A long-distance relationship (LDR) or long-distance romantic relationship is an intimate relationship between partners who are geographically separated from one another. Partners in LDRs face geographic separation and lack of face-to-face contact.[1] LDRs are particularly prevalent among college students, constituting 25% to 50% of all relationships.[2] Even though scholars have reported a significant number of LDRs in undergraduate populations, long-distance relationships continue to be an understudied phenomenon.[3]
Also, a romantic long-distance relationship (rLDR) refers to a relationship when communication opportunities are limited due to geographical factors, and the individuals involved in the relationship have expectations of maintaining a close connection.[4]
Characteristics
LDRs are qualitatively different from geographically close relationships; that is, relationships in which the partners are able to see each other, face-to-face, most days. According to Rohlfing (1995) he suggests the following unique challenges for those in long-distance relationships:
Increased financial burdens to maintain relationships
Difficulty maintaining geographically close friendships while in long-distance romantic relationships
Difficulty judging the state of a relationship from a distance
High expectations by partners for the quality of limited face-to-face meetings in the relationship
LDRs with friends and family
Not all long-distance relationships are romantic. When individuals go away to school, their relationships with family and friends also become long-distance. Pew Internet (2004) asserts that 79% of adult respondents from the United States reported using the Internet for communication with family and friends.[5] Also, Pew Internet (2002a) states that because of new technologies, college students will have greater social ties with their friends than their family members. Therefore, examining email among college students helps explore how the Internet is affecting college students emotionally and socially.[6]
Under the great influence of globalization, together with the advancement in transportation and communication technologies, migration has gradually become a feature of contemporary society. As a result, transnational families have become increasingly common in which family members live in different regions and countries, yet hold a sense of collective unity across national borders.[7] For instance, children choose to leave home to study abroad, parents decide to leave home for better prospects and salaries, or siblings pursue different life paths around the world.
Sustaining family relationships
A qualitative study that conducted 50 interviews with adult migrant children in Australia and their parents in Italy, Ireland, and the Netherlands found that geographically separated family members generally exchanged all types of care and support that proximate families did, including financial, practical, personal, accommodation, and emotional or moral support.[8] According to Loretta Baldassar, a closely related ethnographic analysis of 30 transnational families between grown-up migrant children living in Australia and their parents in Italy from the 1950s to 2000s illustrated that the exchange of emotional and moral support between parents and children was the fundamental factor for sustaining and staying committed to family relationships in transnational families.[9] The prevalence of Internet technologies has facilitated remote family members’ emotional exchange, and provided them with the opportunity of accessible and affordable long-distance communication on a daily basis for sustaining relationships.[9]
Cao (2013) conducted a series of interviews with 14 individuals who constantly communicated with family members living in different time zones, namely the UK, US, Canada, and China.[10][11] Analysis revealed that among a variety of communication methods, including synchronous means such as telephone and Internet audio/video call (e.g., Skype) and asynchronous methods such as email or text messaging, remote family members relied heavily on synchronous methods for virtual contact.[10] The real-time interactivity from synchronous communication provides a sense of presence, connectedness, and dedication between family members, which is regarded by Cao as an essential component of emotional support.[10] However, it is worth noting[according to whom?] that the Internet technologies have not replaced the use of older, less useful forms of communication, in which transnational families still use letters, cards, gifts, and photographs, etc. for showing their care and love.[9]
Research has shown that people sustain close relationships using different communication patterns with different family members. While people usually communicate heavily with immediate family members such as parents or children, they tend to communicate less frequently and regularly with other family members including siblings across time zones.[10] It is suggested[by whom?] that siblings feel less obligated to communicate dedicatedly with each other, especially for the younger generation, and they prefer ad hoc communication such as through instant messages to update each other's status.[10]
The effects of geographical separation on children’s well-being
Globally, there is a considerable number of parents who travel to another country in search of work, leaving behind their children in their home country. These parents hope to provide their children with better future life chances. The impacts of parents’ migration for work on left-behind children's growth are mixed, depending on various factors and the outcomes of transnational living arrangements on children's well-being vary. For instance, through surveying a sample of 755 Mexican households with at least one family member who had migrated to the US, researchers reported that left-behind children might benefit economically from the remittances their parents sent home while suffering emotionally from long-term separation.[12][non-primary source needed] Similar results were found by Lahaie, Hayes, Piper, and Heymann (2009), a correlational study investigating the relationship between parental migration and children's mental health outcomes using a representative sample of transnational families in Mexico and the US.[13][non-primary source needed]
In addition, whether the mother or father migrates for work also plays a role. Based on the interviews and observations with Filipina transnational families, children tended to experience more emotional problems from transnational motherhood than fatherhood, taking the traditional family gender roles into account.[14] The impacts of parent migration on children's psychological well-being are also distinctive in different countries. With reference to the data collected from the cross-sectional baseline study of Children Health and Migrant Parents in Southeast Asia (CHMPSEA), Graham and Jordan (2011) showed that children of migrant fathers in Indonesia and Thailand were more likely to suffer from poor psychological health when compared to children in non-migrant families, while the findings did not replicate in children from Philippine and Vietnam.[15][non-primary source needed] Special care arrangement for left-behind children, such as asking the extended family members for help to take on caregiving tasks, affects children's growth substantially. Lahaie et al. (2009) revealed that children who took care of themselves had a higher probability to exhibit behavioral and academic problems when compared to other children with care arrangements.[13][non-primary source needed] The feeling of being abandoned by parents is proposed to be one of the reasons that the children commit to undesirable behaviors such as quitting school or gang involvement as retaliation.[13][14]
Formats of LDR
Long-distance relationships (LDRs) exhibit considerable variation based on their specific contexts. For example, Smith-Osborne and Jani(2014)[16] note that military LDRs are influenced by military culture, where mission priorities often overshadow personal relationships.
Similarly, Nickels(2019)[17] investigates relationships involving incarcerated partners, highlighting challenges such as restricted communication, societal stigma, and significant financial burdens.
In commuter relationships, where partners reside in different cities, regular visits and communication help maintain their connection. Research by Rhodes(2002)[18] indicates that these relationships can endure through a mix of in-person meetings and digital communication, providing flexibility despite the physical distance.
Transnational relationships involve partners from different countries, requiring them to navigate cultural differences alongside geographical separation. These relationships heavily depend on technology for communication,[19] which facilitates bridging cultural divides and enhancing mutual understanding between partners.
Challenges
According to Tara Suwinyattichaiporn(2017)[4] research, there are some issues in long-distance relationships.
Idealization of partners
Idealization is a major concern in LDRs that involve unrealistic positive impressions of the partner and the relationship. Additionally, Stafford(2007)[20] in his study concluded that idealization during separation corresponds with postreunion instability.
The study concluded that LDRs partners are more likely to have a break up after getting back together than when they are separated. Reunion stability was positively related to face-to-face contact during the time apart but was negatively related to CMC and mail contact. Also, idealization during separation has a negative effect on stability after changing the status of the relationship from separation to proximity.
The absence of close contact and the use of computer technologies in communication lead to positive impression management.
Although idealization can maintain LDRs by enhancing relational satisfaction and stability, it becomes problematic when couples move to physical proximity because reality tends to differ with the idealized images.
Relational uncertainty
LDRs are characterised by physical separation of the partners and, therefore, the partners are bound to experience higher levels of uncertainty.
Self-uncertainty, including skepticism regarding one’s own emotion.
Partner uncertainty as a feeling insecure about the partner’s affection and devotion.
Relationship uncertainty of the general status of the relationship.
LDRs are also characterised by limited contact and fewer visits hence the element of uncertainty is more pronounced. It is most commonly linked to decreased satisfaction.
Jealousy occurs more frequently in LDRs due to relational uncertainty or use of social media and other similar platforms.
Communication challenges
LDRs are especially dependent on technology, and while they allow for high-quality interactions, they can also exacerbate such concerns as idealization. LDR partners claim their communication is more purposeful but have higher levels of conflict when they move to live close to each other
However, Tara Suwinyattichaiporn(2017)[4] mentioned one positive aspect of long-distance relationships (LDRs) that gives them an advantage over geographically close relationships (GCRs): the opportunity to have higher quality interactions during the time that is spent with each other. According to the survey, LDR couples said that the time they spent communicating or meeting is more meaningful, focused and purposeful than GCR couples couples. Such intentionality may result in more profound emotional entwinement and less daily conflict between them during their communications.
Moreover, according to Stafford[21](2010) the lack of physical proximity and the fact that the relationship is often considered taboo to have such conversations with a partner who lives nearby are normal and beneficial for LDRs .
Military long-distance relationship
The partners of military personnel deployed abroad experience a significant amount of stress, before and during the deployment. The difference between a military LDR and a regular LDR is that, while the regular LDR there is more communication the military LDR communication is unexpected and controlled by military regulations or there is not much time to talk. Because of the communication restrictions and the overall process of deployment, this leaves the partner back home feeling lonely, and stressing on how to keep a strong relationship moving forward.[22] Other stressors that add to the emotional situation are the realization that the service member is being deployed to a combat zone where their life is threatened. Through all the stages of the deployment the partner will exhibit many emotional problems, such as anxiety, loss, denial, anger, depression, and acceptance.[22]
This type of long-distance relationship is very hard to maintain. That is why there are some ways of adjustment that partners follow to stay together and prevent problems from arising.
Independence of the non-deployed Partner:
First is independence of a non-deployed partner and rejection of traditional gender roles. Due to the fact that the deployed partner is busy with his mission, the non-deployed partner should understand that all responsibility of making decisions about family, household, handling finances and caring for children should be done by himself
Flexibility and adjustment to expectations:
Both partners should be flexible and accept that traditional expectations, like consistent communication, shared parenting, may not always be feasible. Moreover, non-deployed partners should accept “military culture” which posits that mission and military duties are priorities over personal relationships and love. These adjustments help to manage expectations and make both partners comfortable together.[16]
Limitations of research
Most of the knowledge regarding changes in military long-distance relationships is based on research carried out in a particular cultural and geographical settings, namely American. These findings may not capture the differences in military cultures and norms of societies in other countries.[16]
Incarcerated Long-Distance Relationships
Incarcerated long-distance relationships[4] have their own features that are similar to military ones but with some differences that make them harder to maintain.
Stigma and lack of support
Non-prisoned partner can face lack of support from surroundings to stay in a relationship with an incarcerated partner and as a result feel more lonely, isolated and unmotivated to maintain the relationship.
Barriers to maintaining the relationship
These barriers include limited intimacy due to prison restrictions, high communication costs, physical distance, and stress about the future with an incarcerated partner.
Behaviors for maintaining incarcerated LDRs
A study identified five key behaviors that support the maintenance of incarcerated LDRs:
Positivity: behaving cheerfully and optimistically during interactions.
Openness: sharing thoughts, feelings, and discussing the quality of the relationship.
Assurances: expressing affection and commitment to the relationship.
Sharing tasks: collaborating on shared responsibilities where possible.
Social network involvement: spending time with mutual friends and involving family in activities.
Limitations of research
This research is a quantitative cross-sectional study done at a national level and can be assumed to reflect the results of the country’s cultural and institutional environment. It may not hold true in every country because the structure of prison systems, cultural differences, and financial situations can greatly affect these kinds of relationships.
Statistics in the US
In 2005 a survey suggested that in the United States, 14 to 15 million people considered themselves to be in a long-distance relationship. By 2015, this number remained at about 14 million. About 32.5% of college relationships are long-distance. The average amount of distance in a long-distance relationship is 125 miles. Couples in a long-distance relationship call each other every 2.7 days. On average, couples in long-distance relationships will visit each other 1.5 times a month. Also couples in long-distance relationships expect to live together around 14 months into the relationship. About 40% of couples in long-distance relationships break up; around 4.5 months into the relationship is the time when couples most commonly start having problems. 70% of couples in a long-distance relationship break up due to unplanned circumstances and events. 75% of all engaged couples have, at some point, been in a long distance relationship, and around 10% of couples continue to maintain a long-distance relationship after marriage. About 3.75 million married couples are in a long-distance relationship in the US alone.[23]
Means of staying in contact
New communication technologies such as cellular phone plans make communication among individuals at a distance easier than in the past.[24] Before the popularity of internet dating, long-distance relationships were not as common, as the primary forms of communication between the romance lovers usually involved either telephone conversations or corresponding via mail. According to Pew Internet, American citizens were asked how often they used the Internet on a typical day, they reported 56% sending or reading email, 10% reported sending instant messages, and 9% reported using an online social network such as Facebook[25] or Twitter. However, with the advent of the Internet, long-distance relationships have exploded in popularity as they become less challenging to sustain with the use of modern technology. Ultimately, communicating and setting realistic goals can help prevent disconnection and the loss of touch.[26]
The increase in long-distance relationships is matched by an increasing number of technologies designed specifically to support intimate couples living apart. In particular there have been a host of devices which have attempted to mimic co-located behaviors at a distance including hugging[27] and even kissing.[28] The success of these technologies has, so far, been limited.
Couples who have routine, strategic relational maintenance behaviors, and take advantage of social media can help maintain a long-distance relationship.[29] Having positivity (making interactions cheerful and pleasant), openness (directly discussing the relationship and one's feelings), assurances (reassuring the partner about the relationship and the future), network (relying on support and love of others), shared tasks (performing common tasks) and conflict management (giving the partner advice) are some of the routine and strategic relation maintenance behaviors [30]
The differentiation of social media usage during LDR consists of several actions, including video-calls(Instagram, Whatsapp, Snapchat, Viber, Skype, Discord, Telegram etc), phone-calls, and everyday chatting.
Research of Abel, Machin and Brownlow(2020)[31] discusses the main themes regarding interactions in a social media context.
Families utilize various social media platforms for functional and transactional tasks, engaging in bonding activities through audiovisual calls that are often used for casual conversations or group chats help maintain bonds without intruding on each other's time. However, barriers such as limited internet access, lower socioeconomic status, and digital literacy can hinder these interactions. Also they demonstrate resilience by recreating face-to-face rituals online, maintaining traditions despite geographic separation.
According to Morgan R. Kuske(2020),[32] long-distance partners use social media to keep in contact such as Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Twitter. It is the most convenient way to have private communication.
Shared online activities are also the methods of staying in contact.[33] There will be engaging in online-games (in Discord and other platforms), watching movies together (due to the technological advance of such services), sharing shortcut videos like in Tiktok and Reels in Instagram. Couples[34] can organize virtual dates where they participate in the same activities, like preparing a meal together or watching a film at the same time. Engaging in multiplayer games offers them an interactive way to connect through friendly competition and teamwork. Additionally, utilizing technology to discover new locations together — such as through virtual museum tours or live-streamed travel experiences — can strengthen their sense of partnership. Participating in creative activities, like painting portraits of one another during a video call, can be both enjoyable and insightful.
The idea of giving and receiving gifts exists as an important factor of LDR lasting and duration. Gift exchange across distances can disrupt the solitude of distance, becoming a way of exchanging experiences between people who are geographically apart. This research points out that such gifts are most fulfilling because the recipient gets to receive much more than the physical item, it is a message of the self that may be difficult to put into words.Some sites on the Internet consist of different gifts that could be shared with one’s partner. Continuing, when a person lacks money for delivery or transportation, there is an opportunity to make various types of DIV’s, so called “hand-made” gifts. Attention should be paid also to the seriosity of pages and sites, not to ruin the relationship because of the strangers’ blogs.[35]
The lack of physical touch is not disappearing. However, scientists, consumers and psychologists already have devices that could try to fulfill the gap that untouchability causes. Starting from the sensory bracelets, heartbeat rings, and ending with the adult toys, the variety for choice is increasing everyday. The research conducted by Saadatian and Samani(2014)[36] presents the idea of "kiss messaging," a digital technology created to replicate the sensation of kissing. This innovation seeks to close the emotional gap caused by physical separation by offering a way for partners to show affection. Kiss messaging acts as a substitute for physical contact, enabling couples to perform intimate actions that would be unattainable due to distance.
Relationship maintenance behaviors
Intimate relationship partners constantly work to improve their relationship. There are many ways in which they can make their partner happy and strengthen the overall relationship.[37] The ways in which individuals behave have a major effect on the satisfaction and the durability of the relationship. Researchers have found systems of maintenance behaviors between intimate partners. Maintenance behaviors can be separated into seven categories: assurances in relation to love and commitment in the relationship, openness in sharing their feelings, conflict management, positive interactions, sharing tasks, giving advice to their partner, and using social networks for support (Dainton, 2000; Stafford, Dainton, & Haas, 2000).
Dindia and Emmers-Sommer (2006) identified three categories of maintaining behaviors that are used by partners to deal with separation. "Prospective behaviors, such as telling the partner goodbye, which addresses anticipated separation; introspective behaviors, which is communication when the partners are apart; and retrospective behaviors which are basically talking to each other face to face, which reaffirms connection after separation." (Dindia, & Emmers-Sommer, 2006). These are known as the relationship continuity constructional units (RCCUs). Maintenance behaviors as well as the RCCUs are correlated with an increase in relationship satisfaction, as well as, commitment (Pistole et al., 2010).
Research
In a study of jealousy experience, expression, in LDRs, 114 individuals who were in LDRs indicated how much face-to-face contact they had in a typical week. Thirty-three percent of participants reported no face-to-face contact, whereas 67% reported periodic face-to-face contact with a mean of one to two days.[38] The researchers compared LDRs to GCRs (geographically close relationships) and discovered that those in LDRs with no face-to-face contact experience more jealousy than those with periodic face-to-face contact or those in GCRs. Furthermore, those without periodic face-to-face contact were more likely to use the internet to communicate with their partner. They found that the presence of periodic face-to-face contact is a crucial factor in the satisfaction, commitment, and trust of LDR partners. Those who do not experience periodic face-to-face contact reported significantly lower levels of satisfaction, commitment, and trust.
Another study generated a sample of 335 undergraduate students who were in LDRs and became geographically close.[39] Of the reunited couples, 66 individuals terminated their relationships after moving to the same location, whereas 114 continued their relationship.
A study done by Stafford, Merolla, and Castle (2006)[40] reported that the transition from being separated geographically to proximal increased partner interference. Based on the Communicative Interdependence Perspective, it was found that when partners switched from technologically mediated communication (TMC) to face-to-face (FtF) or vice versa, they experienced certain levels of discomfort.[41] The transition from FtF to TMC communication can make it difficult to express one's emotions and can be easier to cause miscommunication. It is believed to be plausible that transitions can be a risk factor towards long-distance dating relationships.[42]
Based on the analysis of the open-ended responses, 97% of respondents noted some type of relationship change associated with the LD-GC (geographically close) transition. When the respondents were asked about having the ability to have more face-to-face time when GC and the enjoyment of increased time spent together most comments were positive. For example, "We finally got to do all the 'little' things we'd been wanting to do for so long; we get to hold each other, wake up next to each other, eat together, etc." Many Individuals reported a loss of autonomy, following reunion. For example, many individuals liked and missed the "freedom" or "privacy" the distance allowed. Reports of "nagging", demanding or expecting "too much" were also frequent responses. Several individuals reported more conflict and "fighting" in their relationship after it became geographically close. Many said they felt the conflict in their relationship was not only more frequent but also more difficult to resolve. For example, one individual stated that, when his/her relationship was long-distance, they "fought less and if we did fight, problems were solved in a shorter amount of time." For some individuals living in the same location led to increased feelings of jealousy. After witnessing their partner's behavior, some participants said that they became increasingly concerned that their partners were currently "cheating" on them or had "cheated on them in the past." Reunion allowed the discovery of positive as well as negative characteristics about their partner, feeling that the partner had changed in some way since the relationship was long-distance.
An internet relationship is a relationship between people who have met online, and in many cases know each other only via the Internet. Online relationships are similar in many ways to pen pal relationships. This relationship can be romantic, platonic, or even based on business affairs. An internet relationship is generally sustained for a certain amount of time before being titled a relationship, just as in-person relationships. The major difference here is that an internet relationship is sustained via computer or online service, and the individuals in the relationship may or may not ever meet each other in person. Otherwise, the term is quite broad and can include relationships based upon text, video, audio, or even virtual character. This relationship can be between people in different regions, different countries, different sides of the world, or even people who reside in the same area but do not communicate in person.
Remote work is the practice of working at or from one's home or another space rather than from an office.
In social psychology, an interpersonal relation describes a social association, connection, or affiliation between two or more persons. It overlaps significantly with the concept of social relations, which are the fundamental unit of analysis within the social sciences. Relations vary in degrees of intimacy, self-disclosure, duration, reciprocity, and power distribution. The main themes or trends of the interpersonal relations are: family, kinship, friendship, love, marriage, business, employment, clubs, neighborhoods, ethical values, support and solidarity. Interpersonal relations may be regulated by law, custom, or mutual agreement, and form the basis of social groups and societies. They appear when people communicate or act with each other within specific social contexts, and they thrive on equitable and reciprocal compromises.
Proxemics is the study of human use of space and the effects that population density has on behavior, communication, and social interaction. Proxemics is one among several subcategories in the study of nonverbal communication, including haptics (touch), kinesics, vocalics (paralanguage), and chronemics.
Human communication, or anthroposemiotics, is a field of study dedicated to understanding how humans communicate. Humans' ability to communicate with one another would not be possible without an understanding of what we are referencing or thinking about. Because humans are unable to fully understand one another's perspective, there needs to be a creation of commonality through a shared mindset or viewpoint. The field of communication is very diverse, as there are multiple layers of what communication is and how we use its different features as human beings.
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is defined as any human communication that occurs through the use of two or more electronic devices. While the term has traditionally referred to those communications that occur via computer-mediated formats, it has also been applied to other forms of text-based interaction such as text messaging. Research on CMC focuses largely on the social effects of different computer-supported communication technologies. Many recent studies involve Internet-based social networking supported by social software.
A relationship breakup, breakup, or break-up is the ending of a relationship. The act is commonly termed "dumping [someone]" in slang when it is initiated by one partner. The term is less likely to be applied to a married couple, where a breakup is typically called a separation or divorce. When a couple engaged to be married breaks up, it is typically called a "broken engagement". People commonly think of breakups in a romantic aspect, however, there are also non-romantic and platonic breakups, and this type of relationship dissolution is usually caused by failure to maintain a friendship.
Virtual sex is sexual activity where two or more people gather together via some form of communications equipment to arouse each other, often by the means of transmitting sexually explicit messages. Virtual sex describes the phenomenon, no matter the communications equipment used.
An intimate relationship is an interpersonal relationship that involves emotional or physical closeness between people and may include sexual intimacy and feelings of romance or love. Intimate relationships are interdependent, and the members of the relationship mutually influence each other. The quality and nature of the relationship depends on the interactions between individuals, and is derived from the unique context and history that builds between people over time. Social and legal institutions such as marriage acknowledge and uphold intimate relationships between people. However, intimate relationships are not necessarily monogamous or sexual, and there is wide social and cultural variability in the norms and practices of intimacy between people.
Expectancy violations theory (EVT) is a theory of communication that analyzes how individuals respond to unanticipated violations of social norms and expectations. The theory was proposed by Judee K. Burgoon in the late 1970s and continued through the 1980s and 1990s as "nonverbal expectancy violations theory", based on Burgoon's research studying proxemics. Burgoon's work initially analyzed individuals' allowances and expectations of personal distance and how responses to personal distance violations were influenced by the level of liking and relationship to the violators. The theory was later changed to its current name when other researchers began to focus on violations of social behavior expectations beyond nonverbal communication.
Self-disclosure is a process of communication by which one person reveals information about themselves to another. The information can be descriptive or evaluative, and can include thoughts, feelings, aspirations, goals, failures, successes, fears, and dreams, as well as one's likes, dislikes, and favorites.
Relational dialectics is an interpersonal communication theory about close personal ties and relationships that highlights the tensions, struggles, and interplay between contrary tendencies. The theory, proposed respectively by Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery in 1988, defines communication patterns between relationship partners as the result of endemic dialectical tensions. Dialectics are described as the tensions an individual feels when experiencing paradoxical desires that we need and/ or want. The theory contains four assumptions, one of them being that relationships are not one dimensional, rather, they consist of highs and lows, without moving in only one direction. The second assumption claims that change is a key element in relational life, in other words, as our lives change, our relationships change with it. Third, is the assumption that, “contradictions or tensions between opposites never go away and never cease to provide tension,” which means, we will always experience the feelings of pressure that come with our contradictory desires. The fourth assumption is that communication is essential when it comes to working through these opposing feelings. Relationships are made in dialogue and they can be complicated and dialogue with similarities and differences are necessary. Relational communication theories allow for opposing views or forces to come together in a reasonable way. When making decisions, desires and viewpoints that often contradict one another are mentioned and lead to dialectical tensions. Leslie A. Baxter and Barbara M. Montgomery exemplify these contradictory statements that arise from individuals experience dialectal tensions using common proverbs such as "opposites attract", but "birds of a feather flock together"; as well as, "two's company; three's a crowd" but "the more the merrier". This does not mean these opposing tensions are fundamentally troublesome for the relationship; on the contrary, they simply bring forward a discussion of the connection between two parties.
Pornography has been defined as any material in varying forms, including texts, video, photos or audio that is consumed for sexual satisfaction and arousal of an individual or partnership. The effects of pornography on individuals or their intimate relationships have been a subject of research.
Social information processing theory, also known as SIP, is a psychological and sociological theory originally developed by Salancik and Pfeffer in 1978. This theory explores how individuals make decisions and form attitudes in a social context, often focusing on the workplace. It suggests that people rely heavily on the social information available to them in their environments, including input from colleagues and peers, to shape their attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions.
Interpersonal communication is an exchange of information between two or more people. It is also an area of research that seeks to understand how humans use verbal and nonverbal cues to accomplish several personal and relational goals. Communication includes utilizing communication skills within one's surroundings, including physical and psychological spaces. It is essential to see the visual/nonverbal and verbal cues regarding the physical spaces. In the psychological spaces, self-awareness and awareness of the emotions, cultures, and things that are not seen are also significant when communicating.
Phubbing refers to the act of ignoring one’s immediate social interactions in favor of engaging with a smartphone, making it a prevalent behavior in today's digital age. While it is frequently associated with the concept of fear of missing out (FOMO), the current body of research presents conflicting evidence regarding the strength and consistency of this relationship. In May 2012, as part of a linguistic experiment by Macquarie Dictionary, the advertising agency behind the campaign, McCann, had invited a number of lexicographers, authors, and poets to coin a neologism to describe the behavior. The word "phubbing," a portmanteau of phone and snubbing, was first described by McCann Group Account Director Adrian Mills, who was working with David Astle. The term has appeared in media around the world and was popularized by the Stop Phubbing campaign created by McCann.
Commuter couples are a subset of dual-career couples who live apart in separate residences while both partners pursue careers.
Relationships of incarcerated individuals are the familial and romantic relations of individuals in prisons or jails. Although the population of incarcerated men and women is considered quite high in many countries, there is relatively little research on the effects of incarceration on the inmates' social worlds. However, it has been demonstrated that inmate relationships play a significant role in their well-being both during and after incarceration, making such research important in improving their overall health, and lowering rates of recidivism.
Relationship maintenance refers to a variety of behaviors exhibited by relational partners in an effort to maintain that relationship. Scholars define relational maintenance in four different ways: to keep a relationship in existence, to keep a relationship in a specified state or condition, to keep a relationship in a satisfactory condition, and to keep a relationship in repair.
Tie signs are signs, signals, and symbols, that are revealed through people's actions as well as objects such as engagement rings, wedding bands, and photographs of a personal nature that suggest a relationship exists between two people. For romantic couples, public displays of affection (PDA) including things like holding hands, an arm around a partner's shoulders or waist, extended periods of physical contact, greater-than-normal levels of physical proximity, grooming one's partner, and “sweet talk” are all examples of common tie signs. Tie signs inform the participants, as well as outsiders, about the nature of a relationship, its condition, and even what stage a relationship is in.
↑ Maguire, Katheryn C.; Terry A. Kinney (February 2010). "When Distance is Problematic: Communication, Coping, and Relational Satisfaction in Female College Students' Long-Distance Dating Relationships". Journal of Applied Communication Research. 38 (1): 27–46. doi:10.1080/00909880903483573. S2CID144663621.
↑ Baldassar, L., Wilding, R., & Baldock, C. (2007). Long-distance care-giving: transnational families and the provision of aged care. In I. Paoletti (Ed.), Family caregiving for older disabled people: Relational and institutional issues (pp. 201-227). New York: Nova Science.
1 2 3 Baldassar, Loretta (2007). "Transnational families and the provision of moral and emotional support: The relationship between truth and distance". Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power. 14 (4): 385–409. doi:10.1080/10702890701578423. S2CID144607595.
↑ Heymann, Jody; Flores-Macias, Francisco; Hayes, Jeffrey A; Kennedy, Malinda; Claudia, Lahaie; Earle, Alison (2009). "The impact of migration on the well-being of transnational families: New data from sending communities in Mexico". Community, Work & Family. 12 (1): 91–103. doi:10.1080/13668800802155704. S2CID144719024.
1 2 3 Lahaie, Claudia; Hayes, Jeffrey A; Piper, Tinka Markham; Heymann, Jody (2009). "Work and family divided across borders: The impact of parental migration on Mexican children in transnational families". Community, Work & Family. 12 (3): 299–312. doi:10.1080/13668800902966315. S2CID144862760.
↑ Janning, M, M. (2017). [doi:10.1177/0192513x1769872 "Constructing Shared "Space": Meaningfulness in Long-Distance Romantic Relationship Communication Formats"]. Journal of Family Issues. 39 (5): 1281–1303. doi:10.1177/0192513x1769872 (inactive 24 December 2024).{{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help)CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of December 2024 (link)
↑ Zucker Saltz, Lizzie (2009). Crafting Romance. Athens: Athens Institute of Contemporary Art. p.5. Certainly one of the reasons that long-distance relationships are so difficult to maintain is due to the physical separation that no advance in communication technologies has yet been able to reconcile. Playfully drawing our attention to this fact, Cindy Hinant's telephone sculptures tease out the sexually suggestive language of telephone services that insist on denying the separation of the speakers...Here the objects of communication-the now outdated landline telephones-take on the physicality of human relationships, not against technology's domination but by and through it. As we shift over to cellular phones, Hinant's sculptures are both nostalgic for the materiality of older devices and instructive as to the ways in which we might preserve for our modern age what Jean Baudrillard called the 'ecstasy of communication.'
↑ Sidelinger, R.; Ayash, G.; Godorhazy, A.; Tibbles, D. (2008). "Couples Go Online: Relational Maintenance Behaviors and Relational Characteristics Use in Dating Relationships". Human Communication.
↑ Kuske, M. R (2020). "Social media use in the maintenance of long-distance romantic relationships in college". UWL Journal of Undergraduate Research. 23: 1–6.
↑ Janning, M, M. (2017). [doi:10.1177/0192513x1769872 "Constructing Shared "Space": Meaningfulness in Long-Distance Romantic Relationship Communication Formats"]. Journal of Family Issues. 39 (5): 1281–1303. doi:10.1177/0192513x1769872 (inactive 24 December 2024) – via free.{{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help)CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of December 2024 (link)
↑ Aylor, B; Dainton M. (2002). "Patterns of Communication channel use in the maintenance of long-distance relationships". Communication Research Reports. 19 (2): 118–129. doi:10.1080/08824090209384839. S2CID143956896.
↑ Stafford, L.; Merolla, A. J.; Castle, J. D. (2006). "When long-distance dating partners become geographically close". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 23 (6): 23. doi:10.1177/0265407506070472. S2CID32143886.
↑ Caughlin, J. P.; Sharabi, L. L. (2013). "A communicative interdependence perspective of close relationships: The connections between mediated and unmediated interactions matter". Journal of Communication: 873. doi:10.1111/jcom.12046.
↑ Wang, Ningxin; Roache, David; Pusateri, Kimberly (October 1, 2019). "Interconnection of Multiple Communication Modes in Long-Distance Dating Relationships". Western Journal of Communication. 83 (5): 605. doi:10.1080/10570314.2018.1552986. S2CID149764379.
Bibliography
Chris Bell, Kate Brauer-Bell, The Long-Distance Relationship Survival Guide (New York: Ten Speed Press, 2006)
Dindia, K., & Emmers-Sommer, E. M., (2006). What partner do to maintain their close relationships. In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.) Close relationships: Functions, forms, and processes (pp.302–324). New York: Psychology Press.
Dainton, M (2000). "Maintenance behaviors, expectations for maintenance, and satisfaction: Linking comparison levels to relational maintenance strategies". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 17 (6): 827–842. doi:10.1177/0265407500176007. S2CID146284130.
Seetha Narayan, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Long-Distance Relationships (Alpha Books: 2005)
Rohlfing, M. E. (1995). Doesn't anyone stay in one place anymore? An exploration of the understudied phenomenon of long-distance relationships. In J. Woods & S. Duck (Eds.), Understudied relationships: Off the beaten track (pp.173–196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Marnocha, Suzanne. "Military Wives' Transition and Coping: Deployment and the Return Home." Military Wives' Transition and Coping: Deployment and the Return Home. International Scholarly Research Notices, 5 Mar. 2012. Web. 3 Nov. 2015.
Suwinyattichaiporn, T., Fontana, J., Shaknitz, L., & Linder, K. (2017). Maintaining long-distance romantic relationships: The college students' perspective. Kentucky Journal of Communication, 36(1), 67–89.
Smith-Osborne, A., & Jani, J. (2014). Long-distance military and civilian relationships: Women’s perceptions of the impact of communication technology and military culture. Military Behavioral Health, 2(4), 293–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2014.963759
Nickels, B. M. (2019). Love locked up: An exploration of relationship maintenance and perceived barriers for women who have incarcerated partners. Journal of Family Communication, 20(1), 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2019.1674853
Rhodes, A. R. (2002). Long-Distance Relationships in Dual-Career Commuter Couples: A Review of Counseling Issues. The Family Journal, 10(4), 398–404. doi:10.1177/106648002236758
Janning, M., Gao, W., & Snyder, E. (2017). Constructing Shared “Space”: Meaningfulness in Long-Distance Romantic Relationship Communication Formats. Journal of Family Issues, 39(5), 1281–1303. doi:10.1177/0192513x1769872
Chien, W.-C., & Hassenzahl, M. (2017). Technology-Mediated Relationship Maintenance in Romantic Long-Distance Relationships: An Autoethnographical Research through Design. Human–Computer Interaction, 1–48. doi:10.1080/07370024.2017.1401927
Stafford, L., & Merolla, A. J. (2007). Idealization, reunions, and stability in long-distance dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 37–54. doi:10.1177/0265407507072578
Stafford, L. (2010). Geographic distance and communication during courtship. Journal of Communication, 60(1), 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01473.x
Abel, S., Machin, T., & Brownlow, C. (2020). Social media, rituals, and long-distance family relationship maintenance: A mixed-methods systematic review. New Media & Society, 146144482095871. doi:10.1177/1461444820958717
Kuske, M. R., Leahy, R. (Sponsor). (2020). Social media use in the maintenance of long-distance romantic relationships in college. UWL Journal of Undergraduate Research, 23, 1–6.
Latinytė, R. (2023). Communication Through Shared Experience: Gifts that Overcome Distance. LITUANUS.
Saadatian, E., & Samani, R. (2016). Bridging intimacy in long-distance relationships: The advent of sensory technology. Journal of Digital Interactions, 12(3), 45–62.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
