never have any problems,” contrasts with low idealization that reflects a more accurate view of the partner and relationship. Although very high idealization is viewed as a self-protective defence mechanism, lower idealization is normal and adaptive (McWilliams, 1994). For example, if threatened by relational problems, a person may idealize his or her partner, minimize disappointment or conflict, and maximize the partner’s strengths, thereby avoiding conflict or break-up (cf. Schulman, 1974). Consistent with this thinking, Murray, Holmes, and Griffin (1996) found that idealization and satisfaction are positively related when idealizing individuals are motivated to see their imperfect partners with positive eyes. In close-proximity relationships, the partners have access to visual and physical aspects that might influence the self-disclosure–idealization link. In response to visual cues, the person may alter proposed self-disclosure to be compatible with the partner’s reactions, thereby obtaining the partner’s understanding. Or the partner may respond to emotional self-disclosure with, for example, eye contact or a hug that conveys understanding. When feeling understood, the person may idealize the partner. In contrast, in long-distance relationships, the person may not feel as well understood, because of restricted access to physical cues, the person may not be able to assess the partner’s reactions and alter self-disclosure to gain understanding, or the partner may not be as easily able to convey understanding. If not feeling understood, the person may not, then, idealize the partner. In addition, if reserving emotional disclosure for time together (Sahlstein, 2004), the person may not respond to the partner’s understanding by idealizing the partner. First, the person’s sense of being understood may not be weighted so highly as in close-proximity relationships, because the long-distance relationships attachment-related physical reunion intensity (i.e., the honeymoon-like quality of visits) is so strong. Second, without the daily problems and hassles present in a close-proximity relationship, the person may view the partner’s understanding as expected rather than an instance worthy of idealization. Third, in long-distance relationships, self-disclosure, which is about the person versus the relationship, may be viewed as using precious togetherness time on the person and, thereby, drawing away from the being apart or reunion issues that are most prominent in a long-distance relationship. Self-disclosure may, then, be positively related to idealization in close-proximity relationships and negatively related to idealization in long-distance relationships.
4. Study by Kelmer, Rhoades, Stanley & Markman (2013)
The present study drew participants from a larger longitudinal study on relationship development (See Rhoades et al., 2010). Participants were recruited via nationwide targeted-listed telephone sampling conducted by a call center. Targeted-listing sampling was selected for this project over a random-digit dialing approach because cell phones can- not legally be called through random-digit dialing and being able to contact cell phones and not only land lines seemed imperative for the age range of interest.
Table 1 – Means, Standard Deviation, and Effect Sizes for Long-Distance and Close-Proximity Relationship Comparisons
4.1. Findings
The present study compared individuals in long-distance dating relationships to individuals in close-proximity dating relationships in terms of relationship quality, commitment, and stability. Individuals in long-distance relationships generally reported higher levels of relationship quality on several indices including relationship adjustment, love for partner, fun with partner, and conversational quality, as well as lower levels of problematic communication compared to those in close-proximity relationships. Regarding commitment, individuals in long-distance relationships did not differ from their close-proximity counterparts on perceived constraint or material constraints, but reported significantly lower levels of feeling trapped and significantly higher levels of dedication. When reporting perceptions regarding the future of their current relationship, individuals in long-distance relationships perceived a higher likelihood of eventual marriage to their current partner as well as a lower likelihood of breakup within the next year, compared to individuals in close-proximity relationships. However, in terms of actual stability between the initial data collection point and the follow-up, individuals in long-distance relation- ships were just as likely as individuals in close-proximity relationships to have broken up with their partners.
The findings regarding relationship quality and dedication can be interpreted within a framework that takes into consideration two types of factors: selection factors and process factors. Process factors refer to the experiences and dynamics that exist within the context of long-distance relationships that may influence the relationship and perceptions of it. Selection factors refer to the characteristics or qualities of individuals who happen to be in long-distance relationships. It can be suggested that process and selection factors have a complex, interactive, and cyclical relationship with one another and with the relationship quality, stability, and commitment variables of interest. For example, Stafford and colleagues (Stafford & Merolla, 2007), have suggested that idealization of long-distance partners may explain the finding that individuals in long-distance relationships report higher relationship quality than individuals in close-proximity relationships. That is, individuals in long-distance relationships may perceive their partners or relationships to be better than they would if they were not long-distance. Furthermore, maintaining (or at least declaring) high levels of dedication may help in resolving any cognitive dissonance that accompanies the sacrifices and uncertainties inherent to long-distance relationships. In terms of perceptions regarding the future of their current relationships, individuals in long-distance relationships perceived a greater likelihood of eventually marrying their current partner and a lower likelihood of breaking up within the next year. It seems likely that this sense of stability and anticipation of a long-term future might be relevant to individuals’ willingness to make the short-term sacrifices associated with geographical separation. However, it is important to note that for individuals in long-distance relationships, there was a discrepancy between perception and reality when it came to stability. When the actual stability outcomes were analysed, it was found that individuals in long-distance relationships were just as likely as individuals in close-proximity relationships to have broken up with their partner.