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)
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 LDRs vs. GCRs
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 LDR Conflict, Designed for this study
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 Main Effects
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
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 *
Pro *
Intro ** .03
Retro *
LDR Conf ** .04
Note. Share = Shared Tasks (RSRMS); Pro = Prospective, Intro = Introspective, Retro = Retrospective (RCCU).
*p < .05. **p < .01.