Introduction
Over the years, a majority of studies have sought to discover the difference between long distance relationships and proximal relationships. Most of them have revealed that long distance relationships have higher levels of intimacy. Being physically apart gives individuals more chances to establish a sense of independence and autonomy. Besides, intimate partners can build good non-physical connection through the art of communication. While the importance of communication in sustaining relationships is by at large accepted (Canary & Stafford, 1992), there are particular instances where the roles of communication area an added advantage. One instance is relationships in which intimate partners do not live in the same house or proximity. Such relationships usually known as long distance relationships require various communication activities for their sustainment. Actually, communication is perceived as the only string tying these partners together. Various studies have revealed that the conversational qualities in long distance relationships make them last longer than proximal relationships. Although, many studies have revealed that long distance relationships last longer than proximal relationships, others have stated otherwise. For instance, some believe that the face-to-face interactions between intimate partners create more intimacy and happiness within the relationship. The most significant question to ask ourselves is which studies hold more truth. Does distance make the heart grow fonder by increasing the levels of intimacy or is “out of sight, out of mind?” This essay will present a review of particular literature while attempting to answer these differing views.
Literature Review
This section will present an overview of empirical and theoretical factors relating to the study of long distance relationships.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the initial empirical studies by Stafford and Reske (1990) on idealization and communication in long distance premarital relationships, many issues came up such as idealization, commitment, gender differences, and faithfulness and perceived options. For instance, a particular assessment on idealization in long distance relationship argued that distance was a crucial factor in making a relationship successful. In the study, Stafford and Reske (1990) compared 34 proximal intimate partners and 37 long distance partners using questionnaires. The study revealed that couples in long distance relationships were happy, satisfied, and could end up marrying their current partners. These results were counterintuitive to the common belief that long distance relationships do not last and couples are often less satisfied.
Furthermore, Parks (1982) wrote about this common assumption of people by stating that the closer the physical contact with a partner, the happier couple become because of continuous self-disclosure and limited uncertainties about the other partner. However, the study indicated that idealization might occur because the unknown aspects of one’s spouse act as motivation to continue with the relationship. Knowing negative aspects about a partner may cause the end of a relationship.
Long distance relationship was found to be prevalent on college campuses (Stafford, Daly, & Reske, 1987). The University of Iowa conducts training for a student in long distance relationships to help them cope. Some of the topics taught in these workshops include coping with the economic issue such as paying phone bills, establishing new support systems to increase their social networks and instilling positive aspects for the students for future benefits (Westefeld &Liddell, 1982).
According to Lyndon, Pierce, and O’Regan (1997) who specifically based their study on college students in long distance relationships, the success of long distance relationship relied on the personal commitments other than moral commitments, also termed as personal dispositions. This distinction between the two types of commitment Johnson’s (1991) framework. In a more comprehensive way, personal commitment illustrates a situation where an individual truly desires to be in the relationship. On the other hand, moral commitment portrayed a situation where a partner felt they were obligated to continue with the relationship (p.121). A contribution by Stafford and Reske (1990) towards this concept was that moral commitment was more oriented towards married individuals. Besides, increased societal pressures and demands characterized the perception of moral commitment such as stigmas associated with divorce or separation from the children. In most cases, the premarital relationships among college students were not stable making them easy to let go. Hence, when it comes to moral commitment, it is difficult to group all partners in long distance relationships to experience the same situations. Married couples in long distance relationships have more pressure as compared to the premarital couples.
In a research study by Kaufmann (2000) titled relational maintenance in long distance dating relationships: staying close, she purposely selected a month before geographical separation to evaluate the ‘uncertainty and ambiguity’ of premarital partners concerning their current relationship. The results indicated that geographical separation would make partners hesitate about their moral obligations. Firmly supported by Stafford and Reske (1990), individuals intending to start long distance relationship would register increased moral commitment as compared to personal commitment. The findings by Kaufmann (2000) purported that individuals in long distance relationships perceive the distance between them as a future investment rather than a current loss. The enthusiastically committed partners are likely to perceive the separation as a fee to achieve better things in future. A less committed partner in the relationship will perceive the distance to be too costly thereby is likely break away from the relationship.
Moreover, Helgeson (1994) in his article titled relation of agency and communion to well-being evidence, and potential explanations talk about sex differences in maintaining and ending long distance relationships. The study was performed on 107 college students who reported through questionnaires about their interdependence, psychological distress and coping with breakups (only for the relevant individuals). Helgeson (1994) termed interdependence as the indicator for closeness based on the regularity of contact and relationship prolonged existence. It is very crucial to note that Helgeson perceived the geographical distance a negative stressor of intimacy. According to the findings of the research, women were capable of adjusting fast to physical separation regarding long distance relationship or during the end of a relationship. This statement was true for the women because Helgeson (1994) found out that they established good support systems in the course of their relationship, which they can count on regarding distress such as break ups. On the other hand, men entirely depended on their spouses for support and their absence had a massive impact on their psychological wellbeing.
An evaluation of a majority of the researchers reveals that relational maintenance is important to the survival of long distance relationship. Attridge (1994) argue that it would be pointless to assess couples having different titles such as dates and married individuals because of the insufficient research was done on the different forms of relationships. This also includes couples in long distance relationships. A study conducted by Canary and Stafford (1991) titled maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender, and relational characteristics, explored five relational approaches utilized in the maintenance of long distance strategies. They included positivity, honesty, promises, network, and tasks. The main finding of these studies revealed that the utilization of all the five strategies ensured that a healthy and long mutually satisfying relationship to all the parties involved. A few differences were discovered when it came to gender. For instance, women displayed open communication with their partners thereby enhancing the relationship. On a more general basis, the act of “sharing time together” was the most crucial factor in maintaining a relationship.
Consequently, Attridge (1994) came up with the concept/theory known as barrier deprivation in understanding the nature of long-distance and proximal relationships. Barrier deprivation is an important concept in understanding the reasons as to why people stays and maintain long distance relationships. His framework on barrier deprivation originates from the social exchange perspective, which assumes that romantic relationships are strengthened by the distance existing between the partners. Attridge believed that the integrated outcome was dependent on three main factors. These included desires to be in the relationship, desires towards the alternatives, and the limitations of breaking off the relationship. Attridge (1994) further explains that the barriers are indeed the “ingredients “that motivate people to stay in the relationship.
As seen in the empirical studies concerning relational maintenance, many of the normal strategies used by typical couples to keep their relationship solid may not be rationally possible for the partners in long distance relationships. For example, daily face-to-face interactions, shared responsibilities and constant display of affection are usually missing in long distance relationships. Such a situation is what Attridge referred to as barrier deprivation because the couples living geographically far from each other lack these tangible supportive actions and behaviours.
Hence, according to the barrier deprivation theory, intimate partners in long distance relationships have a more challenging experience and fragile barrier system to maintain the relationship. However, while getting comfortable in understanding the barriers that pose a challenge to long distance relationships, negative conceptualization hinder other options. For instance, partners in long distance relationships might resolve to the use of “stay close” strategy. Even though the evidence available is little, some partners have tried to be creative while striving to maintain relational maintenance. For instance, a study conducted by Westefeld and Liddell (1982) showed that some partners in long distance relationships sent each other pre-recorded tapes to maintain intimacy and closeness. The contemporary studies should seek to explore other creative approached that have been used by partners in long distance relationships to extend the barrier deprivation.
The concept of sharing time can be beneficial when applied to long distance relationship because little is known about the ways in which couples compensate for the time apart. Besides, the shared time can be used to create good relationship strategies to enhance their union. For instance, a study by Groves and Horm-Wingerd (1991) indicated that partners in long distance relationships took each other seriously than the proximal relationships would do. These findings suggest that couples value and make greats efforts in making use of the time they have together. Thus, they are more likely to experience satisfaction and deep intimacy in their relationships.
A section of the shared time discovered in the empirical literature constituted of a shared social network, such as engaging family and friends in the couple’s activities. Related to these outlined suggestions, it is unspecified the extent to which a social network is a good relational strategy for partners in long distance relationships. Anyone is capable of assuming that long distance partners use different social networks because of the distance between them.
Merolla (2010) contributed her work to the journal of the international association for relationship research, which was titled connecting here and there: a model of long distance relationship maintenance while studying the models of relationship maintenance. Merolla’s model covered the relational cognition and interaction patterns intimate partners display before, during, and after the periods of separation as a way of maintaining relational quality. The author divided the study into three phases. The first phase included inductive analysis in which 178 type of maintenance was discovered. Phase two and there utilized factor evaluation and backed up the 10-facttor model. Successive tests evaluated the effects of these factors in intimacy, satisfaction, and stress for intimate partners in long distance relationships.
Conclusion
Multiple studies assessing long distance relationships and proximal relationships have been in existence over the past years. Exploring the specific characteristic related to each type of relationship assists individual in discovering their strength and weaknesses in a relationship. At, the beginning the paper was motivated to answer which of the two relationship types as the best. However, after further exploration of literature, it is logical to state that the success of any relationships depends on the individuals in the relationship. Besides, communication, strategies of relational maintenance, and the different levels of commitment define the success of long distance relationships. In a more conclusive way, these reviews failed to indicate that partners in long distance relationships experienced more intimacy than those in proximal relationships. It would only be standard to make such an assumption if the studies were dome in almost every region in the world and covered different levels of relationship such as premarital dating or marriage. Also, the study would be comprehensive if it considered the age range in examining long distance relationships. A deep evaluation of these studies shows that love has a non-discriminatory aspect and is ignorant of the distance between intimate partners. It knows no bounds.
Reference
Attridge, M. (1994). Barriers to the dissolution of romantic relationships. In D. J.
Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and Relational Maintenance (pp.141-164).
New York: Academic Press.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communications Monographs, 59(3), 243-267.
Groves, M. M., & Horm-Wingerd, D. M. (1991). Commuter marriages: Personal, family and career issues. Sociology and social research, 75(4), 212-217.
Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 412.
Johnson, M. P. (1991). Commitment to personal relationships. Advances in personal relationships, 3, 117-143.
Kauffman, M. H. (2000). Relational maintenance in long-distance dating relationships: Staying close (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and State University).
Lydon, J., Pierce, T., & O'Regan, S. (1997). Coping with moral commitment to long-distance dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 104.
Merolla, A. J. (2010). Relational maintenance and non-presence reconsidered: Conceptualizing geographic separation in close relationships. Communication Theory, 20(2), 169-193.
Parks, M. R. (1982). Ideology in interpersonal communication: Off the couch and into the world (pp. 79-107). M. Burgoon (Ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Peterson, K. K. (2014). Distance Makes the Heart Grow Fonder: Do Long-Distance Relationships Have an Effect on Levels of Intimacy in Romantic Relationships? Global Tides, 8(1), 8.
Stafford, L., & Reske, J. R. (1990). Idealization and communication in long-distance premarital relationships. Family relations, 274-279.
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender, and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8(2), 217-242.
Stafford, L., Daly, J. A., & Reske, J. R. (1987). The effects of romantic relationships on friendship networks. In Annual Conference of the Speech Communication Association, Boston, MA.
Westefeld, J. S., & Liddell, D. (1982). Coping with long-distance relationships. Journal of College Student Personnel.
