ArticlePDF Available

A relational uncertainty analysis of jealousy, trust, and maintenance in long‐distance versus geographically close relationships

March 2001
Communication Quarterly 49(2):172-188

Authors:

La Salle University

This study uses an uncertainty framework to uncover the patterns of relationships between uncertainty, jealousy, maintenance, and trust in two types of long‐distance relationships (LDRs; both those without face‐to‐face contact and those with some face‐to‐face contact) and geographically close relationships (GCRs). Data were collected from 311 individuals. Results supported the hypothesized relationships, with relational uncertainty positively related to cognitive and emotional jealousy, negatively related to five maintenance behaviors, and negatively related to trust. Counter to predictions, individuals in GCRs did not experience less relational uncertainty than individuals in LDRs with some face‐to‐face contact, but those in LDRs with some face‐to‐face contact were significantly more certain of their relationships than were those in LDRs without face‐to‐face contact. Finally, individuals in long‐distance relationships with no face‐to‐face interaction were significantly less likely to use the maintenance behaviors of assurances or sharing tasks, and expressed significantly less trust than individuals in long‐distance relationships with some face‐to‐face interaction.

Content uploaded by Marianne Dainton

Content may be subject to copyright.

A Relational Uncertainty Analysis

of Jealousy, Trust, and Maintenance

in Long-Distance versus Geographically

Close Relationships

Marianne Dainton and Brooks Aylor

This study uses an uncertainty framework to uncover the patterns of relationships

between uncertainty, jealousy, maintenance, and trust in two types of long-distance

relationships (LDRs; both those without face-to-face contact and those with some

face-tO'face contact) and geographically close relationships (GCRs). Data were

collected

from 311 individuals. Results supported the hypothesized relationships,

with relational uncertainty positively related to cognitive and emotional jealousy,

negatively related to five maintenance behaviors, and negatively related to trust.

Counter to predictions, individuals in GCRs did not experience less relational

uncertainty than individuals in LDRs with some

face-to-face

contact, but those in

LDRs with some face-to-face contact were significantly more certain of their

relationships than were those in LDRs without face-to-face contact. Finally,

individuals in long-distance relationships with no face-to-face interaction were

significantly less likely to use the maintenance behaviors of assurances or sharing

tasks, and expressed significantly less trust than individuals in long-distance

relationships with some face-to-face interaction.

KEY CONCEPTS jealousy, trust, relational maintenance, uncertainty, long-

distance relationships

Marianne Dainton (Ph.D., The Ohio State University, 1994) is an Associate

Professor, Department of Communication, La Salle University, Philadelphia,

PA 19141-1199. Brooks Aylor (Ph.D., University of Arizona, 1998) is an

Assistant Professor of Communication, La Salle University, Philadelphia, PA

19141.

The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their

considerable advice on this article. In addition, they would like to thank Kory

Floyd for advice with data analysis; lenna Katits for data entry; and the

students of Communication 316 during Fall, 1999 for assistance with data

collection.

ecently, scholars have turned their attention to the processes that foster the

success of long-distance relationships (LDRs). Such a concern seems

warranted, since between 25% and 40% of all romantic relationships among

Communication Quarterly,

Vol.

49 No

Spring

2001.

Pages 172-188

college students are long distance (Dellmann-Jenkins, Bernard-Paolucci, & Rushing,

1993).

Moreover, changes in technology and the workplace have contributed to the

growth of commuter marriages, and other sorts of distance relationships (Armour,

1998).

Accordingly, an understanding of the means by which these relationships might

be maintained is of practical value. This manuscript provides a theoretical rationale

grounded in an uncertainty framework by which long-distance relationships and

geographically close relationships (GCRs) might vary. Specifically, we propose that

relational uncertainty can be linked in predicted ways with experiences of jealousy, the

use of maintenance behaviors, and relational trust; that individuals in LDRs

experience greater relational uncertainty due to the physical distance; and that this

heightened relational uncertainty among those in LDRs will lead to increased jealousy,

decreased use of maintenance behaviors, and decreased relational trust when

compared to individuals in GCRs.

Conceptual Frame

Although uncertainty reduction theory is most often considered a theory of

relational development, the theory is also applicable to established relationships (see

e.g., Planalp & Honeycutt, 1985; Planalp, Rutherford, & Honeycutt, 1988). In short,

uncertainty reduction theory (URT) suggests that in order for relationships to be

maintained, relational partners must manage their uncertainty by constantly

updating their knowledge of themselves, their partners, and their relationship (Berger

& Bradac, 1982). This presumption is born out by research, which has established that

uncertainty levels are in flux throughout the lifespan of a relationship (Planalp &

Honeycutt, 1985; Planalp et al., 1988).

Nevertheless, it is likely that the nature of uncertainty changes in established

versus new relationships. Rather than experiencing general uncertainty, or

uncertainty about the partner, individuals in established relationsliips are likely to

experience

relational

uncertainty. Relational uncertainty is uncertainty about the

status or future of the relationship (AfiB & Reichert, 1996; Ficara & Mongoau, 2000;

Knobloch & Solomon, 1999). Research supports the assertion that relational

uncertainty is distinct from partner uncertainty (Ficara & Mongeau, 2000). Further,

uncertainty about the relationship may be particularly detrimental to relational

stability (Berger, 1987).

An uncertainty framework considers relational uncertainty to be a fundamental

attribute of the relational experience. Moreover, it is assumed that relational

uncertainty will affect other variables in predictable ways. For example, Planalp and

Honeycutt (1985) argued that uncertainty in established relationships might affect

beliefs about the relationship, emotions, and communication. In the present study,

relational uncertainty is presumed to be the underlying mechanism for linking three

variables representing each of the categories identified by Planalp and Honeycutt:

trust (a relationship variable), jealousy (an emotion), and maintenance behaviors

(communication). For a visual representation of the theoretical relationships between

these variables, see Figure 1.

The proposed theoretical relationships are supported by previous research. First,

uncertainty about the relationship is at the core of the experience of jealousy, with

individuals experiencing higher levels of relational uncertainty more likely to

experience jealousy (Afifi & Reichert, 1996). Second, maintenance strategies

themselves might serve as a means for uncertainty reduction. For example, one way

FIGURE 1

Relationships Between Uncertainty, Jealousy, Maintenance, and Trust

Relational

UncertaintyMaintenance

to reduce uncertainty is through self-disclosure, which has also been identified as a

relational maintenance strategy (Berger & Kellermann, 1983; Stafford & Canary,

1991).

Similarly, assuring communication-saying things such as "I love you" and

emphasizing the future of the relationship—is also both an uncertainty reduction

strategy and a maintenance strategy. In support of this assertion, Ficara and Mongeau

(2000) found that relational uncertainty was negatively associated with three

maintenance strategies: openness, assurances, and positivity. Finally, a number of

scholars have established the link between relational uncertainty and trust, such that

the presence of uncertainty decreases trust (Holmes & Rempel, 1987; Planalp et al

1988).

Given the theoretical relationships among these variables, as well as previous

research support for these relationships, the first hypothesis is offered:

HI:

Relational uncertainty will be positively associated with jealousy,

negatively associated with maintenance, and negatively associated

with trust.

Lo?ig-Distance Relationships

Knobloch and Solomon (1999) asserted that there were two potential sources for

relational uncertainty; extrinsic factors, such as physical distance, and intrinsic

factors, such as unequal levels of commitment between the partners. Providing more

detail, Ficara and Mongeau (2000) found seven specific sources of relational

uncertainty: stage uncertainty, physical distance, personal distance, conflict, rival

174Dainton and Aylor

partners, sex, and sexual transgressions. Finally, Emmers and Canary (1996) found

that physical distance was an uncertainty-inducing event. Together, these studies

suggest that although uncertainty is likely to occur in all established relationships, it

may

even more likely in

LDRs,

as physical distance is a common source of relational

uncertainty. Indeed, according to Berger and Bradac, "Nowhere is the necessity for

uncertainty reduction in ongoing relationships more apparent than in situations

where relational partners spend considerable amounts of time away from each other"

(1982,

p. 13).

Given the likelihood that greater distance increases relational uncertainty, GCRs

are likely to be different than

LDRs.

However, it might further be true that not all long-

distance relationships are the same. Too often, those studying distance relationships

have examined LDRs as a homogeneous relational type (Sahlstein, 1999). That is, few

studies have examined specific forms of LDRs and the relational characteristics that

differentiate one distance relationship from another. An exception is the work of

Dainton and Aylor (in press). Focusing on channels of communication, these authors

proposed that although all distance relationships, by definition, provide limited face-

to-face contact, it is likely that those who experience periodic visits with tbeir partner

may communicate differently than those with no face-to-face contact. Indeed, using

an uncertainty framework, the lack of face-to-face contact is likely to engender even

greater relational uncertainty than mere distance alone.

Providing support for the distinction between the two types of LDRs, Holt and

Stone (1988) found that LDRs with fewer than one visit per month experienced lower

satisfaction than other relational types. Regarding differences in communication,

Dainton and Aylor (in press) found differences in the use of maintenance strategies

and perceptions of relational success when comparing individuals in LDRs who

reported no face-to-face contact during an average week with those experiencing

some face-to-face interaction. Specifically, those experiencing periodic face-to-face

interaction used three of five maintenance strategies (positivity, assurances, and

sharing tasks) significantly more often than those who experienced no face-to-face

contact.

To summarize, physical distance is a significant contributor to relational

uncertainty (Emmers

Canary, 1996; Ficara

Mongeau, 2000; Knobloch

Solomon,

1999).

This would suggest that there should be differences in the relational uncertainty

of those in GCRs versus LDRs. Further, differences in the quality and communication

of LDR relationships with no face-to-face interaction versus LDRs with some face-to-

face interaction suggests that within LDRs there are variations that might be traced to

relational uncertainty. This leads to our second hypothesis:

H2:

Individuals in LDRs with no face-to-face interaction will report the

greatest relational uncertainty; individuals in GCRs will report the least

relational uncertainty. •

jealousy

Romantic jealousy is defined as the reaction to a perceived threat to the exclusive

romantic nature of the relationship (Bringle & Boebinger, 1990). Jealousy is usually

regarded as multidimensional, consisting of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral

elements (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). Cognitive jealousy refers to suspicious thoughts or

worries about a perceived relational threat, whereas emotional jealousy refers to

LDRs 175

feelings of anger, fear, and insecurity related to the threat (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989).

Finally, behavioral jealousy refers to communication of thoughts or feelings of jealousy

(Pfeiffer

Wong, 1989). Both cognitive and emotional jealousy are considered part of

the jealousy

experience,

whereas behavioral jealousy may be better conceptualized as

jealousy expression (Guerrero, Eloy, Jorgensen, & Anderson, 1993). Accordingly,

cognitive and emotional jealousy will be used to represent the jealousy experience in

this manuscript.

There are reasons to suspect that the experience of jealousy might differ for those

in LDRs and

GCRs.

First, Afifi and Reichert (1996) found positive associations between

partners' relational uncertainty levels and their jealousy experience. Recall that Berger

and Bradac (1982) argued that those in LDRs were more likely to experience

uncertainty than do those in GCRs. This argument is supported by research that

suggests that physical distance is a factor influencing relational uncertainty (Emmers

& Canary, 1996; Ficara & Mongeau, 2000; Knobloch & Solomon, 1999). Accordingly,

the geographic separation and limited face-to-face contact characteristic of LDRs

should increase the uncertainty levels of those in distance relationships, and thus

increase their jealousy experience.

In addition to the LDR and GCR distinction, it is possible that partners in different

types of LDRs experience differing levels of jealousy. Dainton and Aylor (in press)

argued that LDRs that include periodic face-to-face contact are both qualitatively and

quantitatively different from those LDRs without periodic face-to-face contact. Such

differences might hold true for the experience of jealousy, as the increased relational

uncertainty associated with the lack of contact is likely to increase jealousy (Afifi &

Reichert, 1996). In particular, the lack of interaction might increase jealous rumination

(Carson & Cupach, 2000). Rumination is defined as "thoughts that are conscious,

recurrent, instru men tally oriented, and not demanded by the immediate

environment" (Martin

Tesser, 1996, p.

21).

Thus, the following hypothesis examines

differences in jealousy experience among those in LDRs and GCRs, as well as

differences in the jealousy experience between the two types of LDRs.

H3:

Individuals in GCRs will report the least cognitive and emotional

jealousy, and individuals in LDRs with no face-to-face contact will

report the most cognitive and emotional jealousy.

Relationship Maintenance

Relationship maintenance refers to efforts to keep a relationship in a specified

state or condiHon (Dindia & Canary, 1993). Most research has used satisfaction as the

dependent variable, but other variables identified as salient include conunitment,

love,

and trust (Dindia, 2000). Although several typologies of maintenance behaviors

exist (see Dindia, 2000), the most frequently used is that of Stafford and Canary (1991).

Through factor analysis, Stafford and Canary uncovered five maintenance

techniques: positivity (behaving in a cheerful and optimistic manner), openness

(self-

disclosure and direct discussion of the relationship), assurances (messages stressing

commitment to the partner and relationship), social networks (relying upon con:imon

friends and affiliations), and sharing tasks (equal responsibility for accomplishing

tasks that face the couple). Results of a program of research indicate that these

behaviors are consistent and strong predictors of relational characteristics such as

satisfaction, commitment, and trust (Canary & Stafford, 1992, 1993; Stafford &

176 Dainton and Aylor

Canary, 1991). . . . ;

Very little research has directly focused on the means by which LDRs are

maintained. An exception is the research of Dainton and Kilmer (1999), who explored

differences in the expectations of partners in LDRs versus GCRs regarding the use of

maintenance behaviors, and whether these expectations were met. That is, these

authors examined partners' expectations of what should happen in a relationship as

opposed to what they actually did in the relationship. Dainton and Kilmer (1999)

found that individuals in LDRs and GCRs had similar expectations regarding the use

of maintenance behaviors, but that individuals in LDRs had their expectations for

maintenance behaviors fulfilled to a greater extent than did those in GCRs. This would

imply that those in long-distance relationships might actually be performing more

maintenance behaviors, despite potential limitations in face-to-face interaction. This

would be counter to an uncertainty framework, as the presumed greater uncertainty

of those in long-distance relationships should inhibit the use of maintenance behaviors

(see Ficara & Mongeau, 2000). Recall that Dainton and Kilmer (1999) did not directly

test whether expectancy fulfillment was a result of these individuals actually

performing more maintenance, however. Their results may be a function of cognitive

dist<irtion. Indeed, in support of an uncertainty explanation of relational maintenance,

Dainton and Aylor (in press) found that individuals in LDRs with some face-to-face

contact performed more relational maintenance than did individuals in LDRs with no

face-to-face interaction.

Accordingly, at question is whether those in differing types of LDRs and GCRs

actually perform maintenance behaviors with the same frequency. An uncertainty

framework would suggest that individuals in LDRs —especially those with little to no

face-to-face contact—might experience more relational uncertainty due to the

physical distance (Ficara & Mongeau, 2000; Knobloch & Solomon, 1999). This

increased uncertainty would in turn be associated with those in such LDRs performing

fewer maintenance behaviors (Ficara & Mongeau, 2000). Moreover, the relationship

between physical distance and uncertainty would also suggest that those in GCRs

might experience less relational uncertainty, and therefore they would perform more

relational maintenance. Accordingly, the next research hypothesis is offered:

H4:

Individuals in GCRs will report the most use of maintenance behaviors,

and individuals in LDRs with no face-to-face contact will report the

least use of maintenance behaviors.

Trust

The final variable of concern is trust. Relational trust refers to the expectation that

a partner can be relied upon to behave in a responsive and benevolent manner

(Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985). Although research indicates that trust is crucial to

relational quality, relatively little research has directly addressed trust in close

relationships (Couch & Jones, 1997). This is surprising, as trust seems to be a crucial

element in the maintenance of relationships, particularly for those involved in LDRs

(Westefeld & Liddell, 1982).

From an uncertainty framework, increases in relational uncertainty are associated

with decreases in trust (Planalp & Honeycutt, 1985). Accordingly, assuming that

individuals in LDRs experience greater relational uncertainty, they should also

experience less trust than individuals in GCRs. Only one study to date has actually

LDRs 177

compared trust levels among individuals in LDRs and GCRs, however. Guldner and

Swensen (1995) found no significant differences in the level of trust between the two

groups. However, they adnut that their measure of trust did not demonstrate stability,

and accordingly "one should interpret these scales with caution" (Guldner

Swensen,

1995,

p. 317).

Moreover, research to date has not considered variations in LDR types. Since we

know that uncertainty is negatively associated with trust, and since physical distance

is associated with increased relational uncertainty, then an uncertainty framework

would lead us to suspect variations in trust among those in GCRs and those in both

types of

LDRs.

This leads to our final hypothesis:

H5:

Individuals in GCRs will report the greatest trust, and individuals in

LDRs with no face-to-face contact will report the least trust.

METHOD

A total of 334 participants were recruited via two methods. First, students taking

a freshmen year experience course at a small, private university were solicited in class

to fill out a questionnaire (N = 132). Second, students in an undergraduate

communication research class recruited participants (N = 202) through network

sampling.' Specifically, as part of a class research project, each student was asked to

distribute questionnaires to 10 individuals currently in a romantic relationship.

Attached to the questionnaire was an envelope; after filling out the questionnaire,

respondents sealed the survey in the envelope and either returned it to the student

(who gave the sealed envelope to the instructor) or mailed it directly to the course

instructor. Respondents were assured of complete confidentiality. Participants were

asked to provide contact information for verification purposes (home phone number),

and the authors contacted one-third of the participants to further assure the integrity

of the data.

Results are based on 311 participants; 23 participants were dropped from the

study because they were married. Previous research has indicated that dating

individuals experience more cognitive and emotional jealousy than do married

individuals (Guerrero et al., 1993); married individuals use different maintenance

strategies than do dating individuals (Dainton & Stafford, 1993); and that married

individuals experience different levels of trust than do dating individuals (Guerrero

& Andersen, 1998). Accordingly, it was deemed inappropriate to include the married

individuals in this study.

The average age of the respondents was 20.28, with a range from 17 to 39 (SD =

2.99). There were 135 males and 176 females. Approximately 86% of the sample (n =

268) were white, 4.5% were black (n = 14), 3.3% were Hispanic (n = 10), 2.6% were

Asian/Pacific Islander (n = 8), and 3.2% indicated "other" (n = 10). Regarding year in

school,

31.8%

were first-year students (n

99),

12.2%

were sophomores (n

38), 20.6%

were juniors (n =

64),

27%

were seniors (n =

84),

and 8.4% were not currently students

(n = 26). The average length of the relationship was 18.8 months (i.e., 1.6 years; range

= 1 month to 11.5 years). Regarding relational type,

23.5%

were casually dating (n =

73),

71.7%

were seriously dating (n

223),

4.2%

were engaged (n

13),

and two people

failed to indicate relational type.

Researchers have debated the most effective manner in which to conceptualize

long-distance relationships. Although some past research has used miles apart to

Dainton and Aylor

categorize LDRs, Dellmann-Jenkins et. al (1993) argue that a more valid approach is

to allow respondents to self-define whether their relationship is long distance. A

number of researchers concur, including Ficara and Mongeau, 2000; Guldner and

Swensen,

1995;

and Maguire,

1999.

This research assumes that individuals' definitions

of their own relationships are salient to their experiences. Additionally, "miles

separated" standards have varied greatly across studies, potentially resulting in very

different outcomes in LDR research. Consistent with a self-defining approach, in the

current study participants responded to tbe question "Would you consider your

current romantic relationship to be a long-distance relationship (for this study, a long-

distance relationship is one in which you cannot see your partner, face-to-face, most

days)?"

Those who answered this question affirmatively in the current study (n = 113)

were considered to be in LDRs. Of the total sample, 37 people identified themselves as

being in LDRs in which there was no face-to-face contact in typical week, 73 people

identified themselves as being in LDRs with some face-to-face contact (M = 1.7 times

per week, SD

.47), 3 people were in LDRs but failed to identify the frequency of their

face-to-face interaction, and 196 people were in GCRs. Two people failed to identify

whether they were in a long-distance relationship or not.

Instrumentation

Relational Uncertainty. Because relational uncertainty

defined

uncertainty

about the status

future

the relationship (Afifi & Reichert, 1996; Ficara & Mongeau,

2000;

Knobloch

Solomon, 1999),

in the

present study relational uncertainty

was

measured

by two

items. Specifically, using

7-point Likert scale wherein

strongly

disagree

and

7 = strongly agree, respondents were asked:

think

it is

unlikely that this

relationship will

end in the

future,"

and "I

think

relationship with

partner

very stable." Responses were subsequently reverse-scored, so that higher scores would

indicate greater relational uncertainty. Alpha reliability

for the

measure

was .80 (M =

2.67,

SD =

.22).

As a means

for

providing construct validity

for

this measure,

it was

predicted that

individuals

casually dating relationships should report greater relational

uncertainty than individuals

seriously dating

engaged relationships

(see

Ficara

& Mongeau, 2000).

ANOVA provided support

for

this prediction

(2,306)

50.70,

< .001

Tukey B tests

comparison indicated that casually dating individuals

(M =

8.23,

3.44)

reported significantly greater uncertainty than seriously dating

(M =

4.52,

SD =

2.65)

engaged

(M =

3.15,

SD = 2.4)

individuals.

Maintenance.

The

scale first developed

Stafford

and

Canary (1991)

and

subsequently revised

Canary

and

Stafford (1992)

was

used.

For

each

of the

five

maintenance categories described earlier, respondents indicated

how

often they

had

performed

the

behaviors

in the

last

two

weeks using

7-point Likert scale.

Respondents were instructed

only report those behaviors they have done recently,

and

to not

report things they once

did but

have

not

done lately.

The

five maintenance

categories were positivity

.83,

M =

5.8,

1.4),

openness

.84,

M =

5.6,

SD =

1.2), assurances

.85,

5.8,

1.3),

social networks

= .86,

M =

5.2, SD

= 1.8),

and shared tasks

.73,

M =

5.5,

1.4).

Experience of jealousy. Guerrero

et al.'s

(1993) modification

Pfeiffer

and

Wong's

(1989) emotional jealousy scale

was

used

.91,

M =

2.51,

SD =

.82),

as was

Pfeiffer

and Wong's (1989) cognitive jealousy scale

.91,

M =

2.73,

.63). The cognitive

jealousy scale taps into suspicious thoughts,

and

includes items such

as "I am

worried

.DRs

179

that some member of the opposite sex may be chasing after my partner," and "I suspect

that my partner may be attracted to someone else." The emotional jealousy scale

focuses on feelings about jealousy threats, and includes items such as "It angers me

when members of the opposite sex try to get close to my partner," and "I feel anxious

when my partner shows a great deal of attention to someone of the opposite sex."

Trust. The short version of Larzelere and Huston's (1980) measure of trust was

used in the current study (or = .87, M

6.0, SD = .78). The short version includes the

following items: "My partner is perfectly honest and truthful with me," "My partner

treats me fairly and justly," "I feel that I can trust my partner completely," and "I feel

that my partner can be counted on to help me."

RESULTS

The first hypothesis predicted that relational uncertainty would be positively

related to jealousy, negatively related to the use of maintenance, and negatively

related to reported trust. Pearson correlations were computed, and the hypothesis was

supported; there were significant correlations between the variables in the predicted

fashion, and most of these correlations were moderately strong. Results are reported

in Table 1.

TABLE 1

Correlations Between Relational Uncerminlv. Jealousv. Maintenance,

and

Trust

Cog. Jeal

EmoJeal

Positivity

Open.

Assur.

Network

Tasks

Tnjst

Uncerl.

.51***

.23***

-.42***

-.26***

-.68***

-.23***

-.36***

-.67***

Cog.

Jealousy

.58***

-.22***

-.12*

-.31***

-.19***

-.12*

-.61***

Emo.

Jealousy

-.22***

-.10

-.09

-.21***

-.11

-.37***

Positivity

.24***

.38***

.42***

.31***

.43***

Open.

.57***

.08

.31***

.16**

Assur.

.45***

42***

Network

.41***

.31***

Tasks

.31***

Specifically, relational uncertainty

was

significantly, positively associated with

both measures

jealousy,

was

significantly, negatively associated with

the

five

maintenance behaviors,

and was

significantly, negatively associated with trust.

Further, although

not

hypothesized,

the

other relationships

in the

model proposed

Figure

between jealousy, maintenance,

and

trust were also

as the

model would

predict. That is, jealousy

and

maintenance were significantly, negatively correlated,

maintenance and trust were significantly, positively correlated, and jealousy and trust

were significantly, negatively correlated.

further test

of the

relationships between these variables,

the

jealousy,

maintenance,

and

trust measures were regressed

relational uncertainty. Because

there

is no

theoretical reason

suspect that

any one of

these variables would

be a

better predictor than any

the others,

forced entry was used. Results indicated that

all three classes

variables contributed

relational uncertainty

(8, 284)

70.42,

.001],

with

adjusted R^

.66. Significant contributors included assurances

(^ =

-.54),

trust

(^ =

-.36), openness (/?

.16),

and

cognitive jealousy (j8

.18).

The second through fifth hypotheses predicted differences among

the

three

180

Dainton and Aylor

groups—LDRs with no face-to-face interaction, LDRs with some face-to-face

interaction, and GCRs—in their reported relational uncertainty, jealousy, use of

maintenance behaviors, and trust. Specifically, we predicted that relative to the other

groups, individuals in LDRs with no face-to-face interaction would report

experiencing significantly higher relational uncertainty, significantly more cognitive

and emotional jealousy, that they would report significantly less use of maintenance

behaviors, and that they would report significantly less trust. At the same time, we

predicted that relative to the other groups, individuals in GCRs would report

experiencing significantly less relational uncertainty, significantly less cognitive and

emotional jealousy, that they would report significantly greater use of maintenance

behaviors, and that they would report significantly more trust.

These hypotheses were tested using a series of planned linear contrasts. For the

tests of relational uncertainty and jealousy, LDRs with no face-to-face interaction were

assigned a contrast weight of 1, LDRs with some FTF were assigned a contrast weight

of 0, and GCRs were assigned a contrast weight of

-1.

These weights were reversed to

test the use of maintenance and trust, so that LDRs with no face-to-face interaction

received a

-1,

LDRs with some face-to-face interaction received a 0, and GCRs received

al.

The hypotheses were only partially supported. Specifically, hypothesis 2 centered

on differences among the groups on relational uncertainty. An ANOVA indicated a

significant difference between the three relational types [F [2, 303) = 3.70, p

.05, fj^ =

.02].

However, the contrast was nonsignificant [t (303) = -1.70, p = .09]. Tukey B tests

of comparison revealed that, as predicted, individuals in LDRs with no face-to-face

contact experienced more relational uncertainty (M = 6.41, SD = 3.42) than did

individuals in LDRs with some face-to-face interaction (M =

4.64,

2.80). However,

those in GCRs were not significantly different than the other two groups (M =

5.41,

= 3.38).

Hypothesis 3 centered on differences among the groups on cognitive and

emotional jealousy. ANOVAs failed to detect a difference among the groups on

cognitive jealousy [F (2, 301) = 2.92, p = .06] or emotional jealousy [F (2, 299) = 0.43, p

= .65]. The contrasts were also nonsignificant: for cognitive jealousy [t (301) = 1.73, p

= .09], and for emotional jealousy [t (299) =

-.51,

;' = .61].

Hypothesis 4 centered on differences among the groups on the use of maintenance

behaviors. A MANOVA provided partial support for this hypothesis [Wilks'

= .92, F

(10,

574) = 2.43, p < .05. rj- = .05]. Univariate tests indicated that the groups were

significantly different in their use of assurances [F (2, 291) = 3.34, p

.05, if = .02] and

sharing tasks [F (2,291) =

4.63,

p <

.01,

Tj^

.03].

However, only one of the contrasts was

significant-the contrast for the use of sharing tasks |/ (300) = 2.41, /' = .02]. Results of

the other contrasts were as follows; positivity [t (296) =

1.30,/)

= .20], openness {t (297)

= 0.37, p

.71], assurances [t (301) = 0.58, p

.57], and network [t (300) = 1.79, p

.07].

Tukey B tests of difference indicated that, as predicted, individuals in LDRs with

no face-to-face interaction reported the least use of assurances (M = 21.89, SD

5.71),

which was significantly less than individuals in LDRs with some face-to-face

interaction (M = 24.64, SD

4.89). However, counter to the prediction, individuals in

GCRs did not use significantly more assurances than either of the LDR groups (M =

22.77,

SD = 6.13).

A similar pattern was found for sharing tasks. Those in LDRs with no face-to-face

contact reported significantly less use of this behavior than the other two groups (M

LDRs 181

9.91,

SD = 3.20). However, there were no differences in the use of sharing tasks in the

GCR {M = 11.08, SD = 2.53) or LDR with face-to-face groups (M = 11.44, SD = 2.31).

Accordingly, hypothesis four was only partially supported; individuals in LDRs with

no face-to-face interaction did indeed use significantly less maintenance, but

individuals in GCRs did not use significantly more maintenance.

The final hypothesis predicted differences among the groups in trust. An ANOVA

indicated significant differences between the groups [F (2,303) = 4.36, p

.05,

Tf^

.03],

but again, the contrast was nonsignificant [t (303) =

.07,

.95]. Indeed, a Tukey B test

of difference found that individuals in LDRs with some face-to-face interaction (M =

25.26,

SD = 3.53) reported significantly higher trust than the other two groups (LDRs

with no face-to-face interaction M = 23.30, SD = 3.84; GCR M = 23.36, SD = 5.38).

Accordingly, this hypothesis was not supported.

DISCUSSION

The present study provides both good news and bad news for the uncertainty

framework articulated in this paper. On the positive side, the results of the tests of the

first hypothesis provide support for the theoretical links between relational

uncertainty, jealousy, maintenance, and trust described in Figure 1. In fact, although

the negative correlations between jealousy and maintenance were predicted, this is the

first test to date to actually support that theoretical link.

Not only were the correlations in tbe predicted directions, but the relationships

were generally substantial; the smallest correlations were .23 (between uncertainty

and emotional jealousy) and -.23 (between uncertainty and networks). Two

correlations were relatively strong. Uncertainty and trust were correlated at -.67, and

uncertainty and assurances were correlated at

-.68.

Finally, a substantial amount of the

variance in relational uncertainty —66%—was explained by four variables:

assurances (a negative predictor), trust (a negative predictor), openness (a positive

predictor), and cognitive jealousy (a positive predictor).

The extent to which relational uncertainty is associated with jealousy,

maintenance, and trust, and particularly to the four variables that entered the

regression equation, both supports and extends previous research. First, it is not

surprising that the use of assurances is a negative predictor of relational uncertainty.

By definition, relational assurances are efforts to reassure the partner about the

individual's commitment to the relationship (Stafford & Canary, 1991). Scale items

operationalizing assurances include statements such as "I have stressed my

commitment to my partner," and "I have implied that our relationship has a future,"

both of which directly speak to the stability and the future of the relationship (i.e.,

relational uncertainty). Conceptually, then, assurances reflect a direct means of

reducing relational uncertainty. Moreover, it is consistent with past research, which

has found a negative relationship between the use of assurances and relational

uncertainty (Ficara & Mongeau, 2000).

The potency of trust in predicting uncertainty is a bit more novel. Traditional

means for uncertainty reduction include passive, active, and interactive strategies

(e.g., Berger & Bradac, 1982). Trust does not clearly fit into any of these categories.

However, Emmers and Canary (1996) found that in established relationships, a fourth

strategy emerged, which they called "uncertainty acceptance." Among the examples

for this uncertainty response they included "trusting partner." However, Emmers and

Canary found that this class of responses was used relatively infrequently (10% to

13%

182 Dainton and Ayior

of the time), and that there was no evidence that uncertainty acceptance was any more

effective for relational repair than the traditional interactive, active, and passive

strategies. The present study confirms that trust may be a means for reducing

relational uncertainty. However, going beyond previous research, the results of the

present study suggest that trust may be a potent means for reducing relational

uncertainty, and should be considered an important uncertainty reduction strategy

for those in established relationships.

The relationship between openness and relational uncertainty is a bit more

puzzling. The Pearson correlation indicates a negative relationship between

uncertainty and openness, which would lead one to believe that openness might be a

means of uncertainty reduction. Indeed, this comports with previous research, which

suggests that direct discussions are an interactive means of reducing uncertainty (e.g.,

Berger & Bradac, 1982; Emmers & Canary, 1996). However, when entered into a

regression equation, openness emerged as a negative predictor of relational

uncertainty, suggesting that the more open an individual was, the more uncertain he

or she was. There are several explanations for this pattern. First, previous research has

established that in contrast to the predictions of URT, high levels of uncertainty in

established relationships inhibit direct communication (Afifi & Reichert, 1996;

Planalp et al., 1988). Accordingly, openness may not be the force for uncertainty

reduction in established relationships that it is in initial interactions. Further, the use

of the multiple regression procedure itself might explain the result; as Stafford and

Canary (1991) explain, once the variation due to reassuring communication is

removed (i.e., assurances), the remaining openness is likely to be either neutral or

negative in nature. Indeed, it is easy to imagine a scenario where a relational partner's

negative disclosures might increase an individual's relational uncertainty (e.g., a

partner discloses "I don't love you as much as I did.").

Finally, the extent to which the presence of cognitive jealousy predicted relational

uncertainty is consistent with previous research (Afifi & Reichert, 1996). Moreover, it

is not surprising that cognitive jealousy was associated with relational uncertainty to

a greater extent than was emotional jealousy. Recall that cognitive jealousy refers to

suspicious thoughts or worries about a perceived threat to the relationship (Pfeiffer &

Wong, 1989). The operationalization of relational uncertainty used in this study also

referred to an individual's thoughts about the stability and future of the relationship.

On the other hand, the measure of emotional stability references emotional responses

such as anger, anxiety, or envy. The variations in the experience of these emotions may

very well be due to things other than relational uncertainty alone, such as personality

or self-esteem (Salovey & Rodin, 1985).

Finally, in discussing the results of this regression equation, it should be noted that

a causal relationship between the aforementioned four variables (assurances,

openness, trust, and cognitive jealousy) and relational uncertainty cannot be made.

Although there are theoretical reasons to suspect that the use of assurances, for

example, might reduce relational uncertainty, it is also plausible that individuals with

little relational uncertainty might be more inclined to use assurances. Future research

should strive to uncover the causal links between these variables.

Continuing with the "good news," the present study provides further evidence

that not all LDRs are the same. The results of this study confirm that LDRs are not

homogeneous, and that the amount of time spent in face-to-face interaction can

successfully distinguish between LDR types (Dainton & Aylor, in press). The

LDRs 183

importance of this pattern of findings should be emphasized. Most examinations of

LDRs have considered distance relationships as a homogeneous relational type, and so

comparisons have been limited to GCRs versus LDRs. The current findings clearly

suggest that LDRs with periodic face-to-face contact are significantly different from

LDRs with no face-to-face contact. Moreover, LDRs with periodic face-to-face contact

were quite similar to GCRs. Clearly, then, future research seeking to explore the nature

of LDRs should include amount of face-to-face contact as a central variable.

Despite the importance of this distinction, however, the aforementioned results

also point to some "bad news" in the present study. Clearly, and in direct contradiction

of previous research (Emmers & Canary, 1996; Ficara & Mongeau, 2000; Knobloch &

Solomon, 1999), the physical distance did not lead to increased relational uncertainty

for individuals in LDRs with some face-to-face interaction. Of course, this might be an

artifact of our sample. It may be that we just happened to tap into a group of

individuals who were extremely well adjusted and who happened to have unusually

good relationships. Previous research sheds doubt on this likelihood, however. For

example, Stephen (1984) found that LDRs had a significantly higher rate of survival

over a two-year period than did GCRs. Stafford and Reske (1990) found similar results.

Moreover, research has found that individuals in LDRs report the same level of

satisfaction, trust, and commitment to their relationship as those in GCRs (e.g.,

Guldner & Swensen, 1995). Accordingly, the relational success of the LDRs with some

face-to-face interaction in our sample seems consistent with previous research.

Instead, it may be that the physical distance is somehow facilitative of relational

stability for those who occasionally see each other face-to-face, but that physical

distance combined with lack of face-to-face interaction does indeed increase relational

uncertainty, with correspondingly negative effects on the relationship .such as

increased jealousy and lack of trust.

Much of the previous work on LDRs has proposed that the relative satisfaction and

stability of LDRs might be a function of idealization (Dainton & Kilmer, 1999; Stafford

& Reske, 1990). Given that the present study used self-report methods, we cannot say

for certain that idealization is not the reason for the relatively high levels of relational

certainty, trust, and maintenance, and the relative lack of jealousy among those in

LDRs with some face-to-face interaction. However, it is puzzling that individuals in

LDRs without face-to-face interaction would not also experience such idealization.

After all, such relationships are even more "mental creations" than LDRs with

occasional face-to-face contact (Duck, 1986). Perhaps periodic interaction allows

idealization to be maintained. For example, partners might be on their "best behavior"

during infrequent visits, which would facilitate idealization (Stafford & Reske, 1990).

Simultaneously, it may be that a lack of face-to-face interaction engenders negative

relational rumination, which is associated with increased jealousy and decreased trust

(Carson & Cupach, 2000). Thai is, it may be that the negative ruminations might

supercede the tendency to idealize in LDRs with no face-to-face interaction. Future

research should assess the extent to which lack of face-to-face interaction might be

associated with idealization and rumination.

Turning back to the specific results of our study, hypotheses three, four, and five

predicted differences in the experience of jealousy, the use of maintenance behaviors,

and the experience of jealousy among those in LDRs with no face-to-face contact, LDRs

with some face-to-face contact, and those in GCRs. Regarding the use of maintenance,

results indicated that those in LDRs with no face-to-face contact were significantly less

184 Dainton and Aylor

likely to use assurances and sharing tasks as maintenance strategies than were

individuals in LDRs with some face-to-face interaction. The fact that individuals in

LDRs with no-face-to-face interaction used fewer assurances makes sense from a

relational uncertainty framework. Reassuring communication is strongly, negatively

associated with relational uncertainty (Fiacara & Mongeau, 2000). Becau.se

individuals in LDRs with no-face-to-face interaction experienced the greatest

relational uncertainty, it follows that they would also utilize the least amount of

assurances.

The difference in the use of sharing tasks also makes sense; although tasks can be

accomplished over distance, they are more likely to be completed when in proximity

to the partner. The fact that individuals in LDRs with some face-to-face contact did not

differ in the use of tasks from those in GCRs is a bit surprising, however. On the one

hand, it may be that sharing tasks is simply an infrequently used maintenance strategy,

so the differences in time spent together might not have an impact on the relative use

of the behavior. Yet, Dainton and Stafford (1993) found that sharing tasks is the most

frequently used routine maintenance behavior, which would suggest that this is not a

reasonable explanation. Indeed the mean score for sharing tasks in this sample (5.5 on

a scale of 1 to 7) suggests that this behavior was performed frequently. On the other

hand, it may be that, as suggested above, individuals in LDRs with some face-to-face

interaction are idealized regarding their relationship (Stafford & Reske, 1990). That is,

the "best behavior" that is enacted during periodic visits might include the cheerful

performance of instrumental tasks that might not be so cheerfully performed —or

performed at all—if the couple saw each other on a more regular basis.

There are several limitations of the present study. First, this sample was primarily

young and relatively homogeneous. Given the large percentage of college students in

distance relationships, however, one might argue that such a sample is appropriate for

the current study. Second, sci/-reports of jealousy, trust, and use of maintenance

behaviors were used in the current study. This is consistent with an uncertainty

framework; Zak, Gold, Ryckman, and Lenney (1998) found that an individual's

oii'}i

relational behaviors influenced trust more than did the partner's behavior. However,

Wieselquist, Rusbult, Foster, and Agnew^ (1999) have developed an interdependence

model of the associations between commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust.

These authors found support for their contention that perceived partner use of pro-

relational behavior accounts for more of the variance in trust than do self-reports of

behavior. Future research should seek to ascertain the interrelationships between

one's own trust, jealousy, and maintenance activities, as well as perceptions of the

partner's maintenance activities, in predicting relational uncertainty.

Finally, our measure of relational uncertainty focused on the stability and future

of the relationship. However, previous research has found that relational uncertainty

is multi-dimensional (Knobloch & Solomon, 1999). Additional elements of relational

uncertainty include behavioral norms (i.e., uncertainty about how to behave around

the partner) and mutuality (i.e., uncertainty about the extent to which relational

partners share the same degree of feelings). It would be of interest to determine if these

additional elements of relational uncertainty might affect the patterns of relationships

between uncertainty, jealousy, maintenance, and trust. For example, it may be that

individuals experiencing uncertainty about mutuality might experience more

jealousy than individuals who are simply uncertain about the future of their

relationship. Similarly, uncertainty about behavioral norms might inhibit the use of

LDRs 185

maintenance behaviors to a greater extent than uncertainty about relational stability

alone. Future research should explore these possibilities.

NOTE

'Tests were performed

determine if there were significant differences between the two samples.

Results indicate that the respondents solicited from freshmen classes weresignificantly younger

than those recruited by the research class IF

(1,

304) = 106.5, p

.001],

and that the freshmen

were in relationships of shorter duration than those recruited by the research class [F

(1,

294)

= 10.86,;;

<.OO1].

However, there were no differences in the two samples by sex

IX^

(1) = .53,

p =

.31],

race

[X^

(4) = 3.16, p

.53],

or in the number of individuals in LDRs versus GCRs [X^

(1) = 3.19, p

.07]. Accordingly, it was deemed appropriate to combine the samples.

REFERENCES

Afifi, W.A., & Reichert, T. (1996). Understanding the role of uncertainty in jealousy experience

and expression.

Communication

Reports.

9, 93-103.

Armour, S. (1998). Married ... with separation: More couples live apart as careers put miles

between them. USA

Today.

Nov. 23.

Berger, CR. (1987). Communicating under uncertainty, In M.E. Roloff & G.R. Miller (Eds.),

Interpersonal

processes:

New directions in coninntnication research

(pp. 39-62). Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Berger, C.R., & Bradac, J.J. (1982). Uncertainty and the nature of interpersonal communication.

In CR. Berger & J.J. Bradac (Eds.),

Language and social

knoivledge:

Uncertainty

interpersonal

relationships

(pp.

1-13).

London: Edward Arnold.

Berger, CR., & Kellermann, K.A. (1983). To ask or not to ask: Is that a question? In R. Bostrom

(Ed.),

Communication Yearbook

7 (pp. 342-368). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Bringle, R. C, & Boebinger, K. L. (1990). Jealousy and the "third" person in the love triangle.

journal of

Social

and Personal Relationships, 7. 119-133.

Canary, D. ]., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage.

Communication

Monographs,

59, 243-267.

Canary, D.J., & Stafford, L. (1993). Preservation of relational characteristics: Maintenance

strategies, equity, and locus of control. In P.J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.),

Interpersonal

communication:

Evolving interpersonal relationships

(pp. 237-259). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

Carson, C. L.,

Cupach, W. R. (2000). Fueling the flames of the green-eyed monster: The role of

ruminative thought in reaction to perceived relationship threat. Western journai of

Communication.

64. 308-329.

Couch, L.L.,

Jones,

W.H. (1997). Measuring levels of trust,

journal

Research in

Personality,

31,

319-336.

Dainton, M.,

Aylor,

(in press).

Patterns ofcommunication channel use in the maintenance

of long-

distance

relationships.

Communication Research

Reports.

Dainton,

M.,

Kilmer, H.

(1999,

November).

Satisfaction,

commitment,

trust,

and expectations in the

maintenance

long-distance

versus

geographically-close

relationships.

Paper presented at the

conference of the National Communication Association, Chicago.

Dainton, M.,

Stafford,

(1993).

Routine maintenance behaviors:

comparison of relationship

type,

partner similarity, and sex differences,

journal

Social and Personal

Relationships,

10,255-

272.

Dellmann-Jenkins, M., Bernard-Paolucci, T., & Rushing,

(1993). Does distance make the heart

grow fonder? A comparison of college students in long-distance and geographically close

dating relationships.

College

Student

journal,

35. 212-219.

Dainton and Aylor

Dindia, K. (2000). Relational maintenance, in C. Hendrick & S.S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close

relationships:

sourcebook

(pp. 287-300). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dindia, K., & Canary, D.J. (1993). Definitions and theoretical perspectives on maintaining

relationships, journal of

Social

and

Personal

Relationships,

10, 163-173.

Duck, S.W. (1986). Humiui

Relationships.

Newhury Park, CA: Sage.

Emmers, T.M., & Canary, D.J. (1996). The effect of uncertainty reduction strategies on young

couples' relational repair and intimacy. Communication Quarterly, 44,166-182.

Ficara, L.C., & Mongeau, P.A. (2000, November). Relational uncertainty in

long-distance college

student dating relationships. Paper presented at the National Communication Association

annual conference, Seattle, WA.

Guerrero,

L.,

Andersen, P.

(1998).

Jealousy experience and expression in romantic relationships.

In P.A. Andersen & L.K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of

comnninication

nmt emotion: Theory,

research,

applications,

and contexts (pp. 155-188). San Diego: Academic Press.

Guerrero, L. K., Eloy,

V.,

Jorgensen, P. F., & Andersen, P. A. (1993). Hers or his? Sex differences

in the communication of jealousy in close relationships. In P. Kalbfleish (Ed.), Interpersonal

communication: Evolving interpersonal relationships (pp. 109-131). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Eribaum Associates.

Guldner, G., & Swensen, C (1995). Time spent together and relationship quality: Long-distance

relationships as a test case.

Journal

Social

and

Personal

Relationships.

12. 313-320.

Holmes, J.G., & Rempel, J.K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close

relationships

(pp. 187-220). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

lolt, P.A., & Stone, G.L. (1988). Needs, coping strategies, and coping outcomes associated with

long-distance relationships.

Journal

College

Student

Development.

29.

136-141.

Knobloch, L.K., & Solomon, D.H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of relational

uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50, 161-278.

Larzelere, R.E., & Huston, T.L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding interper-

sonal trust in close relationships, journal of

Marriage

and tlw

Family.

42, 595-604.

Maguire, K. (1999, November). Does distance make the heart work

harder?

A comparison of the

maintenance strategies

long-distance

and

proximal

relationships.

Paper presented at the annual

conference of the National Communication Association, Chicago,

Martin,

L.,

Tesser, A. (1996). Some ruminative thoughts. In

R.S.

Wyer (Ed.),Ruminative thoughts

(pp.

1-47).

Mahwah, NJ: Firlbaum Associates.

Pfeiffer, S. M., & Wong, P.T. (1989). Multidimensional jealousy, journal of

Social

and

Personal

Relationships. 6, 181-196.

Planalp, S.,

Honeycutt, J.M. (1985). Events that increase uncertainty in personal relationships.

Human Communication

Research,

ll,

593-604.

I'lanalp, S., Rutherford, D.K., & Honeycutt, J.M. (1988). Events that increase uncertainty in

personal relationships

II:

Replication and extension. Human Communication

Research,

14,

516-

547.

Rempel, J.K., Holmes, J.G.,&Zanna,M.P. (1985). Trust inclose relationships./oMrnfl/o/Persona/ify

and Social

Psychology,

49. 95-112.

Sahistein, E. (1999, November).

Presences,

quasi-presences

and

absences:

An investigation of long-

distance

relational

types. Paper presented at the conference of the National Communication

Association, Chicago.

Saiovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1985). The heart of jealousy. Psychology Today. 19, 22-25, 28-29.

Stafford L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type,

gender, and relational characteristics, journal of

Social

and

Personal

Relationships,

8, 217-242.

LDRs 187

Stafford, L., & Reske, J.R. (1990). Idealization and communication in long-distance premarital

relationships.

Family

Relations,

39, 274-279.

Stephen,T. (1984). Symbolic interdependence and post-break-updistress:

reformulation of the

attachment construct,

journal

Divorce,

8, 1-16.

Westefeld, J.S., & Liddell, D. (1982). Coping with long-distance relationships,

journal

of College

Student

Personnel.

23.

550-551.

Wieslequist,

J.,

Rusbult, C.E., Foster, C.A.,

Agnew, C.R. (1999). Commitment, pro-relationship

behavior, and trust in close relationships,

journal

Personality and Social

Psychology,

77,

942-

966.

Zak, A.M., Gold, J.A., Ryckman, R.M., & Lenney, E. (1998). Assessments of trust in intimate

relationships and the self-perception process,

journal

Social

Psychology,

138,

217-228.

188 Dainton and Aylor

Commitment, Relational Uncertainty, and the Investment Model

Article

Full-text available

May 2024

Partnership through Play: Investigating How Long-Distance Couples Use Digital Games to Facilitate Intimacy

Preprint

Full-text available

May 2025

Long-distance relationships (LDRs) have become more common in the last few decades, primarily among young adults pursuing educational or employment opportunities. A common way for couples in LDRs to spend time together is by playing multiplayer video games, which are often a shared hobby and therefore a preferred joint activity. However, games are relatively understudied in the context of relational maintenance for LDRs. In this work, we used a mixed-methods approach to collect data on the experiences of 13 couples in LDRs who frequently play games together. We investigated different values around various game mechanics and modalities and found significant differences in couple play styles, and also detail how couples appropriate game mechanics to express affection to each other virtually. We also created prototypes and design implications based on couples' needs surrounding the lack of physical sensation and memorabilia storage in most popular games.

The experiences of individuals in maintaining a long-distance relationship through social media

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2024

This qualitative study explores the dynamics of long-distance romantic relationships (LDRRs) in the digital age. Long-distance relationships (LDRs) have emerged as a testament to the enduring strength of human affection in the face of spatial constraints. However, the dynamics of LDRs in the digital era present a diverse array of emotions, obstacles, and coping mechanisms. The purpose of this study is to understand the distinctive experiences of how social media has had a positive influence on the communication and relationship satisfaction between partners who have experienced long distance. The research, conducted through qualitative methods, involved 8 college students, predominantly females, offering insights into their experiences in current LDRs. Through semi-structured interviews with eight participants aged 18 to 24 in LDRRs, themes emerged regarding social media usage, coping strategies for emotional challenges, insecurities and communication, and the influence of family environments. The theme underscores how digital tools serve as essential resources for maintaining emotional intimacy and strengthening the relationship despite the challenges of distance. It also highlights the importance of familial support, privacy management, and individual resilience in sustaining intimate connections across geographical distances. The findings reveal that social media platforms such as WhatsApp and Instagram are integral to communication in LDRRs, with participants emphasising the importance of voice and video calls for maintaining intimacy. Coping with emotional challenges, including insecurities and feelings of disconnection, involves active communication, transparency, reassurance, and planning activities together. Family environments play a significant role in shaping communication dynamics, with participants navigating constraints on privacy and openness based on familial support or constraints. Overall, this study underscores the vital role of social media in sustaining emotional intimacy and connection in LDRRs. Understanding how individuals utilise social media and cope with challenges can inform interventions to support healthy, fulfilling relationships in the digital age.

Spouses Differences on Love and Commitment among Commuter Marriage: Perbezaan Cinta dan Komitmen dalam Kalangan Pasangan Perkahwinan Komuter

Article

Full-text available

May 2025

This study explored the differences between commuter marriage relationships in terms of love and commitment. A total of 110 respondents were involved, who are married individuals and who have a long-distance marriage with a partner. This study involved secondary and primary school teachers in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia. The study design is quantitative using a set of standard questionnaires to test the study variables. The Triangular Love Scale was used to measure love and the Investment Model Scale (IMS) was used to measure commitment variables. Pearson Correlation Analysis was used to analyse the relationship between love and commitment among commuter marriages. In contrast, the t-Test for Independent Samples was used to look at differences in love and commitment in terms of gender and the first marital status of respondents. Based on Pearson Correlation analysis, it was found that there is a significant relationship between love and commitment among commuter marriages (k = .335 **, p> .001). While the t-test for Independent Sample analysis between loves by gender found no significant differences, in contrast, commitment there was a significant mean difference between males and females. The results of this study found that there was no significant difference between love and commitment according to the respondents' first marital status. The implications of this study emphasized the importance of husbands committing to marriage to protect their marriage. The spouses are responsible for maintaining the marriage despite being far away from each other. Keywords: Love, Commitment, Relationship, Commuter Marriage Abstrak: Kajian ini meneroka perbezaan antara hubungan perkahwinan komuter dari segi kasih sayang dan komitmen. Seramai 110 orang responden terlibat iaitu individu yang sudah berkahwin dan yang melakukan perkahwinan jarak jauh dengan pasangan. Kajian ini melibatkan guru sekolah menengah dan rendah di Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia. Reka bentuk kajian adalah kuantitatif menggunakan set soal selidik standard untuk menguji pembolehubah kajian. Skala Cinta Segitiga digunakan untuk mengukur cinta dan Skala Model Pelaburan (IMS) digunakan untuk mengukur pembolehubah komitmen. Analisis Korelasi Pearson digunakan untuk menganalisis hubungan antara cinta dan komitmen dalam kalangan perkahwinan komuter. Sebaliknya, Ujian-t untuk Sampel Bebas digunakan untuk melihat perbezaan cinta dan komitmen dari segi jantina dan status perkahwinan pertama responden. Berdasarkan analisis Korelasi Pearson didapati terdapat hubungan yang signifikan antara kasih sayang dan komitmen dalam kalangan perkahwinan komuter (k = .335 **, p>.001). Manakala ujian-t bagi analisis Sampel Bebas antara cinta mengikut jantina mendapati tiada perbezaan yang signifikan, sebaliknya komitmen terdapat perbezaan min yang signifikan antara lelaki dan perempuan. Hasil kajian ini mendapati tidak terdapat perbezaan yang signifikan antara kasih sayang dan komitmen mengikut status perkahwinan pertama responden. Implikasi kajian ini menekankan kepentingan suami beriltizam dengan perkahwinan untuk melindungi perkahwinan mereka. Pasangan suami isteri bertanggungjawab mengekalkan perkahwinan walaupun berjauhan antara satu sama lain. Kata kunci: Cinta, Komitmen, Hubungan, Perkahwinan Komuter

The unique characteristics of “families of choice” and families of origin of older LGBTQ + adults: are they related to mental health?

Article

Full-text available

May 2025
SOC PSYCH PSYCH EPID

Purpose This study joins a growing body of research on the different types of families of aging individuals belonging to sexual and gender minorities. We explore the characteristics of “families of choice” (who are close enough to be considered as family) and families of origin of LGBTQ + older adults and their associations with mental health. Methods Data for this study were collected via an online survey with self-identified lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, queer and others (LGBTQ +) adults aged 50 + (n = 432). Participants were asked about characteristics of the relationships with their families of choice and their families of origin, depressive symptoms and well-being. Results The results indicated that most participants had a family of choice, numbering five people on average. They also reported having about four close family of origin members. Several differences emerged when comparing the two types of families: The relationships with families of origin were more stable, while families of choice were more committed, more likely to accept participants' sexual orientation and the relationship with members of families of choice had fewer negative aspects. Regression analyses showed that individuals had better mental health if they had more close family of origin members, more family of choice members and a partner, if the relationship with their families of choice were more stable and less negative. Conclusion These findings shed light on the unique sources of support among LGBTQ + older adults and their associations with mental health.

Communication and relationship satisfaction of Fly-in, Fly-out workers and partners

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2025
PLOS ONE

Fly-in fly-out (FIFO) work involves commuting long distances and living in provided accommodation for 1–4 weeks while on shift. Little is known about couple communication and relationship satisfaction of this population. Separate cohorts of FIFO workers and partners of FIFO workers completed daily surveys to self-report time spent communicating with their partner (in person, over the computer, and by phone) and relationship satisfaction for up to 7 days during on-shift and 7 days during off-shift periods (806 observations from N = 106 with 19 couples). For FIFO workers, but not partners of FIFO workers, relationship satisfaction was lower during on-shift days than off-shift days. This difference was completely mediated by time spent communicating with romantic partner, such that after accounting for the impact of lower time spent communicating on relationship satisfaction, there remained no significant difference in relationship satisfaction on-shift vs off-shift. Communication between FIFO workers and their romantic partners is essential to ensure the relationship does not suffer while the worker is away from home. FIFO organisations need to investigate ways to ensure quality communication between romantic partners can be maintained while the worker is on-site and partner spend long periods of time away from one another.

Brokered distances: Trust in brokers within and between organizations

Article

Apr 2025

Organizational brokers, such as producers, diplomats, and middle managers, connect people within and across organizations. Trust in brokers promotes their effectiveness in connecting unfamiliar counterparts and transferring information between disconnected parties. Often, however, the very conditions that create the need for brokering, such as the existence of structural holes, undermine trust in brokers. We introduce an organizing framework to explain how fundamental features of brokering processes shape the perceived trustworthiness of brokers. Specifically, we describe how individuals make inferences about brokers’ ability, benevolence, and integrity based on the horizontal and vertical distances they bridge, the extent to which their brokering involves in-role versus extra-role behavior, and the extent to which they facilitate indirect versus direct exchanges between counterparts. Our model links situational features of brokering processes with established antecedents of interpersonal trust, thereby identifying challenges and opportunities for brokers and organizations.

Positive and Negative Maintenance Behaviors, Jealousy, and Facebook: Impacts on College Students’ Romantic Relationships

Article

Jan 2013

Previous work has linked the use of Facebook with romantic jealousy. Further, research indicates that one of the central motives for using Facebook is relationship maintenance. This study sought to uncover the relationships among Facebook use, emotional jealousy, and positive and negative maintenance behavior. Online surveys were completed by 109 college students. Results indicate no relationship between time spent on Facebook and feelings of jealousy, and only two relationships between time spent on Facebook and the use of either positive or negative maintenance. Online monitoring of the partner was moderately associated with emotional jealousy, however, indicating that when considering the impact on romantic relationships the amount of time spent on Facebook is not as important as how Facebook is being used. Lastly, three variables predicted nearly 50% of the variance of relationship satisfaction: assurances (a positive maintenance behavior), infidelity (a negative maintenance behavior), and jealousy. Neither time spent on Facebook nor online monitoring entered the equation.

The Lived Experience of Couples from a Long-Distance Relationship

Thesis

Feb 2024

Although romantic relationships are normally characterized by physical proximity, they are often carried out in geographic separation due to factors such as educational and career pursuits. Nowadays a growing population of couples have experienced a status called long-distance relationship or at least in one period of their lives they have had to deal with it. However, there is a research gap in discovering the nature of these experiences and this group is neglected in the research literature on romantic relationships. Therefore, the present study was conducted to discover the spouses' lived experience of the long-distance relationship. The study was qualitative with an interpretive phenomenological approach (IPA). 15 participants were selected by purposeful sampling and subjected to in-depth semi-structured interviews. Smith and Osborn's interpretive phenomenological method was used to analyze and review the interviews. The results of coding the interviews were categorized into three main themes: the first theme was to decide to live with distance, indicating how spouses entered into these relationships. The second theme, the long and cyclic experience of the spouses in the context of their surrounding social network, shows how this experience represents the history of distance within the present experience and the presence of others in the relationship. The third theme, staying in a long-distance relationship, describes why spouses experience this type of relationship in this way. The essence of the research was the constant adaptation to distance with the constant presence of missing loved ones. The results of the research showed that being away from the spouse creates special dynamics between them, which requires constant adaptation and at the same time, it can bring positive experiences. The findings are helpful in better understanding the dimensions of these relationships and not only can open the way for future research in this field but can also be very helpful in designing and implementing couple therapy interventions for spouses who are far apart, to increase the level of satisfaction.

Romantic Relationship Satisfaction, Attachment Style And Love Style Among College Going Students

Article

Full-text available

May 2024

Jaswinder Kaur

Background: While prior research has illuminated the relationships between love style, attachment style, and relationship satisfaction, there is still much to be grasped about the nuanced dynamics at play. This study aims to contribute to this knowledge base by examining the intricate interplay between love style, attachment style, and relationship satisfaction in a diverse sample. By clarifying these relationships, the study seeks to offer valuable insights into the factors that influence relationship quality and well-being. Aims and Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the love styles and attachment style of college students and examine their correlation with relationship satisfaction . The sample consisted of 149 college going students selected through purposive sampling. Socio-demographic information such as gender, age groups, family income, educational level, relationship status, and family system were collected using a semi-structured questionnaire. The Love Attitude Scale ,Adult Attachment Style and Relationship Assessment Scale was administered with informed consent. The data was analyzed using Correlation, cross- tabulations and T sample test. Results: Ludus was found to be the most prevalent love style across all attachment styles. Relationship satisfaction was linked to longer relationships and a lower overall score on love styles.The length of the relationship indicated a significant positive correlation with Total Relationship Satisfaction (r = .277, p < .001) and a significant negative correlation with Total Love Style (r = -.239, p = .003), in line with the results mentioned earlier. Conclusion: Correlation analysis revealed significant positive correlations between total adult attachment and total relationship satisfaction, as well as between relationship satisfaction and the length of the relationship. However, no significant correlation was found between love style and attachment style.

Some ruminative thoughts

Article

Full-text available

Jan 1996

Time Spent Together and Relationship Quality: Long-Distance Relationships as a Test Case

Article

Full-text available

May 1995
J SOC PERS RELAT

Although many studies have shown associations between the amount of time spent together and relationship satisfaction, none has established the causal direction of the association. While time spent together may cause increased satisfaction, it is equally likely that greater satisfaction causes couples to spend more time together. Recent research that experimentally increased the amount of time couples spent together found no increase in relationship satisfaction. The present study looks at relationships that spend less time together—long-distance relationships (LDRs)—and examines their relationship quality compared to geographically proximal relationships (PRs). A multivariate analysis of variance compared self-reported levels of relationship satisfaction, intimacy, dyadic trust and the degree of relationship progress, between 194 individuals in premarital LDRs and 190 premarital PRs. The analysis found no significant differences. This suggests that the amount of time a couple spends together does not itself play a central role in relationship maintenance.

Relational Maintenance

Chapter

Jan 2000

Kathryn Dindia

Trust in close relationships

Article

Jan 1985

To Ask or Not to Ask: Is That a Question?

Article

Jan 1983

Chapter 6. Jealousy experience and expression in romantic relationships

Chapter

Dec 1996

This chapter reviews numerous factors that affect the experience and expression of romantic jealousy. Biology, culture, personality, relationships, situations, and strategic (partner-initiated) maneuversprovide a foundation for the study of romantic jealousy. These six factors work together to influence the type and intensity of affective responses, the extent of jealous cognition, and ultimately, the ways that members of the romantic triangle communicate about jealousy. Jealous affect and cognition influence one another, and often determine how one communicates about jealousy. Sometimes, communicative responses to jealousy are automatic responses to arousal or to intense emotions. There are six communicative functions related to jealousy: (1) preserving self-esteem, (2) maintaining the primary relationship, (3) reducing uncertainty about the primary relationship, (4) reducing uncertainty about the rival relationship,(5) restoring relational equity, and (6) reassessing the primary relationship. All of these functions have been shown to correspond with particular types of communicative responses to jealousy, such as negative affect expression, integrative communication, distributive communication, active distancing, surveillance behavior, and compensatory restoration.

The heart of jealousy

Article

Jan 1985
Psychol Today

Idealization and Communication in Long-Distance Premarital Relationships

Article

Jul 1990

The phenomenon of idealization in college premarital long-distance relationships is explored. In this study, 71 college couples participated in a survey. Findings indicate long-distance couples have more restricted communication and are more idealized than their geographically close counterparts. Further, an associative pattern between restricted communication and positive relational images is found. Speculation is offered that long-distance couples, due to their limited contact, postpone realistic assessments. Implications of these findings are discussed.

The Dyadic Trust Scale: Toward Understanding Interpersonal Trust in Close Relationships

Article

Aug 1980

Interpersonal trust is an aspect of close relationships which has been virtually ignored in social scientific research despite its importance as perceived by intimate partners and several family theorists. This article describes the development, validation, and correlates of the Dyadic Trust Scale, a tool designed for such research. It is unidimensional, reliable, relatively free from response biases, and purposely designed to be consistent with conceptualizations of trust from various perspectives. Dyadic trust proved to be associated with love and with intimacy of self-disclosure, especially for longer married partners. It varied by level of commitment, being lowest for ex-partners and highest for those engaged and living together, for newlyweds, and for those married over 20 years. Partners reciprocated trust more than either love or depth of self-disclosure. Future research could fruitfully relate dyadic trust to such issues as personal growth in relationships, resolving interpersonal conflict, and developing close relationships subsequent to separation or divorce.

Symbolic Interdependence and Post-Break-Up Distress:

Article

Oct 2008

Timothy D. Stephen

The attachment construct has been held as the principle means for explaining variation in the impact of relationship disruption. The construct has been criticized recently and there is evidence that theorists would welcome its reformulation. In the present study attachment is reformulated as an outcome of "symbolic interdependence," an organismic construct describing the extent to which a couple has constructed a shared view of the world. Predictions which follow from this reformulation were tested in a longitudinal study of break-ups within a sample of premarital couples.

A relational uncertainty analysis of jealousy, trust, and maintenance in long‐distance versus geographically close relationships

Abstract

Recommended publications

Supporting expert assessment of argument structures in trust cases

Small Wind Turbine Power Performance Testing with Uncertainty Analysis

A System Uncertainty Propagation Approach With Model Uncertainty Quantification in Multidisciplinary...

Bayesian inference for the uncertainty distribution of computer model outputs