Long Distance and Geographically Close Relationships: Attachment, Maintenance, Conflict, and Stress

1. Long Distance and Geographically Close Relationships: Attachment, Maintenance, Conflict, and Stress Chapman, M., Purdue University Pistole, M. C., Purdue University Roberts, A., Grand Valley State University Ray, K., Purdue University Chapman, M. L., Pistole, M. C., Roberts, A., & Ray, K. (2005, July). Long Distance and Geographically Close Relationships: Attachment, Maintenance, Conflict, and Stress. Poster session presented at the International Association for Relationship Research Conference, Indianapolis, IN.

2. Long Distance Relationships (LDRs) • Long distance relationships (LDRs): • Have become more visible (Kaslow, 2001) • Are increasing due to women’s education and careers (Groveats & Dixon, 1988) • Enable individuals to continue their relationship without either partner sacrificing career goals • Seem as strong as geographically close relationships (GCRs) in many ways (Dellmann-Jenkins et al., 1994; Van Horn et al., 1997).

3. Long Distance Romantic Relationships • LDR – Unique Stresses • Separation-reunion cycles • Separation should trigger the attachment system • Individual differences (i.e., attachment styles) could influence interaction and the separation-reunion cycle • Travel • Costs associated with travel and communication • LDRs possibly more stressful than GCRs? • Chronic stress may influence health (Cohen, 1994). • Need LDR knowledge to support health outcomes

4. Attachment (Bowlby, 1988) • The emotional bonding and strong emotional reactions associated with romantic relationships • Provides feelings of security, a secure base, a safe haven, and protection • When a certain range of physical or symbolic proximity is exceeded (e.g., too much time apart), • The exploratory system (e.g., work, play) is inhibited, • The person experiences separation anxiety, • Attachment behavior to regain proximity is exhibited. • Relevant to LDRs separation-reunion cycles

5. Attachment Styles • Reflect different rules directing attention to and regulation of attachment information (Fuendeling, 1998) • Attachment Prototypes (Bartholmew & Horowitz, 1991) • Secure: Positive beliefs about self and partner, seeks proximity • Preoccupied: Negative self, idealized partner, high attachment anxiety, seeks near constant partner accessibility • Dismissing: Positive self, negative partner, self-reliant, deactivates attachment system, distant • Fearful: Negative self and partner. High avoidance (i.e., deactivates attachment system) and high anxiety, distances to protect from rejection.

6. Relationship Maintenance Strategies • Behaviors that keep the couple together and continue desirable features of the relationship • Strategic behaviors, consciously designed to maintain the relationship (Stafford & Canary, 1991 • Routine strategies, daily behaviors that are more routine than conscious (Dainton & Stafford, 1992) • Strategies that define the meaning of physical separations (Gilbertson, Dindia, & Allen, 1998) • Linked to satisfaction and commitment

7. Purpose • Attachment Styles • Consistently associated with differences in interpersonal and general competence (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003), • May influence the use of relationship maintenance strategies and experienced stress. • LDRs vs. GCRs • May require different maintenance strategies

8. Rationale • No research has examined attachment, maintenance strategies, stress, and conflict in LDRs • Some maintenance strategies (e.g., assurances, positivity) might be used more in LDRs, because of the separation • LDR partners cannot share tasks in the same way as GCR couples. • Attachment style might be related to maintenance strategies and stress • LDR preoccupied might report more stress than GCR preoccupied, due to travel and anxiety associated with separations • Preoccupied might report more stress than Dismissing who prefer self-reliance and avoidance • LDR Preoccupied might avoid conflict, engage in more assurances, and use more maintenance strategies because of hyper-activating (anxious) attachment strategies than GCR Preoccupied.

9. Hypothesis • Expect significant attachment style and relationship structure (i.e., LDR/GCR) differences for • Relationship maintenance strategies • Conflict • Stress

10. Method • Procedure • web-based research • Participants recruited via listservs & non-electronic postings of a URL. • Participants • N = 244 • 35 male, 209 female • 132 LDR, 94 GCR • 202 Caucasian • 201 Never married, 177 steady dating partners • Education range: 3% high school to 97% college

11. Instruments • Relationship Questionnaire (RQ) (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) • Person’s chose one of four paragraphs representing secure, dismissing, preoccupied, and fearful attachment • Routine and Strategic Relational Maintenance Scale (RSRMS) (Stafford, Dainton, & Haas, 2000) • 31 items, 7 subscales • Assurance, 8 items,  = .91 • Openness, 7 items,  = .86 • Conflict Management, 5 items,  = .83 • Shared Tasks, 5 items,  = .88 • Positivity, 2 items,  = .66 • Advice, 2 items,  = .75 • Social Networks, 2 items,  = .68

12. Instruments • Relationship Continuity Constructional Unit (RCCU) (Gilbertson, Dindia, & Allen, 1998) • 22 items, 3 subscales, • Prospective, 7 items, tell partner what you’ll do while apart,  =.74 • Introspective, 11 items, telephone partner while apart,  = .83 • Retrospective, 10 items, kiss/hug partner hello,  = .80 • Conflict Questionnaire (Klein & Lamm, 1996) • 15 items, 3 subscales, • Self expression, 5 items,  = .94 • Listening, 5 items,  = .95 • Problem solving, 5 items,  = .92 • LDR Conflict, Designed for this study • 6 items, I avoid conflict when my partner & I cannot be together •  = .89 • Global Measure of Perceived Stress (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) • 10 items, unidemensional,  = .75

13. Results • A 2 x 4 MANOVA • IVs – Relationship structure & attachment style • DVs = RSRMS subscales, RCCU subscales, Conflict scales, and Stress • Main Effects • Relationship structure, Wilks’ Lambda = .84, F(15,204) = 2.57, p < .01, η2 = .16; • Attachment, Hotelling’s Trace = .45, F(45,608) =2.02, p < .001, η2 = .13. • No significant interactions.

14. Results – Univariate • LDR/GCR significant differences (Table 1) • Shared Tasks (RSRMS) • Prospective maintenance strategies (RCCU) • Introspective maintenance strategies (RCCU) • LDR Conflict • Attachment significant differences • Assurances, Openness, Conflict Management, Positivity, Advice, Social Networks (RSRMS) • Prospective, Retrospective (RCCU) • Stress • LDR Conflict • Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed which groups were significantly different (Table 2).

15. Discussion and Implications • LDRs and GCRs show some differences in communication patterns of their romantic relationships. • There are some attachment style differences in the way one relates in a LDR. • Psychologists can facilitate clients’ long distance romantic relationships with their partner by focusing the attachment-related stress of one’s maintenance strategies and LDR conflict

16. Table 1 Variable Relationship Structure LDR (n = 132)GCR (n = 94) M SD M SD F(1 , 218) η2 Share 28.51 5.05 29.85 4.87 4.30* .02 Pro 44.33 4.29 43.76 5.00 4.91* .02 Intro 55.96 11.29 52.79 12.76 7.39** .03 Retro 51.40 5.19 50.77 5.81 4.19* .02 LDR Conf 18.56 8.55 14.65 7.43 8.76** .04 Note. Share = Shared Tasks (RSRMS); Pro = Prospective, Intro = Introspective, Retro = Retrospective (RCCU). *p < .05. **p < .01.