Brittany Shumway
Saint Anselm College
Key Words: intimacy, passion, commitment
| Abstract | Method | Discussion | Tables and Appendices |
| Introduction | Results | References | Relevant Links |
The purpose of the current study was to assess possible
differences between long-distance relationships (LDRs) and proximal relationships
(PRs) in terms of intimacy, passion and commitment. Robert J. Sternberg
(1988) believed that these are the three most important components of a
love relationship. The current study attempted to look at differences
in these components in order to find out why, despite all the recorded
difficulties with LDRs, people strive to maintain them.
Previous research has indicated discrepancies based
on these three components. Some research has proposed that individuals
in LDRs report lower levels of intimacy than those in PRs, while others
report identical levels of intimacy in LDRs and PRs. Research on
commitment has reported higher levels of commitment in LDRs than in PRs.
There is a lack of research of passion in LDRs, warranting a look at this
important component of a relationship. In this study, it was predicted
that individuals in LDRs would report lower levels of intimacy, higher
levels of passion, and higher levels of commitment.
The current study enlisted 31 participants, 17 reported
being in proximal relationships and 14 in long-distance relationships.
Each of the participants completed the Sternberg Triangular Love Scale
(Sternberg, 1988), designed to measure levels of intimacy, passion and
commitment. Each participant also reported a level of satisfaction,
as well as frequency of communication, method of communication, and frequency
of visitation.
Results of the study indicated no significant differences
between LDRs and PRs for intimacy, passion commitment and satisfaction.
These findings were inconsistent with the hypothesis; however, the small
existing differences were in the predicted direction for intimacy and passion,
but not commitment. Significant positive correlations were found
between frequency of communication and levels of intimacy, passion, commitment
and satisfaction.
The results of this study imply that LDRs are very
similar to PRs in terms of intimacy, passion and commitment. The
results also imply that frequency of communication may make the distance
in LDRs seem less, therefore increasing levels of intimacy, passion, commitment
and satisfaction, making LDRs just as fulfilling as PRs. It was suggested
that future research look further into the issue of communication in relationships,
how varying levels of communication relate to satisfaction, as well as
how effective different forms of communication are. The current research
is important for the education of individuals currently in, or thinking
of entering a long-distance relationship. It is also important for
relationship counseling, so that therapists recognize the unique aspects
of LDRs as well as their similarities to PRs.
Long-distance dating relationships have become increasingly
popular, especially among university students. Much of the research
on the phenomenon of long-distance relationships (LDRs) has been conducted
with the heterosexual university student population (Van Horn, 1997; Holt
and Stone, 1988; Schwebel, 1993). Because LDRs involve less communication
and lower frequency of visits, it is intriguing to see that many LDRs can
endure as long as geographically close relationships. In an attempt
to better understand the phenomenon of long distance relationships, researchers
have looked at relationship satisfaction in long-distance and proximal
relationships, and how it is related to different important aspects of
a relationship. Robert Sternberg (1988) theorized that the three
most important components of a relationship (whether romantic or platonic)
are intimacy, passion and commitment. Researchers have looked at
intimacy, passion and commitment in romantic relationships in general,
as well as differences in these components when it comes to LDRs.
However, due to the relative lack of research on LDRs, further research
on what makes them unique from proximal relationships is warranted.
Because intimacy, passion and commitment are such crucial parts of a relationship
it is reasonable to look at these components in LDRs. This study
will attempt to find differences between LDRs and proximal relationships
in terms of intimacy, passion, commitment, and satisfaction.
The current study focuses on long-distance and proximal
relationships within the heterosexual college student population.
The rationale for this being that it is not uncommon to see a mix of these
romantic relationships amongst college students. It is a common occurrence
that students enter college while still engaged in a romantic relationship
that began in high school. Going away to college creates geographical
distance between individuals involved in the relationship, and now these
individuals have to deal with the problems associated with being in a LDR.
Therefore, most of the research cited in this study will focus on the college
student population. However, before these components (intimacy, passion
and commitment) are discussed it is important to look at the unique qualities
and difficulties associated with being in a long-distance relationship.
Unique characteristics of long-distance relationships
Long-distance relationships are distinct from proximal
relationships in both positive, and negative ways. Research on LDRs
has focused on what makes long-distance relationships both unique and problematic
for the individuals involved. Mary E. Rohlfing (1995) looked at some
of these features in her study of LDRs. She noted that on the negative
side, LDRs cost both parties money to maintain the relationship and this
can be especially costly for college students who must live on a limited
budget. Long-distance phone calls and traveling expenses can be very
difficult to afford. Also, people in LDRs tend to have very high
expectations about the quality of time spent with their partner.
If the visits do not live up to the high standards of the individuals in
the relationship, feelings of disappointment and even stress about the
relationship can result (Rohlfing, 1995). Emotions in LDRs are also
much more extreme than the emotions experienced in proximal relationships.
Many people in LDRs report missing trivial conversations, because limited
communication often facilitates conversation that is more serious.
Maguire (2001) looked at the different ways people
cope with the aforementioned stressors in LDRs. Maguire states that
much of the research categorizes coping strategies by function. There
is problem-focused coping, in which couples focus on altering the specific
problem causing distress. Each individual in the relationship can
also engage in emotion-focused coping, in which he or she consciously regulates
his or her own stress level. The couple together can also take on
relationship-focused coping strategies, in which the couple looks inward
at their relationship and how they deal with each other. In her interviews
with 19 students in LDRs, Maguire concluded that individuals who make use
of these strategies tend to experience increased relational satisfaction.
Besides dealing with major stressors on relationships
centering on finance, visitation and communication, LDRs face one more
important potential problem. College students, more than any other age
group involved in serious relationships, are found to hold the most idealized
beliefs. Schwebel (1993) tested college students’ levels of idealization
when it came to their relationship, either long-distance or proximal.
These participants felt that their own relationships would endure longer
and be more satisfying than others’ relationships. Within the college
student population however, students in LDRs hold more idealized views
of their relationships than those in proximal relationships (Schwebel,
1993). Idealization has both positive and negative consequences associated
with it. Idealization can increase satisfaction in relationships
because we see our partner in the best possible light. Seeing a partner
through “rose-colored glasses” increases satisfaction because it resolves
the tensions between commitments and doubts. It allows people to
see their partner as virtually flawless, therefore decreasing doubts of
commitment (Murray, 1996). This can have a negative affect on the
relationship in the future, however. There comes a time in a relationship
when the rose-colored glasses must be removed, even if this time does not
come until marriage. Couples who are more idealized in pre-marital
relationships tend to experience dissatisfaction in marriage (Stafford,
1990). Individuals in LDRs need to be aware of this in order to avoid
another potentially damaging aspect to their relationship. This research
prompts the question, if LDRs can pose many potential problems and obstacles
to satisfaction, why is it that they can endure as long as proximal ones?
Research on LDRs has attempted to answer this question
by looking at ways couples can increase satisfaction in LDRs. A study
done by Holt and Stone (1988) looked specifically at LDRs among college
students and the ways in which the individuals in these relationships deal
with the distance, and how these techniques relate to satisfaction.
This study looked at three specific strategies for managing the distance;
frequency of visitation, verbal communication, and imaginary communication
(day-dreaming). In order to test the efficacy of verbal and imaginary
communication, each subject was tested for a preference of either verbal
or visual communication. The authors of this study made three predictions.
First, they predicted that the frequency of visits would have an affect
on the satisfaction in the relationship. Second, Holt and Stone predicted
that people who use their preferred coping style more frequently (verbal
vs. visual) will experience more satisfaction in the relationship than
those who use their preferred coping style less frequently. Third,
they predicted that people who cannot visit their partner frequently, but
use their preferred coping style would experience more satisfaction.
The results indicated that those people who were
placed in the visualizer category engaged in more daydreaming than those
who were verbalizers. When frequency of visits was low, verbalizers
expressed more satisfaction when they engaged in frequent communication
via the telephone or letters. Visualizers expressed more satisfaction
when they engaged in frequent daydreaming. Results also indicated
that satisfaction greatly increased in LDRs when couples even 250 miles
away visited once a month. A higher quality of communication contributed
to increased satisfaction, as did higher levels of intimacy. The
least satisfied group consisted of those who lived more than 250 miles
away and visited less than every 6 months. The results indicated
the importance of relatively frequent visitation, quality communication
and the use of daydreaming (for visualizers) in order to maintain high
satisfaction in LDRs.
The current study looks at differences in intimacy,
passion and commitment between LDRs and PRs in an attempt to explain why,
despite all of the aforementioned problems, people still strive to maintain
LDRs. LDRs are filled with more stress and unique complications that
are simply not present in PRs. The thought is that there must be
some aspect of LDRs that makes them endurable and worthwhile.
An overview of Robert Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love
Despite these problems associated with LDRs, and
the differences between LDRs and proximal relationships, the most necessary
part of any close relationship, whether long-distance or proximal is love
(Sternberg, 1988). Many theories have been proposed to define, classify
and explain love. One of the most well-known theories of love is
Sternberg’s triangular theory of love. Robert Sternberg (1988) believes
that love consists of three components; intimacy, passion, and commitment.
Intimacy is defined as feelings of being close to and bonded with a partner.
Passion refers to the arousal you experience toward your partner, including
sexual attraction. Commitment consists of making two decisions; one,
that you love your partner, and two, that you desire to maintain that love
and stay with your partner (Sternberg, 1988). These three components
to love can be combined in various ways, to form different kinds of love.
A relationship can have only one of these components, a combination of
two, or all three. For example, a relationship can have just passion,
but no intimacy or commitment. This type of love is referred to as
infatuation. A relationship could also have intimacy and commitment,
but no passion, or physical attraction. This is referred to as companionate
love. If a relationship has all three components, it is termed consummate
love, and is seen as the ideal type of love. Research on LDRs has
looked at intimacy, passion and commitment in LDRs, and how they differ
from geographically close relationships.
Intimacy
As previously stated, intimacy is defined as feelings
of being close to and bonded with a partner (Sternberg, 1988). Research
on intimacy in LDRs has yielded varied results. Van Horn (1997) and his
colleagues hypothesized in a study of interpersonal aspects of college
students’ LDRs, that students in LDRs would report lower ratings of self-disclosure,
companionship and reliable alliance, all of which are important parts of
intimacy. Although Van Horn’s definition varies slightly from that
of Sternberg, self-disclosure, companionship and reliable alliance are
all feelings that cause an individual to feel close and bonded with a partner,
which is how Sternberg defined intimacy. In this study, 162 undergraduate
students, ages 18-22, all of whom were in relationships (both long-distance
and proximal) were administered questionnaires to analyze various aspects
of the relationships, such as intimacy, satisfaction and closeness.
This study indeed found that LDRs did report lower
ratings of intimacy. Van Horn felt that the discrepancy in these
ratings was because of the decreased opportunity for self-disclosure due
to limited communication, as well as limited face-to-face interactions,
which can have an effect of feelings of companionship. Van Horn also
considered frequency of visits as a factor in levels of self-disclosure.
Although no significant difference in self-disclosure was found between
long-distance couples who saw each other less frequently or more frequently,
there was a significant difference when it came to companionship.
However, a study done by Guldner and Swenson (1995)
found different results. They gave questionnaires to 384 undergraduate
students, with a median age of 19, measuring satisfaction, trust, and intimacy.
Guldner and Swenson found that individuals in LDRs reported identical levels
of intimacy compared to proximal relationships. They concluded that
LDRs can still experience intimacy, even over periods of little face-to-face
contact. Guldner and Swenson believed that it must not be the frequency
of visits that matters, but the quality of the time spent together, even
if it is quite small. Because the research on intimacy is conflicting,
further research has been suggested, by Van Horn (1997) and others, in
order to draw a more concise conclusion regarding intimacy differences
in LDRs and proximal relationships.
Commitment
Intimacy is one very important component in a satisfying
relationship. However, a serious relationship would not be complete
without commitment. It has been suggested that LDRs and PRs differ
in the types of commitment that they experience (Lydon, 1997). John
Lydon (1997) conducted a study which looked at two different types of commitment
found in relationships; moral and enthusiastic. In his study, he
issued questionnaires to 86 university students involved in both LDRs and
PRs. The questionnaires were designed to measure the type of commitment
present in the relationship, either moral or enthusiastic. Enthusiastic
commitment was defined as the “want to” commit, or the positive attitudes
and satisfactions associated with commitment. Moral commitment was
defined by the cognition that the individual ought to continue with the
relationship. Lydon thought that those individuals about to enter
a long-distance relationship because of the decision to enter separate
universities, would enter into moral commitment. Lydon predicted
that the more committed someone was to the relationship the more satisfaction
they would feel, and the more distress someone would feel when the relationship
ended. The results showed that the transition to a long-distance
relationship by embarking on the college experience increased the prevalence
of break-ups. Couples in the new LDRs showed more moral commitment,
while those in proximal relationships showed more enthusiastic commitment.
Long-distance couples with more moral commitment tended to stay together,
while those with less tended to break up. Lydon explains this by
stating that he believes that moral commitment causes participants to see
their relationships as progressively more meaningful and as relationships
that they are more invested in upholding (Lydon, 1997). Stafford
(1990) also stated that couples in LDRs appeared to be more stable in their
commitment than those in geographically close relationships.
Passion
The final relationship component is passion.
Currently, there exists no attainable research on passion in LDRs.
However, research on passion in relationships in general, may be able to
shed some light on this important component in a romantic relationship.
High levels of passion in a relationship have been correlated with high
levels of intimacy and commitment (Aron & Westbay, 1996). Studies
of passion in college students have also found correlations between passion
and relationship satisfaction (Druen, 1997).
Some characteristics of passion in relationships
can be clearly connected to passion in LDRs. Cunningham, Barbee and
Druen (1997) did a study on attraction and passion in romantic relationships.
They found that the more frequently one sees a loved one, the more likely
they are too see certain behaviors which normally happen behind closed
doors. For example, an individual may be exposed to his or her partner’s
attitudes under stress or fatigue, allergies, and other somewhat unattractive
characteristics. Seeing these behaviors may in turn decrease the
idealization of the partner and undermine the passion in the relationship
(Cunningham et al., 1997). For individuals in LDRs, this would not
be a problem. Individuals in LDRs would be less likely to see their
partner’s habits and behaviors than those in PRs, therefore maintaining
a higher level of passion.
Much of the remaining literature on passion focuses
on how to rekindle passion when it is lost in a relationship. This
type of literature, although interesting, does not pertain to this current
study. However, the research discussed above seems to suggest that
passion would be higher in LDRs, due to the decrease in physical contact
associated with LDRs.
Literature on intimacy, passion and commitment has been discussed and it can be seen that research on LDRs is lacking. Due to this relative lack of research on the topic of long-distance relationships, further research on what makes them different from proximal relationships is warranted. Because intimacy, passion and commitment are such crucial parts of a relationship, it is reasonable to study these three components. In the current study, it is hypothesized that individuals in LDRs will report lower levels of intimacy, higher levels of passion, and higher levels of commitment than those in proximal relationships.
Participants
The participants in this study were 31 undergraduate
students, ranging in age from 18-22, from a small liberal arts college
in Northern New England. Twenty-seven of the participants were female,
and four were male. Seventeen of these students were in on-campus
relationships, and fourteen were in long-distance relationships.
Participants were recruited to take part in the study in the form of a
sign-up sheet, hung in the Psychology department. All participants
were members of general psychology courses at the college, and received
class credit for participating in the experiment. Informed consent
was given for each subject’s participation in the study.
Materials
Each participant was given a 55-question questionnaire.
Questions one through ten were designed by the experimenter. A copy
of these questions can be found in Appendix A. These questions serve
the purpose of finding out whether the individuals in the relationship
are close or far away from each other, how many years the individual has
been in the relationship, how often the individuals communicate and see
each other and how satisfied they are with the relationship. Individuals
who live close to each other are defined as living less than sixty miles
apart, while individuals who are far away from each other are defined as
living more than sixty miles apart. The frequency of communication
and visitation questions were answered by circling the one of five possible
answers; one time per month, two to three times per month, one time per
week, two to three times per week, and every day. Satisfaction was
assessed on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being “not satisfied at all”, 3 being
“neutral”, and 5 being “extremely satisfied”.
The remaining forty-five questions are from Sternberg’s
Triangular Love Scale, from The Triangle of Love, by Robert J. Sternberg
(1988). Sample questions from this questionnaire can be found in
Appendix B. This instrument has been found to be both valid and reliable,
with alpha coefficients for the three components at .83 for passion, .85
for intimacy, and .93 for commitment (Aaron & Westbay, 1996). These
questions are designed to measure levels of intimacy, passion and commitment
in the individual’s relationship. The order of the questions was
randomized. For each component (intimacy, passion and commitment)
there are fifteen questions which yield a sub-score for each component.
For each item, the participant is asked to rate his or her level of agreement
with each statement, on a scale of 1 to 9, 1 being “not at all agree”,
and 9 being “extremely agree”. Questions numbered 2, 5, 7, 9, 11,
15, 17, 20, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 41 and 45 are designed to measure intimacy.
An example of a question assessing intimacy is question ten, “I feel close
to my significant other”. Questions numbered 1, 3, 4, 8, 12, 14,
19, 21, 24, 27, 33, 35, 36, 37 and 43 are designed to measure passion.
An example of a question measuring passion is question nine, “I find my
significant other to be personally attractive”. Questions numbered
6, 10, 13, 16, 18, 22, 29, 31, 32, 34, 38, 39, 40, 42 and 44 are designed
to measure commitment. An example of a question measuring commitment,
is question six, “I will always feel a strong responsibility for my significant
other”.
Procedure
All subjects reported to a classroom at the college
on one of three different sessions. Before each participant filled
out the questionnaire, they were told this was a study designed to assess
qualities of romantic relationships amongst college students, and were
given instructions on how to complete the questionnaire. They then
signed an informed consent form. The participants were then each
given an identical questionnaire. Upon completion of the questionnaire,
the participants were given a slip for credit toward their general psychology
class as well as a debriefing statement revealing the purpose of the study.
A copy of the debriefing statement can be found in Appendix C.
Data from the questionnaires was tabulated by the
experimenter. A sub-score for intimacy, passion and commitment was
calculated for each of the participants. The sub-scores were calculated
by adding up the total points for intimacy, passion and commitment, and
then dividing each total by fifteen (the total number of questions for
each of the three components). Each participant was also given a
satisfaction score based on his or her answer to item ten. Table
1 presents the mean scores for each of these dimensions for LDRs and PRs.
An independent samples t-test was performed on the
calculated scores in order to find any group differences between LDRs and
PRs in terms of intimacy, passion, commitment and satisfaction. No significant
differences were found for satisfaction, t(29)= .405, p>.05, or intimacy,
t(29)= .196, p>.05. The small difference in the means was in the
direction predicted however, with intimacy being slightly higher in PRs.
No significance was found for differences in passion, t(29)= -.626, p>.05.
The small difference in these means was higher in LDRs as predicted.
Lastly, no significant differences were found for commitment, t(29)= .639,
p>.05, also the direction of the small difference was not consistent with
the hypothesis, as there was more commitment in the PR group than in the
LDR group.
Pearson correlations were performed on the calculated
scores (intimacy, passion, commitment and satisfaction) and frequency of
communication (FOC), frequency of visitation (FOV) and satisfaction.
Table 2 represents the results of these correlations.
The most interesting aspect of the correlation was
that each of the scores were significantly positively correlated with frequency
of communication (r =.476 for satisfaction, r =.518 for intimacy, r =.503
for passion and r =.667 for commitment). No significant correlations
were found between the scores and frequency of visitation. Significant
correlations were found between each of the Sternberg scores (intimacy,
passion and commitment) and satisfaction (r =.658 for intimacy, r =.752
for passion, and r =.727 for commitment). It was hypothesized that,
when looking at frequency of communication as a cofactor, it may be positively
correlated with the Sternberg Scores.
No analyses were done using gender as a variable
in this study. The small number of males in the sample made a gender
comparison unattainable.
The purpose of this study was to determine if differences
in intimacy, passion, commitment and satisfaction exist between long-distance
relationships (LDRs) and proximal relationships (PRs). Because intimacy,
passion and commitment are crucial parts of a relationship, it was reasonable
to study these three components. It was hypothesized that individuals
in LDRs would report lower levels of intimacy, higher levels of passion,
and higher levels of commitment than those in reported by individuals in
proximal relationships.
The results of this study showed no significant
differences for intimacy, passion and commitment between LDRs and PRs.
For intimacy, although the difference was not significant, the small difference
indicated that individuals in LDRs report slightly lower levels of intimacy
than individuals in PRs, which is consistent with the hypothesis.
These results do not provide much clarification between the conflicting
views regarding intimacy in LDRs. Guldner and Swenson (1995) found
that individuals in LDRs reported identical levels of intimacy compared
to PRs. Van Horn (1997), found that individuals in LDRs reported
lower levels of intimacy than individuals in PRs. The results of
the current study tend to offer some support for Van Horn’s findings, however
the confirmation is statistically weak. This is an important area
to address in future research on LDRs, in order to solve the discrepancy
in the research.
For commitment, the difference in levels between
LDRs and PRs was not significant. In fact, reported levels of commitment
were slightly lower in LDRs, which was inconsistent with the hypothesis
of this study. This finding is consistent with research done by Helgeson
(1994), which states that individuals in LDRs are less confident in the
predicted length of their relationship. Hegleson suggested that a
prevailing belief among college students that LDRs do not last as long
as PRs, causes this lack of confidence in regards to commitment and duration
of an LDR. However, some studies have suggested the opposite, stating
that individuals in LDRs have a more stable and invested commitment than
individuals in PRs (Lydon, 1997; Stafford, 1990). This study offers
some support towards the idea that LDRs have lower levels of commitment,
but there is still a discrepancy in the research that should be addressed
by further examination of this topic.
For passion, no significant difference was found
between LDRs and PRs, however individuals in LDRs reported slightly higher
levels of passion than those individuals in PRs. The direction of
this difference is consistent with the hypothesis as well as previous research.
Previous research suggested that individuals in LDRs would be less likely
to see their partner’s habits and behaviors than those in PRs, therefore
maintaining a higher level of passion (Cunningham, Barbee, & Druen,
1997). However, due to the relative lack of research in this area,
future assessment of passion in both LDRs and PRs is warranted.
Although no significant differences were found for
intimacy, passion and commitment between LDRs and PRs, these results do
have important implications for the understanding of LDRs. The lack
of significance suggests that LDRs do not suffer from a lack of the important
components in a relationship. Therefore, the stressors and unique
difficulties associated with LDRs (Rohlfing, 1995; Maguire, 2001) do not
necessarily lead to a decrease in the quality of a relationship.
If no significant differences in these components were found between LDRs
and PRs, there must be some component of LDRs that compensates for all
the difficulties in the relationship. This study found that frequency
of communication may be this compensating factor.
Frequency of communication was assessed as a cofactor.
There were significant positive correlations between frequency of communication
and the Sternberg scores and satisfaction. This finding suggests
that frequent communication makes the distance seem less in an LDR, therefore
increasing levels of intimacy, passion, commitment and satisfaction.
This finding is supported by research on the importance of communication
in relationships. Maguire (2001) states that frequent communication
provides a sense of predictability in an LDR. This predictability
is often highly correlated with levels of satisfaction in relationships.
Predictability would seem increasingly more important in an LDR, due to
the lack of opportunity for communication. It is comforting to a
member of a LDR to know that he or she will have the opportunity to talk
to his or her loved one a certain number of times per day, week or month.
A study done by Andersen and Guerrero (1998) also
support the importance of communication in a relationship. They stated
that communication is the foundation of a love relationship, and is the
most important factor in the maintenance of a relationship. The idea that
communication is the most important factor in the maintenance of a relationship
is also supported by Sternberg (1988). Sternberg recognizes that
although the phrase, “good communication”, is a cliché in our society,
its importance is often taken for granted. Sternberg believed that
once communication starts to deteriorate it could spread weakness throughout
the whole relationship, and result in the dissolution of the relationship
completely. A study by Meeks, Hendrick and Hendrick (1998) supports
this idea as well, as they found that communication variables, such as
self-disclosure, were significant predictors of satisfaction in a relationship.
Although the findings of this study are interesting,
the study did have its weaknesses and limitations. First, the population
tested was composed primarily of females, containing 27 females and 4 males.
The population of students in the general psychology courses is predominantly
female, and due to the title of the current study given on the sign-up
sheet (Qualities of college student romantic relationships), males may
have been more reluctant to volunteer participation. Therefore, it
was impossible to look at gender differences. Most of the previous
research has been conducted with populations containing equal numbers of
participants of each gender. It is possible that the abundance of
female participants skewed the results in some way. Second, the population
size was rather small in comparison to previous research. Researchers
in the past have used hundreds of students, while the current study only
enlisted thirty-one. Third, the current study only focused on three
aspects of a romantic relationship (intimacy, passion and commitment).
Future research may want to focus on other components of a relationship
that contribute to overall satisfaction, such as jealousy, trust and perceived
levels of compatibility.
Jealousy, trust and perceived levels of compatibility
are just some of the important relationship components not discussed in
this study. These three components have been found to be significant
in romantic relationships and deserve further attention. Jealousy
has been correlated with levels of intimacy as well as success of a relationship
(Knobloch, Solomon, & Cruz, 2001). A positive correlation has
been found between levels of jealousy and success of a relationship, indicating
that maybe jealousy sustains a relationship (Mathes, 1986). Trust
in a relationship is related to jealousy, and is also positively correlated
with success of a relationship (Lewicki & Wiethoff, 2000). Compatibility
is another component of a relationship found to be associated with satisfaction
(Huston & Houts, 1998). Huston and Houts found that when partners
discovered incompatible information about each other, it was likely to
lead to a decline in relationship satisfaction. Therefore, these
suggested changes may have made this study more comprehensive.
Despite the methodological weaknesses of the current
study, it still presents implications for future research as well as the
practical field of psychology. As previously suggested, future research
should continue to look at differences in intimacy between LDRs and PRs
in order to clarify the discrepancy in the research. Some research
has found lower levels of intimacy in LDRs (Van Horn, 1997) and some research
found indentical levels of intimacy in LDRs (Guldner and Swenson, 1995).
Because the current study does not offer strong support to either of these
findings, further research is suggested. Future research is
also warranted for differences in passion between LDRs and PRs. There
is a general lack of research in this area, and passion is an important
component in romantic relationships as past research as shown. High
levels of passion in a relationship are associated with high levels of
intimacy and commitment (Aron & Westbay, 1996). Studies have
also found correlations between passion and relationship satisfaction (Druen,
1997).
Because communication has been supported as an important
factor in relationships, future research should look further into the issue
of communication. Besides looking at differences in communication
between LDRs and PRs as previously suggested, it would also be beneficial
to study different types of communication, such as the telephone, AOL instant
messenger, e-mail and letter writing, to see which type of communication
is more effective. Future research should also look at different
aspects of romantic relationships previously suggested, such as jealousy,
trust and perceived levels of compatibility, and how they differ between
LDRs and PRs. With continuing research on LDRs, it will be possible
to attain a better understanding of the workings of a long-distance relationship
and how they can be maintained.
Continued research in this area is important for
many reasons. Members of LDRs would benefit from reading studies
such as the current one. It would be beneficial for them to read
information that shows no differences in important relationship components.
Reading this type of information could be uplifting and encouraging to
individuals who may be concerned or unsettled about maintaining a good
relationship across distance. Relationship counselors may also want
to look at this research in order to appropriately tailor counseling to
the specific needs of LDRs compared to PRs. Counselors should focus
on techniques to better communication, as it has been shown to be a vital
part of romantic relationships (Andersen & Guerrero, 1998; Harrington,
1999; Meeks et al., 1998). Counselors should focus on increasing
communication, and emphasize to the individuals in the relationship that
excessive worry over visitation is not necessary or beneficial, for this
study provides evidence that communication is more important (Andersen
& Guerrero, 1998; Harrington, 1999; Meeks et al., 1998).
In conclusion, although the current study found
no significant differences in intimacy, passion or commitment, the study
has important implications for future research as well as to the field
of psychology. The current research provides evidence that LDRs can
be very similar to PRs. This research can be helpful to individuals
in LDRs as well as relationship counselors. It is also implicated
that the similarities in levels of intimacy, passion, commitment and satisfaction
may be due to frequent communication between members of the relationships,
whether long-distance or proximal. This finding suggests that frequent
communication helps to maintain adequate levels of intimacy, passion and
commitment, thereby sustaining satisfaction in the relationship.
With LDRs becoming increasingly popular, especially among college students,
future research is important in order to create an enhanced understanding
of the phenomenon of long-distance relationships.
Aron, A., Westbay, L. (1996). Dimensions of the prototype of love.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 70(3),
535-551.
Andersen, P.A, Guerrero, L.K. (1998). Handbook of communication
and emotion: Research, theory, application and
contexts. San Diego: Academic Press.
Cunningham, M.R., Barbee, A.P., & Druen, P.B. (1997). Social
Antigens and Allergies: The development of hypersensitivity
in close relationships. In R. Kowalski, Aversive
Interpersonal Behaviors. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Druen, P.B. (1997). Beliefs about a partner’s personal qualities
that facilitate intimacy, passion, commitment and exclusivity.
Unpublished Manuscript, York College,York, PA.
Guldner, G.T., Swenson C.H. (1995). Time spent together and relationship
quality: Long-distance relationships as a test case.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12,
313-320.
Helgeson, V.S., Shaver, P., & Dyer, M. (1987). Protoypes
of intimacy and distance in same-sex and opposite sex
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 4, 195-233.
Holt, P.A, Stone, G.L. (1988). Needs, coping strategies, and coping
outcomes associated with long-distance relationships.
Journal of College Student Development, 29, 136-141.
Houston, T.L., Houts, R.M. (1998). The psychological infrastructure
of courtship and marriage: The role of personality and
compatibility in romantic relationships. In T. Bradbury,
The developmental course of marital dysfunction. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Knobloch, L.K., Solomon, D.H., & Cruz, M.G. (2001). The role
of relationship development in the experience of romantic
jealousy. Personal Relationships, 8(2), 205-224.
Lewicki, R.J., Wiethoff, C. (2000). Trust, trust development,
and trust repair. In M.Duetch, The handbook of conflict and
resolution: Theory and practice. San Fransisco:
Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Lydon, John (1997). Coping with moral commitment to long-distance dating
relationships. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 73, 104-113.
Maguire, Katheryn Coveley (2001). Communication and communal
coping in long-distance romantic relationships. University
of Texas at Austin, 1-25.
Mathes, E.W. (1986). Jealousy and romantic love: A longitudinal
study. Psychological reports, 58(3), 885-886.
Meeks, B.S, Hendrick, S.S., & Hendrick, C. (1998). Communication,
love and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 15, 755-773.
Murray, S.L., Holmes, J.G., & Griffin, D.W. (1996). The benefits
of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of
satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 70, 79-98.
Rohlfing, Mary E. (1995). “Doesn’t anybody stay in one place anymore?”
An exploration of the under-studied phenomenon of
long-distance relationships. Understudied relationships:
Off the beaten track, Understanding relationship processes series,
6, 173-196.
Sahlstein, Erin Marie (1996). Time spent together in long-distance
relationships: What are the effects on satisfaction?
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 1-64.
Schwebel, Andrew I. (1993, December). Students think love conquers
all. USA Today Magazine, 122, 15.
Stafford, Laura (1990). Idealization and communication in long-distance
premarital relationships. Family Relations: Journal of
Applied Family & Child Studies, 39, 274-279.
Sternberg, R.J. (1988). The triangle of love. New York: Basic
Books.
Van Horn, Roger K. (1997). Physical distance and interpersonal
characteristics in college students’ romantic relationships.
Personal Relationships, 4, 25-34.
Table 1
Means for Intimacy, Passion, Commitment and Satisfaction Scores for Long-Distance Relationships (LDR) and Proximal Relationships (PR)
Type of Relationship
Score LDR PR
Satisfaction Score
4.3571
4.4706
Intimacy Subscore
8.1071
8.1729
Passion Subscore
7.5429
7.2276
Commitment Subscore 7.4336 7.7888
Note: Higher scores indicate higher reported levels
of the relationship component
Table 2
Correlations of Sternberg Scores and Satisfaction with Frequency of Communication (FOC), Frequency of Visitation (FOV) and Satisfaction.
Score
FOC
FOV
Satisfaction
Satisfaction .478** .267 1
Intimacy .518** .294 .658**
Passion .503** .178 .752**
Commitment .667** .349 .727**
Note: ** p<.01
Appendix A: Questionnaire created by the experimenter
The following questionnaire is designed to assess different qualities in college students’ romantic relationships. Please answer the following questions about your current romantic relationship. If you have any questions regarding any of the material presented in this questionnaire, do not hesitate to ask. Thank you for your participation in this study.
Please answer the following questions:
1. Are you:
Male Female
2. What year are you in school?
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
3. While you are at school, do you live far away or close to your
significant other?
(Note: Please answer far away if you live more than 60 miles
from your
significant other, and answer close if you live less than 60 miles
away)
Far away Close
If far away, please estimate the number of miles you are apart:
________ miles
4. How often do you communicate with your significant other?
Every day 2-3 times/week 1 time/week 1 time/month Fewer than 1 time/month
5. How do you communicate with your significant other most often?
Telephone E-mail Instant Messenger Letter writing Other ______________
6. How often do you see your significant other in person?
Every day 2-3 times/week 1 time/week 1 time/month Fewer than 1 time/month
7. How long have you been in your relationship? ______________
8. Did your relationship begin in high school?
YES NO
9. Do you consider yourself happy with your relationship?
YES NO
10. Please rate the level of satisfaction you feel in your relationship on the following scale:
1
2
3
4
5
Not Satisfied
Neutral
Very
At all
Satisfied
Appendix B: Sample questions from Sternberg's Triangular Love Scale measuring intimacy, passion and commitment
Please rate your agreement with the following statements by using the following 9 point scale:
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
Do not agree
Moderately
Extremely
at all
agree
agree
Questions designed to measure intimacy
2. I feel close to my significant other.
9. I receive considerable emotional support from my significant
other.
15. I communicate well with my significant other.
Questions designed to measure passion
3. I adore my significant other.
8. I fantasize about my significant other.
14. My relationship with my significant other is very romantic.
Questions designed to measure commitment
6. I will always feel a strong responsibility for my significant
other.
19. I would rather be with my significant other than anyone else.
22. I am committed to maintaining my relationship with my significant
other.
| Saint Anselm.College | Sternberg's Triangular Love Scale |
| American Psychological Association | Robert J. Sternberg's Webpage |
Questions? Please e-mail me at BShumway118@hotmail.com