When Distance is Problematic: Communication, Coping, and Relational Satisfaction in Female College Students' Long-Distance Dating Relationships

Abstract

This manuscript is one of many in a special issue of the Journal of Applied Communication Research on “Communication and Distance,” Volume 38, No. 1.

The purposes of this study are to gain an in-depth understanding of the situations in which long-distance dating relationships (LDDRs) are distressing for female college students, and to examine the associations between the perceived helpfulness of various communication coping strategies and relational satisfaction in both high and low distress LDDRs. Results indicate that the perceived helpfulness of joint problem solving was a major predictor of satisfaction among participants in low distress LDDRs, whereas the perceived helpfulness of openness was a major predictor of satisfaction among the participants in high distress LDDRs. Implications for research on LDDRs and coping are discussed.

Keywords:

• Long-Distance Dating Relationships
• Stress
• Coping
• Relationship Maintenance
• Relational Satisfaction

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the editors and reviewers for their helpful comments. A version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, San Antonio, TX, in November, 2006.

Notes

1. Recognizing that the initial separation can be a particularly turbulent time for LDDR partners (Guldner, 1996; Lydon, Pierce, & O'Regan, 1997), the present study focuses on stressors that continue after the initial separation period.

2. Consistent with Folkman et al.'s (1986) procedure, participants were asked to appraise the level of threat that each stressor posed on a five-point Likert-type scale (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree). Folkman et al.'s original 13-item measure included items measuring perceived threats to (a) self-esteem, (b) to a loved one's well-being, or (c) to one's own resources, goals or well-being (p. 994). Because the focus of this study was on relationships, an additional item (“harm to the well-being of the relationship”) was added to assess “threat to the relationship.” The items were subjected to Principal Axis Factoring with Oblimin rotation to verify the previously identified subscales. Components with an eigenvalue greater than one that contained at least two items with factor loadings above .40 on only one of the other factors were kept. Using these criteria, 13 items were retained on three factors accounting for 60.2% of the variance: threat to self-esteem (α=.86), threat to personal goals (α=.57), and threat to the relationship (α=.75). Only the measure of threat to the relationship is reported in this study.

3. Factor analysis results can be obtained by contacting the first author.

4. Follow-up comparisons between the high distress and low distress participants who identified being apart as their top stressor revealed that they differed significantly in regards to satisfaction (low distress: M=6.66, SD=1.35; high distress: M=2.42, SD=1.90; t(32)=7.28, p<.001), threat to the relationship (low distress: M=2.91, SD=1.22; high distress: M=4.08, SD=.87; t(36)=3.0, p=.005), and uncertainty about the likelihood of reunion (low distress: M=2.55, SD=1.39; high distress: M=3.58, SD=1.38; t(37)=2.13, p=.04).

5. Due to the number of t-tests conducted to test the predictions encompassed within Table 1, caution needs to be exercised regarding interpretations of significance across the high and low distress groups within each set of tests. Given that this study is an initial assessment of these types of relationships, however, we report the results using the traditional values of significance (p<.05 and p<.01).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Katheryn C. Maguire

Katheryn C. Maguire is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at Wayne State University

Terry A. Kinney

Terry A. Kinney is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at Wayne State University