effects of long distance relationships essay

The Effects Of A Long-Distance Relationship

Long-distance relationships can be challenging, but they also have the potential to be rewarding. It may be beneficial to take the time to understand the terms of the relationship and to communicate your feelings openly and honestly. This can improve your chances of making your long-distance relationship work. 

It might help to remember that effort is required for geographically close and long-distance relationships alike. For example, you'll need to work on your relationship whether one person lives in New York City and the other in Los Angeles or you're 10 minutes away from each other. 

Remember, a long-distance relationship often involves unique dynamics that mix difficult and rewarding aspects of love. If you're in a long-distance relationship or considering one, it might be helpful to know the general pros and cons of these types of connections. This article explores benefits and drawbacks while suggesting resources for keeping your intimacy strong, no matter the distance.

Do long distance relationships work? 

According to the New York Post, approximately  60% of long-distance relationships work over the long term . More than 50% of individuals in a long-distance relationship believe absence does make the heart grow fonder. If you're in a long-distance relationship, you're not alone, and many people find that a long distance relationship can be both rewarding and intimate. 

However, maintaining any relationship, including a long distance relationship, can take effort, dedication, and understanding. While it may seem like the distance between you could amplify challenges, some studies suggest that long-distance relationships may involve stronger bonds than face-to-face relationships. Despite these statistics, heartache can feel unavoidable if you miss your partner or can't cope with the distance. By weighing the pros and cons of your long distance relationship, you and your partner can determine whether to prioritize your relationship or consider other options.

The advantages of long-distance relationships 

People enter a long-distance relationship for many reasons. Existing partners may enroll at colleges on different coasts or land their dream jobs in different cities. Due to technological advances, other people searching for companionship begin their relationships online despite being hundreds or thousands of miles apart. New and long-time partners may benefit from a long-distance relationship in the following ways. 

Emotional connection and intimacy 

Many people start relationships based on physical attraction and their physical chemistry. Since long-distance partners often get to know each other before being physically intimate, they might build effective communication skills and an emotional bond first. Although there may still be sexual or physical attraction in the long distance relationship, long-distance couples might form their bond on their love and respect for each other, which could be associated with higher relationship satisfaction, according to one study .                 

Trust is often a valued component of romantic relationships. If you and your partner are committed to making your long distance relationship work despite the distance, discussing your expectations and concerns at the outset may lessen the chance of heartbreak. 

As many long-distance partners lead their own lives outside of their long-distance relationship, they may learn to respect their partner's time while enjoying their own. They might also develop a routine by checking in with each other at various times throughout the day, which can help build trust and instill a sense of comfort.

A solid bond 

Because building and maintaining an emotional connection can be essential for a long-distance relationship, long-distance partners might use various forms of communication to connect. They may communicate through phone calls, emails, and texts, have video chat dates, and send letters tucked inside thoughtful care packages. By mixing up forms of communication, the relationship can remain fresh and exciting, allowing you to find new ways to love each other. 

Resilience  

Many long-distance partners look forward to being together in person one day. Distance can sometimes be a stressor, so moving through this stress and finding ways to cope together can strengthen your resilience. If you've been through periods of separation or have spent months or years apart, your resilience could help you feel grateful and cherish your time together when you're face to face.  

The disadvantages of being in long-distance relationships

While challenges can occur in any relationship, the distance may intensify painful emotions. If you can't make up with a partner after an argument with physical gestures, gifts, or acts of service, it can be challenging to show love. Below are a few of the other potential disadvantages of a long-distance relationship. 

Communication challenges 

A long-distance relationship can be challenging if you or your partner have trouble communicating. However, a few authors have written books on long-distance love and how to keep the spark alive through verbal communication. Consider reading a book on this topic with your partner and checking in regularly to discuss—and practice—each skill. 

Keep in mind that text messages and emails can be challenging to interpret, whether your relationship is new or long-standing. Partners in a long-distance relationship may agree to discuss essential topics via phone or video chat rather than text or email to reduce the chances of a misunderstanding. 

Loneliness may occur when you love someone in another city, state, or country. Surrounding yourself with loving, supportive family and friends can lessen loneliness. In addition, try to be open with your partner when feeling alone. 

Some partners chat on the phone to beat loneliness while watching their favorite TV shows or movies. Others surprise each other with occasional gifts to brighten each other's day. Below are a few other ideas to connect with your partner: 

• Make a Google Docs list of plans for your next trip together and add tourist attractions you'd like to see and share it with your partner to add their ideas
• Video chat after ordering takeout and eat the food together 
• Take an online cooking class together 
• Play an online game or multiplayer game on your favorite platform
• Buy a long-distance adult toy that connects to both partners
• Buy a long-distance message box where you can draw pictures and leave messages for your partner to find
• Try a long-distance heartbeat bracelet to see each other's pulse throughout the day 
• Create a package to send 
• Write a letter to your partner 
• Take online relationship quizzes together and discuss the results on the phone 
• Share your favorite songs or make playlists together 

Lack of physical intimacy

If you value physical intimacy, trying to love someone from a distance can affect your mental health and overall well-being. Lack of a physical connection can also be difficult for a relationship if you or your partner express or crave love through physical touch.

In his bestselling book,  The Five Love Languages , author Gary Chapman highlights five ways people might experience love. Along with words of affirmation, gifts, acts of service, and quality time, Chapman explains that some individuals prefer to communicate through physical touch. Those with this love language feel most connected to their partners when holding hands, hugging, and kissing.

If your or your partner's love language is physical touch, consider sending each other a care kit of tactile objects you can feel and smell. For example, you can send one of your shirts, a blanket you've slept in, or a teddy bear your partner can hug at night. You can also send a letter with your favorite lotion, perfume, or cologne to remind them of you. 

Potential for jealousy or secrets 

Trust can be essential in any relationship, including long-distance ones. If one or more partner lacks trust, the relationship might struggle. If partners experience jealousy, complicated arguments might arise. In addition, if one partner isn't honest and uses their time apart to cheat or spend romantic time with others, it could cause challenging conversations or arguments in the future when the couple meets in person. 

If you don't trust your long-distance partner or they haven't been honest about who they are, you might ask them to have an honest conversation over video chat about these topics. Some couples may also consider therapy to discuss their conflicts. 

At times, long-distance love might not feel feasible or beneficial. Maintaining a relationship across the miles can be difficult if you don't see a way to be with your partner in person. If you're worried you're growing emotionally distant or bored of your routine with your long-distance love, consider prioritizing the relationship. 

You can try to schedule more date nights, set aside time to talk over the phone, or send your partner a letter. These efforts might rekindle the connection you have with each other. However, if the relationship no longer works for your lifestyle, it may feel easier to end the relationship or pause until you understand how you want to proceed. 

Online risks  

Many long-distance relationships begin online. Whether you meet a potential partner on a dating app or a website, try to use caution and don't ignore red flags. Red flags might include the following: 

• Refusal to let you meet others in their life
• Long periods of ignoring your messages or calls
• Social media profiles with few photos, lots of filters, or mostly cartoon images
• Frequent requests for financial support 
• Pressuring behavior 
• Refusal to talk about meeting each other in person 
• Telling you they are royalty or a celebrity 
• Using photos you can track online to another profile or person 

Suggest a video chat once you feel comfortable communicating with the other person. If you can, try to only meet in person when you've video chatted and talked to the person on the phone. If possible, choose a public meeting place. 

In some online dating scenarios, people are blindsided when they find out the person they've been communicating with for weeks, months, or years is someone else. This phenomenon is often called ""catfishing." Try not to ignore your instincts. If you're unsure of someone's intentions or identity, it might be best to believe your instincts. 

Romantic ideas for long-distance partners 

Keeping any romantic relationship healthy can be difficult. When distance is involved, couples might face unique roadblocks. The components of a strong, successful, happy relationship are different for everyone, so finding what works for you and your partner may help you succeed. Below are a few resources to build a more profound connection. 

Online quizzes

Online quizzes about personality, relationships, and love can be fun to take with your partner. Use the results of these quizzes to spark conversations and get to know each other on a deeper level. 

Long-distance apps and gadgets

Many people have developed unique objects or apps couples can use to connect. For example, you may be able to buy bracelets that show you your partner's heart rate from far away or light up when they tap theirs with their finger. You can also try an app to send messages to your partner throughout the day. Some people buy intimate objects for long-distance couples or send physical gifts to connect with each other. 

A couples journal

A long-distance couple's journal is a prompted journal you can write in for a week or month before mailing it to your partner to fill out. Although you can talk online, having a journal you can send back and forth can give you something to look forward to. You might also include gifts you've come across during your week or month before you send the journal back. For example, pressed flowers, cool beach rocks, or a bookmark you thought they'd like can be added to the package. 

Remote counseling 

At times, long-distance relationships may feel challenging. However, modern psychological advancements have made it possible for couples to receive therapeutic support online. 

One study published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy examined the benefits of online therapy for partners experiencing strained relationships. The study found that couples often avoided seeking therapy due to perceived stigma, logistical issues, and cost. Researchers found that internet-based therapy could effectively reduce those barriers, offering increased flexibility at a lower cost than traditional counseling.

Through online platforms like BetterHelp for individuals or Regain for couples, you can meet with a therapist remotely through video, phone, or chat sessions. Long-distance couples can attend the same couples therapy session on one account from two separate locations. Having a therapist to talk to about the unique experiences that come with long-distance can be beneficial, and you don't have to have a mental illness to talk to someone. 

Ready to improve your relationship?

Therapy is a personal experience, and not everyone will go into it seeking the same things. Keeping this in mind can ensure that you will get the most out of online therapy, regardless of what your specific goals are. If you’re still wondering if  therapy  is right for you, and how much therapy costs, please contact us at  [email protected] . 

• Revitalize Your Relationship: The 10 Best Places For Relationship Advice Medically reviewed by Laura Angers Maddox , NCC, LPC
• Five Signs To Look For In A Toxic Relationship Medically reviewed by Dr. Jerry Crimmins , PsyD, LP
• Relationships and Relations

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How Long-Distance Relationships Affect Your Mental Health

Barbara is a writer and speaker who is passionate about mental health, overall wellness, and women's issues.

Dr. Sabrina Romanoff, PsyD, is a licensed clinical psychologist and a professor at Yeshiva University’s clinical psychology doctoral program.

Phiromya Intawongpan / Getty Images

Long-distance relationships can be problematic for the growth of a healthy relationship. The ramifications can also affect your mental health in negative ways. But it's also possible to thrive in a long-distance relationship. Distance can indeed make the heart grow fonder.

What Being Apart Does to Your Brain

When you’re not living in the same household or near your partner, distance alone can increase your levels of stress . Results of one study indicated that being in a long-distance relationship was associated with more individual and relationship stress than being in a proximal relationship.

Because you are physically, mentally, and emotionally not as close to your partner, you might not get enough of the feel-good neurotransmitters or “happy hormones”: dopamine and serotonin. Both affect your gut health.

Dopamine also affects movement. This happy hormone is associated with pleasure and rewards. Substance abuse can, however, lower your levels of dopamine. Low levels of dopamine can adversely affect your neurocognitive functioning and is linked to major depressive disorder .

Here are common symptoms to let you know you might have inadequate levels of dopamine:

• Inattentiveness
• Lacking motivation or drive
• Inability to concentrate
• Difficulty sleeping
• Forgetfulness
• Lack of interest in sex

Serotonin is associated with feeling good, too. You can compensate for not seeing your partner regularly by adjusting your diet, exercising regularly, and spending time in the sunshine.   The Cleveland Clinic says serotonin plays a key role in the regulation of your mood, sleep, and sexual desire. 

Signs of serotonin deficiency you should pay attention to include:

• Mood fluctuations
• Disrupted sleep
• Appetite loss
• Problems with memory and learning

When you’re not residing in the same city and you can’t reach your significant other, your imagination might take over. Are they out with someone else? Are they being unfaithful ? Do they still care?

The physical distance between you both influences the development of romantic relationships or the demise of them according to one study . Scientists analyzed the partnership progression of couples in nonresidential relationships. Participants included couples aged 20-40 years old. They focused on the variable of distance in travel time between the partners’ homes.

Short-distance relationships meant the partners had to travel less than one hour. Long-distance relationships required travel of one hour or more.   Findings showed that couples in long-distance relationships were more likely to separate than those living a short distance away.  

Lack of trust might have contributed to the end of these relationships. Without trust, some people are filled with fear and anxiety. Just ask yourself if you’re suspicious about the other person, are you being reasonable? Or perhaps you might realize this lack of faith in your partner stems from your own low self-esteem , childhood trauma, or negative past dating experiences. 

Communication

Effective communication enables you both to feel seen and heard. Both people in a couple need to be on board with committing to and maintaining the relationship, especially when miles separate you.  It’s a good idea to plan regular times to catch up and share your experiences so you both feel secure in knowing when you’ll connect.

Using texts and Facetime can facilitate more communication and increase the odds that you will stay together. Good morning and good night texts are nice to receive, too. Based on a recent study, texting helps long-distance relationships by keeping both people in touch.

Be sure you don’t argue over texts and don’t rely solely on texts. Texts don’t replace hearing the other person’s voice and tone via phone. Nor does it take the place of reading their body language through video conferencing.

Here are some tips to enhance your communication when you’re dating long distance:

• Listen with empathy
• Validate your partner
• Eliminate defensiveness
• Don’t avoid difficult conversations
• Try not to be critical
• Remind yourselves of the positives in the relationship
• Hang out together when doing chores
• Send little gifts
• Plan times to be together

Physical Intimacy

Touch is critical to the health and well-being of human beings. Cuddling, holding hands and kissing are ways couples show affection to each other. Oxytocin, the cuddle hormone, helps bond us to each other in a relationship.

So, if your partner is living and working on the other side of the country, for the sake of your mental health and your relationship, be sure you get hugs from friends and family or book a massage. Physical touch is still super important for your well-being, even if it's not from your partner.

One of the most important factors in sustaining a healthy romantic relationship is healthy sex and physical intimacy . So if you can’t be together, you can text flirty messages or participate in phone sex. Be spontaneous . If you get yourself out of your comfort zone a little bit, you might be surprised by how it goes.

A Word From Verywell

  Relationships fail due to challenges with trust, communication and intimacy. If you’re having problems with these issues, turn to a trusted psychologist or online therapist and don’t give up. Long-distance relationships can thrive if you work together.

Be sure to also take care of your own needs and have an open mind. Safeguarding your mental health while participating in a long-distance dating relationship or a long-distance marriage is crucial.

Du Bois SN, Sher TG, Grotkowski K, Aizenman T, Slesinger N, Cohen M. Going the distance: health in long-distance versus proximal relationships.  The Family Journal . 2016;24(1):5-14.

Krapf S. Moving in or Breaking Up? The Role of Distance in the Development of Romantic Relationships.  Eur J Popul . 2017;34(3):313-336. Published 2017 May 24. doi:10.1007/s10680-017-9428-2

Holtzman S, Kushlev K, Wozny A, Godard R. Long-distance texting: Text messaging is linked with higher relationship satisfaction in long-distance relationships.  J Soc Pers Relat . 2021;38(12):3543-3565. doi:10.1177/02654075211043296

By Barbara Field Barbara is a writer and speaker who is passionate about mental health, overall wellness, and women's issues.

The Psychology of Long Distance Relationships

Long-distance relationships can spark quite a debate amongst daters. Is it possible to pull an “LDR” off? Or is it a matter of time until one partner bails? If you ask a psychologist, they will tell you that the possibility of success or failure is pretty even! Long-distance relationships can function just as well as “traditional” relationships where both partners live close to each other. Studies show that various factors play into the “success” of a relationship. Moving closer together may even be the factor that splits a couple apart! 

Interested in learning more about long-distance relationships? Keep reading!

Can Long-Distance Relationships Work? 

Yes! Distance is just one factor that contributes to a relationship’s “success.” Trust, loyalty, commitment, and mindset also play a role. Couples in long-distance relationships may have to approach communication differently than other couples, but their efforts can be rewarded in a loving, beneficial relationship. 

What Kills Long-Distance Relationships? 

Lack of trust, lack of commitment, and a negative mindset can all kill an LDR. These factors play a role in any relationship, but distance really puts them to the test. If you can maintain trust in your partner, fully commit, and have a positive mindset, you will stay together!

Building Trust In Long-Distance Relationships

Trust is central to any relationship. The number one reason many assume that LDRs fail is a lack of trust. When you don’t see your partner as often, you cannot be as sure that they are being faithful, right? Our minds want to “fill in the blanks” when we don’t know what our partner is doing or where they are or who they are with. In attempts to protect us from being hurt, our brain tends to highlight all the negative aspects to prepare us for the worst.

This might be a natural response to distance, but it’s not one that reflects reality. When a person in an LDR abandons the trust they have in their partner and follows the assumption that their partner is cheating, whether it’s the truth or not, the relationship may face serious strains. 

How do you prevent this from happening to your relationship? There are a few strategies for building a foundation of trust:  

• Make promises to each other - and stick to them
• Have conversations about accountability and goals 
• Be a trustworthy person in all your relationships 
• Talk openly and honestly 
• Practice vulnerability 
• Attend a couple’s counseling session

Not all of these practices will feel comforting and easy, but that is what relationships are about! What’s important is moving through these moments together. Treat trust as a project that you and your partner can develop as a team, rather than seeing it as an overarching cloud that threatens your relationship. 

Practice Anxiety Management 

Anxiety can begin and end in our own minds. Knowing the signs of anxiety can help you stop it in its tracks. If you start to notice your mind drifting to thoughts of infidelity or other assumptions that challenge your trust, take time to breathe and come back to the present moment. 

Get to know the signs of anxiety by:

• Practicing mindfulness meditation
• Talking to a therapist 
• Journaling about your feelings 

Manage symptoms of anxiety by: 

• Practicing breathing exercises 
• Practicing yoga or meditation
• Going for a walk or exercising 
• Talking to a friend 
• Sticking to a healthy routine and diet 
• Focusing on a task that brings you into the present moment 

Communicate With Your Partner 

Doubts can be overcome when both partners offer constant reassurance. Both sides must show their interest in maintaining the relationship! This happens when you clearly communicate with each other and take the time to make the other partner a part of your life.

Simply letting your partner know about your plans and openly talking to them about your whereabouts will strengthen the trust between you. Plan times to communicate every day or every week. When you and your partner consistently show up for each other, you have more and more reasons to trust each other. When you show up to chat, show your partner bits and pieces of your day. Sharing this will make them feel included in your daily life which will significantly improve the relationship as well as communication. 

If both people are willing to put in the effort of maintaining the relationship, they will find ways to communicate more effectively and avoid arguing as much as possible.

Technology today has made it easy for couples all around the world to communicate with video chat and voice messages. Ironically, this form of communication can also threaten trust among couples . This includes couples who live together! Having private access to people through Instagram, email, and other forms of communication can be a threat to every couple. Let this be a reassurance that trust is important in all relationships, and building that trust is often more important than distance. 

Commitment: Strengthening Your Foundation 

When you and your partner have a strong foundation, small things won’t threaten your relationship. Couples who have created strong bonds over longer periods of time are less likely to experience these issues than couples who hadn’t been together for that long.

Ways that you can work on the foundation of your relationship include: 

• Enjoy new experiences together 
• Discuss your goals for your relationship 
• Talk about how you want your partner to support you 
• Discover your love languages 
• Find ways to laugh together 
• Celebrate anniversaries and recall old, happy memories 

Mindset: How Positivity Impacts Long Distance Relationships

Anxiety management and intentionally building trust put your relationship in the right direction. You can continue to do this even when you’re not on the phone with your partner. Stay positive and stay confident in your relationship. Being confident that you will and you want to spend your life with that person will make them feel confident as well and that alone can solve many of the insecurities caused by distance.

As much as LDRs can be tiring and mentally draining, they can positively affect our mindset and life in general. As long as the right amount of trust and commitment is present in the relationship from both sides equally, the chances of success are highly increased. What will most positively affect the relationship, in the psychological aspect, is knowing that both partners are equally committed and loyal to one another. Staying positive about the distance and knowing it is not forever will help you deal with the situation more easily.

When you see the world as a positive place, all results become positive, too. This applies to relationships, career opportunities, health, you name it! So instead of counting the days you and your partner have been apart, count down how many days are left until you reunite with your partner. Look at things from the bright side. A positive mindset will leave you stress-free and allow you to enjoy your relationship as well as perform better in other areas of life.

A 2007 study shows that couples who stay positive and take their long-distance as temporary, knowing they will reunite soon in the future, are much happier and less distressed in general . To keep a long-distance relationship healthy and satisfying, it is important to constantly show your partner you care and wish to keep them in your life, no matter how difficult the circumstances are. Surprise them with old-school love letters or send them gifts that appeal to their interests. Learn their love language, and then express your feelings in that language. 

Additionally, don’t forget to live your own life. Trying to take your mind off of the fact that you are physically apart from your significant other is very important. You can do this by finding a hobby or a TV show which you both enjoy. Sharing these little things with them will make you feel closer and forget about the distance even for a little bit.

Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder! 

There are many reasons to be positive while in a long-distance relationship. In many terms, long-distance relationships tend to be stronger than geographically close ones! 

According to a 2013 study by researchers from Cornell University and the City University of Hong Kong, people who are apart from their partners tend to idealize them a lot more than those who are constantly surrounded by their presence. Absence truly does make the heart grow fonder! The distance makes us miss the person we are close with to the point where we often daydream about them. When daydreaming, our brain wanders around imagining that person just how we want them to be. This often involves lots of exaggeration, but studies have confirmed that it has a great impact on the quality of the relationship. 

When reuniting, long-distance couples focus on making every second count so they do their best not to waste time arguing. This is something other couples overlook because they have enough time with each other but what they don’t realize is that they are still negatively affecting their relationship.

Can Long-Distance Relationships Work? Advice From Reddit 

Trust, commitment, and mindset are the cornerstones of any relationship. No one knows this more than people in long-distance relationships. Whether that relationship is between two college students, LGBTQ+ couples, couples that bonded over religion, or couples with an age gap, the advice often sounds the same: communicate, plan to see each other, and be honest. 

You can find plenty of advice on how to be in a long-distance relationship on Reddit! Here are just some answers that offer great advice: 

Scarlett137 says : “I will say it's definitely a struggle. I don't do so bad without the lack of physical touch, but I think my SO struggles with it more than I do. We manage by constantly doing calls, playing games together as a duo, FaceTiming when possible, etc. It's always important to make sure you have trips planned to meet your SO when possible though, any physical touch, at all, is SUPER important!! Purely online-dating doesn't get far for most people.” 

tmbgfactchecker says : “Sometimes a successful relationship is successful simply because you've both chosen for it to be successful. If I'd wanted to have more fun while we weren't able to be together, I could have broken up with her and messed around with people in my immediate area who are less compatible with me as a person, but more compatible with my (hypothetical) desire for the physical aspects of a romantic relationship. It's all about what you want, what she wants, and what your compatibility actually provides.” 

Sockphotos says : “The advantages of long distance dating are that you get to know the person intellectually-- we talked on the phone for hours (this was at the dawn of text messaging and before smart phones and video chat). We used to rent the same movie and press play at the same time then chat on IRC or MSN messenger while watching and doing homework. We would buy each other books when we were together and talk about them when we were apart. Some people play MMORPGs together. You are only limited by your creativity!” 

Best of luck to you and your partner!

Related posts:

• Beck’s Depression Inventory (BDI Test)
• Operant Conditioning (Examples + Research)
• Trust vs Mistrust (Psychosocial Stage 1 Examples)
• Variable Interval Reinforcement Schedule (Examples)
• Abandonment Issues (Examples, Causes, and Treatment)

Reference this article:

About The Author

More Articles:

How to get a girl to like you

Psychology of Long Distance Relationships

Why do people cheat?

How to Be Funnier

Read Body Language

The HOTAPE Framework

Deal with a Breakup

Flirty Questions to Ask Your Crush

How to Set up a Date on Tinder

How To Asking a Girl Out

Push Pull Flirting

Wifey Material Checklist

382 Never Have I Ever Questions

268 Would You Rather Questions

Questions to Ask a Guy

Questions to Ask a Girl

Does She Like Me (Quiz)

Does He Like Me (Quiz)

Flirty Bet Ideas

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Long-distance dating relationships, relationship dissolution, and college adjustment

Emily a. waterman.

Human Development & Family Studies, The Pennsylvania State University

Rose Wesche

Chelom e. leavitt, damon e. jones.

Bennett Pierce Prevention Research Center, The Pennsylvania State University

Eva S. Lefkowitz

Human Development & Family Studies, University of Connecticut

Many college students maintain ties to romantic partners who do not live in the same geographic area ( Aylor, 2003 ; Maguire & Kinney, 2010 ). These students may experience the transition to college differently than their peers do. Interpersonal relationships during the transition to college, including romantic relationships, may have implications for affect, connection to the university, and health (e.g., Braithwaite, Delevi, & Fincham, 2010 ; Whitton, Weitbrecht, Kuryluk, & Bruner, 2013 ). Individuals in long-distance dating relationships (LDDRs) who live far from their partners may experience strain in their relationships and tension between their university and relationship commitments, which may have repercussions for affect and behaviors ( Dainton & Aylor, 2001 ; Ficara & Mongeau, 2000 ; Maguire, 2007 ; Sahlstein, 2004 ). Additionally, the dissolution of LDDRs may introduce both risks and opportunities for emerging adults’ adjustment. Although breakups are associated with negative affect ( Rhoades, Kamp Dush, Atkins, Stanley, & Markman, 2011 ; Sbarra & Emery, 2005 ) and in some cases increased alcohol use ( Fleming, White, Oesterle, Haggerty, & Catalano, 2010 ; Larson & Sweeten, 2012 ), dissolving an LDDR, and thus removing a strong interpersonal tie that may direct time and attention away from the university setting, may allow college students to increase involvement in their university communities ( Dainton & Aylor, 2001 ; Holt & Stone, 1988 ). In the current paper, we explore the roles of LDDRs and their dissolution in college student adjustment.

The current paper advances the literature on romantic relationships and romantic relationship dissolution in several ways. First, we focus on LDDRs, which are common in emerging adulthood ( Knox, Zusman, Daniels, & Brantley, 2002 ) and have implications for adjustment ( Aylor, 2003 ; Rohlfing, 1995 ; Sahlstein, 2004 ). Second, we focus on both potentially positive (positive affect, university activities) and negative (loneliness, alcohol use) outcomes of romantic relationships and romantic relationship dissolution, as has been called for in previous research ( Yıldırım & Demir, 2015 ). Third, we use daily diary data to show how emerging adults’ daily location (on- or off-campus) affects the association between romantic relationships and outcomes. Previous research on LDDRs and relationship dissolution has been overwhelmingly cross-sectional, and thus, there is potential for confounding third variables. However, with daily dairy data, each individual can be treated as his/her own control. This method mitigates the potential for confounding variables and allows for stronger inferences to be made about the results ( Curran & Bauer, 2011 ). In addition, daily dairy studies may provide a more accurate record of individuals’ affect and behavior than do retrospective studies because this methodology mitigates the potential for memory error ( Schroder, Carey, & Vanable, 2003 ). Thus, in the current study, we use daily diary data to examine how different types of romantic relationship and relationship dissolution impact the day-to-day experiences of college students. In addition to daily diary data, we use longitudinal data to measure relationship changes that occur over the course of months.

Long-Distance Dating Relationships and College Student Adjustment

Many students begin college with a romantic partner, and these partners are frequently separated by considerable geographic distance—about half of college students report a current or prior LDDR ( Knox et al., 2002 ). Although geographic distance between LDDR partners varies substantially, distance limits the amount of in-person interaction between partners. Consistent with past research ( Dainton & Aylor, 2001 ; Ficara & Mongeau, 2000 ; Maguire & Kinney, 2010 ), we conceptualize LDDRs as relationships in which it would be difficult for students to see their partners on a frequent basis because partners live outside the local area. Partners in LDDRs interact with their partners in the extremes—either together frequently during visits or working to maintain the relationship during periods of separation ( Sahlstein, 2004 ). Although later in adulthood, geographically close partners may also see each other infrequently, this pattern is uncommon for emerging adults in GCDRs. Emerging adults have more free time than adults ( U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015 ), and when attending residential colleges, live within a very short radius of their partners. Thus, emerging adults in GCDRs likely spend a lot of time with their romantic partner, whereas emerging adults in LDDRs must use this time either connecting with their partner via technology or on activities without their partner ( Firmin, Firmin, & Lorenzen, 2014 ).

The relational extremes of LDDRs may introduce additional stressors that make the transition to college more difficult for these students than their peers who are single or in GCDRs ( Aylor, 2003 ; Rohlfing, 1995 ; Sahlstein, 2004 ). In particular, strategies for managing relational uncertainty may introduce tension between relationship and campus commitments. Uncertainty Management Theory explains that individuals in LDDRs may experience heightened uncertainty about the future of their relationships, and may act to reduce this uncertainty by spending additional time communicating with their partners and making plans to see them ( Dainton & Aylor, 2001 ; Maguire, 2007 ; Sahlstein, 2006 ). This additional attention to relationship maintenance and time spent off campus may make it difficult for students in LDDRs to commit to university activities and on-campus peer networks.

The tension between relationship and campus commitments for students in LDDRs may have repercussions for college adjustment outcomes, including positive affect, loneliness, participation in university activities, and alcohol use. Additionally, because the location of romantic partners differs from these students’ usual location, the day-to-day location of students in LDDRs may be particularly important in determining these outcomes. That is, being on versus off campus may make a bigger difference in the affect and behaviors of students in LDDRs than in that of their single peers or peers in GCDRs. Daily dairy data provides us the ability to examine these day-to-day variations as a function of location. Therefore, Aim 1 of the current paper is to use daily diary data to examine the associations of relationship status (LDDR, single, GCDR) and daily location with positive affect, loneliness, university activities, and alcohol use.

Positive affect

In contrast to the distress that college students in LDDRs face when away from their partner ( Guldner, 1996 ; Maguire, 2007 ), many individuals in LDDRs report that their time with their partner is marked by excitement and anticipation ( Sahlstein, 2004 ). We hypothesize that students in LDDRs will have less overall positive affect than single students and students in GCDRs. However, we also hypothesize that students in LDDRs will report more positive affect during off-campus days than on-campus days because reunion with a romantic partner will facilitate positive affect, whereas this association will be less pronounced for other students.

Although LDDRs can be as fulfilling as GCDRs ( Johnson, Haigh, Becker, Craig, & Wigley, 2008 ; Van Horn et al., 1997 ), the limited face-to-face interaction between partners creates challenges. Being in an LDDR is associated with psychological distress, including loneliness and relational uncertainty ( Dainton & Aylor, 2001 ; Ficara & Mongeau, 2000 ; Maguire, 2007 ; Sahlstein, 2004 ). Many individuals in LDDRs report that it takes time to adjust to being alone ( Sahlstein, 2004 ). Thus, we hypothesize that students in LDDRs will be overall lonelier than single students and students in GCDRs. We also hypothesize that students in LDDRs will be lonelier during on-campus days than off-campus days because loneliness may be alleviated by time with their romantic partner, and this association will be less pronounced for other students.

University activities

University activities are important for students’ adjustment because they contribute to students’ well-being, supportive relationships, sense of belonging, and persistence to graduation ( Astin, 1984 ; Busseri et al., 2010 ; Moore, Lovell, McGann, & Wyrick, 1998 ). The tension between commitments to university life and commitments to an LDDR may make students in LDDRs hesitant to become involved in university activities. Frequent visits and communication with a partner, which are important for maintaining LDDRs ( Dainton & Aylor, 2001 ; Holt & Stone, 1988 ), may limit opportunities for university involvement even during on-campus days. We hypothesize that students in LDDRs will participate in university activities on fewer days than other students.

Alcohol use

Alcohol use among college students is associated with long-term negative consequences such as alcohol dependence and short-term negative consequences such as car accidents ( Lee, Maggs, Neighbors, & Patrick, 2011 ; Schulenberg & Maggs, 2002 ). However, alcohol use is also normative among college students, as students may use alcohol to negotiate developmental transitions. For example, students may use alcohol to make social connections or to fulfill desire for experimentation ( Dworkin, 2005 ; Schulenberg & Maggs, 2002 ). To some extent, drinking alcohol represents social integration into college culture, which may be lacking for students in LDDRs. Overall, students in romantic relationships tend to engage in less problematic alcohol use than other students ( Salvatore, Kendler, & Dick, 2014 ; Whitton et al., 2013 ). However, it is unknown whether this association differs for students in LDDRs versus GCDRs. Some individuals in LDDRs report that their responsibilities to their romantic partner inhibit their involvement with peers ( Sahlstein, 2004 ), and drinking may be part of such peer involvement. Therefore, we hypothesize that students in LDDRs will drink less than single students and students in GCDRs.

Long-Distance Dating Relationship Dissolution

Romantic relationship dissolution is normative in emerging adulthood ( Rhoades et al., 2011 ), and some emerging adults experience personal growth, or positive life changes, after a romantic relationship dissolution ( Marshall, Bejanyan, & Ferenczi, 2013 ). In particular, many students dissolve their high school romantic relationship during the first year of college, a phenomenon known in the popular press as the ‘turkey drop’ or ‘turkey dump’ because of frequent co-occurrence with the Thanksgiving holiday ( Duncan, 2012 ; Kitchener, 2013 ). However, relationship dissolution is also associated with increased psychological distress ( Boelen & Reijntjes, 2009 ; Garimella, Weber, & Dal Cin, 2014 ; Rhoades et al., 2011 ; Sbarra & Emery, 2005 ), decreased positive affect ( Sprecher, 1999 ), and decreased physical wellbeing ( Eisenberger, 2012 ; Osler, McGue, Lund, & Christensen, 2008 ).

Although the dissolution of LDDRs may negatively affect adjustment, dissolving an LDDR may also reduce off-campus ties, allowing students more involvement in their university and more time to devote to social activities on campus. Therefore, the dissolution of LDDRs may be associated with both positive and negative outcomes. Aim 2 of the current paper is to examine the associations of LDDR dissolution and daily location with positive affect, loneliness, university activities, and alcohol use. Thus, we compare students who maintained their LDDRs through their second semester in college, students who experienced LDDR dissolution and are single, and students who experienced LDDR dissolution and are with a new romantic partner. As with Aim 1, we use daily diary data to explore not only differences in affect and behaviors, but how affect differs according to students’ day-to-day location.

Relationship dissolution is associated with decreased positive affect ( Sprecher, 1999 ) and psychological distress ( Boelen & Reijntjes, 2009 ; Garimella et al., 2014 ; Rhoades et al., 2011 ; Sbarra & Emery, 2005 ). The presence of a new partner may facilitate adjustment after relationship dissolution ( Yıldırım & Demir, 2015 ). Thus, we hypothesize that students in ongoing LDDRs will have more overall positive affect than newly single students but not students who have experienced LDDR dissolution and are with a new romantic partner. However, because individuals in LDDRs report that time with their partner is marked by positive affect ( Sahlstein, 2004 ), we also predict that students in ongoing LDDRs will report higher positive affect during off-campus days than on-campus days, and this association will be less pronounced for other students.

Individuals tend to experience negative affect after relationship dissolution, including anger, depression, grief, and sadness ( Boelen & Reijntjes, 2009 ; Garimella et al., 2014 ; Sbarra & Emery, 2005 ). Students may experience loneliness after the dissolution of an LDDR ( Dykstra & Fokkema, 2007 ). We hypothesize that students in ongoing LDDRs will be overall less lonely than newly single students but not students who have experienced LDDR dissolution and are with a new romantic partner. We also hypothesize that students in ongoing LDDRs will be lonelier on on-campus days than off-campus days, and this association will be less pronounced for other students.

Students may find ways to become positively engaged in other activities to cope with the psychological distress of relationship dissolution ( Sbarra & Emery, 2005 ), and university activity participation is associated with feelings of social support among college students ( Busseri et al., 2010 ). In addition, students who have recently experienced LDDR dissolution may have more time for universities activities without relationship commitments such as partner visits ( Dainton & Aylor, 2001 ; Holt & Stone, 1988 ). Thus, we hypothesize that students in ongoing LDDRs will participate in university activities on fewer days than newly single students but not students who have experienced LDDR dissolution and are with a new romantic partner.

Young adults tend to increase substance use, including alcohol use, after relationship dissolution ( Bachman et al., 1997 ; Fleming et al., 2010 ; Magura & Shapiro, 1989 ; Larson & Sweeten, 2012 ). Young adults who have experienced relationship dissolution may use substances to ease psychological distress or may replace time previously spent with a romantic partner with substance-using peers, causing their own substance use to increase ( Fleming et al., 2010 ; Larson & Sweeten, 2012 ). Consistent with this literature, we hypothesize that students in ongoing LDDRs will drink less than newly single students, but not students who have experienced LDDR dissolution and are with a new romantic partner.

In summary, Aim 1 of the current paper is to examine the associations of relationship status and daily location with daily affect (positive affect, loneliness) and behaviors (university activities, alcohol use). Aim 2 of the current paper is to examine the associations of LDDR dissolution and daily location with positive affect, loneliness, university activities, and alcohol use.

Participants and Procedure

We used data from the {BLINDED}, a longitudinal burst design study of college students at a large, Northeastern university. Each semester for seven consecutive semesters beginning in Fall of their first semester, participants in this study completed a baseline survey and then daily surveys for up to 14 consecutive days immediately following the baseline survey. The current paper used data from Semesters 1 (S1) and 2 (S2).

Eligible students were first-time, traditionally-aged college students who responded to online surveys for seven consecutive semesters beginning in Fall of their first semester. They were also U.S. citizens or permanent residents under 21 years of age who lived within 25 miles of campus. We used a stratified sampling procedure with replacement at S1 to achieve a diverse sample of first-year students with respect to gender and race/ethnicity. Using information provided by the university registrar, we contacted students via a mailed informational letter that included a $5 pre-incentive and a pen. Subsequently we sent an email message with a link to the Semester 1 (S1) Web-based baseline survey. Students consented electronically before completing the study. Students earned $20 each for completing the S1 and S2 baseline surveys, $3 per day for completing each daily survey, and an $8 bonus for completing all 14 daily surveys. To improve response rates, project staff made telephone calls to participants who had not completed the survey. Of the 1135 students that were invited to the survey, a total of 744 participants provided consent and completed the S1 baseline survey, a response rate of 65.6%. Because some participants did not complete the daily diaries, the analytic sample at S1 was 718. Eighty-nine percent of this S1 analytic sample completed the S2 survey. The study was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board and participant confidentiality was protected by a federal Certificate of Confidentiality.

The analytic sample was 51.5% female, aged 16–20 at S1 ( M = 18.4 years, SD = 0.4). Participants could identify as more than one race/ethnicity; thus, the sample was 43.9% White/European American, 29.7% Asian/Asian American/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 25.5% Hispanic/Latino American, and 21.7% Black/African American. We used one t -test and five Chi-squares to determine whether participants in the analytic sample ( n = 718) differed from participants not in the analytic sample ( n = 26) on S1 variables. Participants in the analytic sample were more likely to be female ( χ 2 = 4.3, p < .05). Groups did not differ on age, race/ethnicity, or relationship status. Groups could not be compared on daily variables (location, positive affect, loneliness, university activities, and alcohol use) because participants who were not in the analytic sample did not complete the daily surveys. In general, 4.9% of single students’ days were spent off campus, 5.4% of GCDR students’ days were spend off campus, and 9.3% of LDDR students’ days were spent off campus.

Baseline level

Participants responded to the following measures.

At S1, participants reported their gender as female (0) or male (1).

Relationship status

At both S1 and S2, participants reported their relationship status from a list of six options. We coded participants who chose I am not dating anyone right now as ‘single.’ Participants who reported that they were casually dating someone, in a serious and committed relationship, living with their partner, engaged, or married, were coded as ‘in a relationship.’ Participants who were in a relationship also responded to the question, “Does your partner live in the {town name} area?” We coded participants who responded yes as in a geographically close dating relationship and participants who responded no as in a long distance dating relationship (see Table 1 ).

Descriptive Statistics

Note. GCDR = Geographically close dating relationship. LDDR = Long-distance dating relationship.

LDDR dissolution

At S1 and S2, students who were in a romantic relationship reported on their relationship length. Students who reported being in an LDDR at S1 but not S2 were coded as having dissolved their relationship (LDDR-single). We used reports of relationship length to determine whether students who reported being in a romantic relationship at S1 and S2 were in the same relationship at both semesters. Students who reported being in an LDDR at S1 and S2 and whose relationship length increased between semesters were listed as maintaining the same relationship (ongoing LDDR). Students who reported being in an LDDR at S1 and S2, and whose relationship length decreased between semesters, were listed as having dissolved their LDDRs and transitioned to a new partner (LDDR-new partner; see Table 1 ). Twenty-three individuals were coded as LDDR-new partner; 13 were in LDDRs, and 10 were GCDRs.

Daily level

Participants responded to the following measures for up to 14 consecutive days following the S1 and S2 baseline surveys.

Weekend day

The survey software recorded the day of the week in which participants were reporting on, typically the day before (i.e., participants reported on their Tuesday affect and behavior the next day on Wednesday, but the survey software recorded the day of week as Tuesday). We coded Monday through Friday as weekday (0) and Saturday and Sunday as weekend day (1).

Participants responded to the question, “Were you in {name of town}?” with yes (1) or no (0).

Positive affect and loneliness

We assessed positive affect and loneliness using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988 ). Participants responded to the prompt regarding the previous day, “To what extent did you feel the following different emotions and feelings?” Responses were on a five-point Likert scale ranging from very slightly or not at all (1) to extremely (5) for each of the items. Positive affect was the mean of 10 items (e.g., ‘interested’, ‘proud’). Reliability was acceptable with the current data (α = .93). Loneliness was the score on one particular item (‘lonely’). Higher scores on each scale indicate greater positive affect and loneliness, respectively.

Participants responded to the prompt, “From the time you woke up until you went to sleep, how much time did you spend doing the following activities?” ( Finlay, Ram, Maggs, & Caldwell, 2012 ; Lee, 2004 ). Responses were on a 10-point scale ranging from did not do (0) to 10+ hours (9). Participants’ score for university activities was their score on one item, ‘attending another campus event or club’ (The only campus event or club excluded from this item was the campus’ late-night alcohol-alternative programming). University activities was dichotomized into no university activity participation (0) and university activity participation (1) because the variable was zero-skewed.

Participants responded to the prompt, “How many drinks of alcohol did you drink? By ONE drink we mean half an ounce of absolute alcohol, for example, one 12 ounce can or bottle of beer or cooler, five ounce glass of wine, or a drink containing one shot of liquor or spirits.” Alcohol use was dichotomized into no drinks (0) and one or more drinks (1) because the variable was zero-skewed.

Analysis Plan

Multilevel modeling is an appropriate data analysis strategy for data with repeated measurement occasions, including daily diary data in which days are nested within individuals. Multilevel modeling accounts for residual error correlation of days ( Curran & Bauer, 2011 ; Singer & Willett, 2003 ). We conducted the current analyses in SAS Version 9.4 using the MIXED procedure for linear regression for continuous outcomes (positive affect and loneliness) and the GLIMMIX procedure to carry out logistic regression for dichotomous outcomes (university activities and alcohol use). We used maximum likelihood estimation with random intercepts. All participants contributed data to the estimates in the current analyses even if they did not complete all 14 days of data ( Singer & Willett, 2003 ; see Table 1 for descriptives). We conducted multilevel models for each of the four outcomes (positive affect, loneliness, university activities, and alcohol use; see Table 2 for equations).

Equations for multilevel models

In the analysis for Aim 1, we used data from the S1 baseline and daily surveys, drawing from the entire analytic sample ( n = 718). We modeled three between-person (BP) variables at level two. First, we included gender, a BP, dichotomous variable, as a control. Second, we included BP location, or the individual mean of location, to control for the tendency to be on- or off-campus. Third, we included relationship status. Relationship status was dummy coded so that LDDR was the reference group. We modeled the within-person (WP) variables at level one. First, we included the WP, dichotomous variable for weekend day as a control. Second, we included the WP, dichotomous variable for location on a particular day (on- or off-campus). Third, we included, for daily positive affect and loneliness, the interaction between WP location and relationship status, a BP variable with LDDR as the reference group.

In the analysis for Aim 2, we used data from S2 on the subset of participants who were in an LDDR at S1 ( n = 194). The models for Aim 2 were similar to the Aim 1 models. However, these models differed in their relationship status variable. In the Aim 2 models, we represented relationship status according to change in participants’ relationship status from S1 to S2. Ongoing LDDR was the reference group.

Analyses for Aim 1 explored associations of relationship status, location, and the interactions between these variables with positive affect, loneliness, university activities, and alcohol use ( Table 3 ). See Table 1 for descriptive statistics of variables in S1 and S2.

Model estimates for Aim 1 analyses (whole analytic sample)

WP location (γ 10 ) was significant, indicating that students had less positive affect on days that they were on campus, compared to days when they were off-campus. BP single relationship status (γ 03 ) and BP GCDR relationship status (γ 04 ) were not significant, thus, there was no main effect for relationship status on positive affect. However, in partial support of our hypothesis that this association would be stronger for students in LDDRs than for other students, the interaction between location and single relationship status (γ 21 ) was significant. To better understand this interaction, we conducted follow-up tests of model-adjusted means in SAS. These analyses assessed differences in the predicted mean of positive affect on on-campus versus off-campus days separately for students in LDDRs and single students (see Figure 1 ). The effect of location was significant for students in LDDRs (standardized b = .19 (.06), p < .01) but not for single students (standardized b = −.02 (.08), p > .05). The interaction between location and GCDR (γ 22 ) was not significant, indicating the association between location and positive affect did not significantly differ between students in LDDRs and students in GCDRs.

Significant interactions between location and relationship status for positive affect and loneliness

Note. Values are based on the model-adjusted means.

WP location (γ 20 ) was significant, indicating that students were lonelier on days that they were on campus than on days that they were off campus. We did not find significant BP associations of single relationship status (γ 03 ) or GCDR relationship status (γ 04 ) with loneliness. Thus, there was no main effect of relationship status on loneliness. However, consistent with our hypothesis that this association would be stronger for students in LDDRs, the interactions of location with single relationship status (γ 21 ), and with GCDR relationship status (γ 22 ) were significant. To better understand this interaction, we conducted follow-up tests of model-adjusted means in SAS. These analyses assessed differences in the predicted mean of loneliness on on-campus versus off-campus days separately for students in LDDRs and single students, and separately for students in LDDRs and students in GCDRs (see Figure 1 ). The effect of location was significant for students in LDDRs (standardized b = −0.19 (.07), p < .01), when compared to single students, for whom the effect of location was not significant (standardized b = 0.08 (.08), p > .05). Similarly, the effect of location was significant for students in LDDRs (standardized b = −0.19 (.04), p < .001) but not for students in GCDRs (standardized b = 0.09 (.13), p > .05).

In partial support of our hypothesis that students in LDDRs would participate in university activities on fewer days than other students, BP single relationship status (γ 03 ) was significant, indicating that single students participated in university activities more frequently than students in LDDRs. The odds of single students participating in university activities on a particular day, compared to students in LDDRs, were 1.42. BP GCDR relationship status (γ 04 ) was not significant. WP location (γ 20 ) was significant, indicating that students were more likely to participate in university activities on days when they were on campus than on days when they were off campus.

We hypothesized that students in LDDRs would drink less than other students. Contrary to our hypotheses, no relationship status variables were significantly associated with alcohol use.

Analyses for Aim 2 explored associations of LDDR dissolution, location, and the interactions between these variables with positive affect, loneliness, university activities, and alcohol use for the sub-sample of students who had been in LDDRs at S1 ( Table 4 ). Contrary to our hypotheses, the relationship dissolution variables were not significantly associated with positive affect, loneliness, university activities, or alcohol use.

Model estimates for Aim 2 analyses (subsample of students in an LDDR at Semester 1)

The results of the current paper offer evidence that students in LDDRs may have more difficulties adjusting to college than single students. In particular, location (whether students were on or off campus) may play a greater role in daily affect for students in LDDRs than for single students. However, we did not find differences in alcohol use by relationship status. Additionally, LDDR dissolution was not associated with college students’ adjustment. These findings have implications for developmental understanding of LDDRs in emerging adulthood.

Long-Distance Dating Relationships and Adjustment

In some respects, our findings highlight the similarities between individuals in LDDRs and their peers who are single or in GCDRs during the first year of college. There were no main effects for relationships status on average positive affect or loneliness. This finding contrasts with previous research showing that being in an LDDR is associated with psychological distress ( Dainton & Aylor, 2001 ; Ficara & Mongeau, 2000 ; Maguire, 2007 ; Sahlstein, 2004 ) and suggests that college students in LDDRs may not be at risk for worse affect. However, in contrast to other studies, the current study included interactions of location (on or off campus) with relationship status in the model. Indeed, results highlight the role that location plays in the adjustment of individuals in LDDRs. Location may be an important variable for consideration in future research.

Interactions between relationship status and location revealed that students in LDDRs had more positive affect when they were off campus than on campus, and that students in LDDRs were lonelier when they were on campus than off campus. The current study used a longitudinal methodology that enabled us to go beyond cross-sectional group differences and compare students to themselves on on-campus days versus off-campus days, thus removing the possibility of between person confounding variables. These findings are consistent with previous cross-sectional research showing that students in LDDRs experience distress when they are away from their partner, but positive affect when they are reunited ( Guldner, 1996 ; Maguire, 2007 ; Sahlstein, 2004 ). Thus, although college students in LDDRs may not be at risk for experiencing negative affect overall, they likely still feel stronger ties to off-campus commitments that may influence their daily mood. As a result, students in LDDRs may be more motivated to spend time off campus than their peers, thereby missing opportunities for engagement with peers or campus organizations that are important for student success ( Moore et al., 1998 ; Busseri et al., 2010 ).

We found that students in LDDRs participated in university activities less often than single individuals, but did not differ from students in GCDRs. Although caution must be taken in interpreting non-significant findings as indicating that differences do not exist, this finding suggests that whether or not one is partnered may be more important for campus involvement than the type of relationship. Similarly, while on campus, students in LDDRs were lonelier than students in GCDRs, but did not differ on positive affect. Some previous literature highlights differences between LDDRs and GCDRs ( Dainton & Aylor, 2001 ; Ficara & Mongeau, 2000 ; Maguire, 2007 ; Sahlstein, 2004 ), whereas other literature finds few differences between LDDRs and GCDRs ( Johnson, Haigh, Becker, Craig, & Wigley, 2008 ; Van Horn et al., 1997 ). Taken together, our findings support the former literature that suggests there are few differences between LDDRs and GCDRs. However, it is also possible that our power to detect differences between students in LDDRs and students in GCDRs was limited due to the size of these groups.

Previous research has found that students in romantic relationships tend to engage in less problematic alcohol use than other students ( Salvatore et al., 2014 ; Whitton et al., 2013 ). However, in the current study, there were no significant differences in alcohol use by relationship status. This inconsistency may be explained by our measurement of alcohol use. We conceptualized alcohol use as whether or not students drank on a particular day. Previous research finds that students in romantic relationships engage in less problematic alcohol use, not necessarily alcohol use in general. Thus, it may be that romantic relationship status predicts problem drinking, like binge drinking and alcohol dependency ( Whitton et al., 2013 ), but not daily alcohol use, which may be more normative at this developmental stage.

Long-Distance Dating Relationship Dissolution and Adjustment

Contrary to our hypotheses, students in ongoing LDDRs did not differ on daily affect or behaviors from students who dissolved their LDDRs. There are several possible explanations for these unexpected findings. First, students in LDDRs may be used to spending a majority of their time away from their partner, and thus the pace of their daily routine may not be as disrupted by relationship dissolution as it is for students in GCDRs. Past research shows that women who saw their partner less frequently during their romantic relationship tended to have better adjustment after relationship dissolution than women who saw their partner more frequently ( Helgeson, 1994 ). Another explanation is that students in LDDRs may gain coping skills that enable them to recover quickly from relationship dissolution. Students report learning skills such as independence and patience from their LDDRs ( Mietzner & Li-Wen, 2005 ). Segmentation (focusing on getting work done while apart and on creating good memories while together) may also better prepare students in LDDRs to recover after dissolution because they have learned to focus on the present moment ( Sahlstein, 2004 ). In regards to daily affect, previous research finds that students who have experienced relationship dissolution have more emotional volatility ( Sbarra & Emery, 2005 ). In light of the current findings, it is possible that students experience emotional volatility (that is, more extreme emotional highs and lows) –but not overall differences in emotional affect– after relationship dissolution.

According to General Strain Theory, individuals may use alcohol to manage negative emotions ( Agnew, 1992 ). We did not find students in ongoing LDDRs to differ from students who dissolved their LDDRs on affect or alcohol use. It may be that LDDR dissolution actually alleviates the loneliness that students in LDDRs experience when they are on campus, and thus, these students do not experience changes in daily affect or alcohol use after LDDR dissolution. In contrast, the negative emotions of GCDR dissolution may be more potent, causing emerging adults to use alcohol ( Larson & Sweeten, 2012 ).

It is important to recognize that romantic relationship dissolution during the college years is normative. It is a time when emerging adults are trying out relationships to find suitable sexual and emotional connections ( Connolly & McIsaac, 2009 ). It may be that emerging adults perceive the college years to be a time to experiment with different romantic partners, and thus, they may be resilient to the effects of relationship dissolution, compared to older individuals ( Dykstra & Fokkema, 2007 ). On the other hand, there is evidence that emerging adults do experience psychological distress after relationship dissolution just like older individuals ( Boelen & Reijntjes, 2009 ; Dykstra & Fokkema, 2007 ). Relatedly, the normativity of relationship dissolution may mean that its effects on adjustment may be potent but short-lived. Therefore, it is possible such effects were not captured by our measurement strategy, which included a gap of one semester between measurement occasions.

Limitations and Future Directions

The current paper has limitations and areas for future research. First, we compared students in ongoing LDDRs to students who experienced relationship dissolution on affect and behavior, but did not measure the immediate effects of relationship dissolution. That is, the days directly following relationship dissolution may be the most meaningful for changes in affect and behavior. Future research should focus specifically on these immediate effects of relationship dissolution. Second, our relationship status measure came from a baseline survey, whereas our measures of college adjustment came from daily surveys. Although the daily surveys immediately followed the baseline survey, it is possible that a participant’s relationship status could change during the 14 daily surveys. Third, the current paper used a college student sample. However, it may be that non-college emerging adults are more affected by relationship dissolution than college emerging adults, because their environment is not filled with potential distractions and peers including new romantic partners, who may alleviate the effects of relationship dissolution ( Yıldırım & Demir, 2015 ). Future research should compare the effects of relationship dissolution on college and non-college emerging adults. Fourth, the current study explored relationship dissolution among younger emerging adults, and emerging adults in LDDRs. Future research should compare the effects of relationship dissolution on younger vs. older emerging adults, and on emerging adults in GCDRs vs. LDDRs. Fifth, time spent off-campus is not necessarily analogous to time spent with a long-distance romantic partner. There may be times when long-distance romantic partners visited students on campus. Similarly, it is unknown whether days spent off campus were spent with romantic partners, family, or on other activities such as sports teams. Sixth, the S2 group sizes were small relative to the S1 group sizes, which may have affected our ability to find significant interactions in the Aim 2 analyses. Seventh, the effect sizes in the current study were small. Future studies may examine other contextual factors that affect students’ adjustment in addition to relationship status. Finally, future research should examine other factors that may moderate adjustment after relationship dissolution, such as who initiates the dissolution, reasons for the dissolution, prior relationship commitment, and characteristics such as mental health and self-esteem ( Yıldırım & Demir, 2015 ).

The current paper contributes to the literature on romantic relationships and relationship dissolution by focusing on LDDRs, considering positive and negative outcomes, and utilizing daily diary data. Overall, LDDRs and LDDR dissolution are normative among college students. Daily affect and behavior did not differ depending on whether students dissolved or maintained their LDDRs, suggesting that students may be resilient to LDDR dissolution. Whether students in LDDRs were on or off campus was important for their daily affect. Taken together, these findings suggest that students in LDDRs may have more difficulties adjusting to college than single students, that there are few differences between students in LDDRs and students in GCDRs, and that emerging adults may be resilient to the effects of relationship dissolution.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grant RO1 AA016016 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to Dr. Jennifer Maggs, and by grant T32 DA017629 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies.

Contributor Information

Emily A. Waterman, Human Development & Family Studies, The Pennsylvania State University.

Rose Wesche, Human Development & Family Studies, The Pennsylvania State University.

Chelom E. Leavitt, Human Development & Family Studies, The Pennsylvania State University.

Damon E. Jones, Bennett Pierce Prevention Research Center, The Pennsylvania State University.

Eva S. Lefkowitz, Human Development & Family Studies, University of Connecticut.

• Agnew R. Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology. 1992; 30 :47–88. [ Google Scholar ]
• Astin A. Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development. 1984; 40 :518–529. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aylor BA. Maintaining long-distance relationships. In: Canary DJ, Dainton M, editors. Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural variations. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2003. pp. 127–139. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bachman JG, Wadsworth KN, O’Malley PM, Johnston LD, Schulenberg JE. Smoking, drinking, and drug use in young adulthood: The impacts of new freedoms and new responsibilities. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barefoot B. Current institutional practices in the first college year. In: Upcraft M, Gardner J, Barefoot B, editors. Challenging and supporting the first year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2005. pp. 47–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boelen PA, Reijntjes A. Negative cognitions in emotional problems following romantic relationship break-ups. Stress and Health. 2009; 25 :11–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Braithwaite SR, Delevi R, Fincham FD. Romantic relationships and the physical and mental health of college students. Personal Relationships. 2010; 17 :1–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Busseri MA, Rose-Krasnor L, Pancer SM, Pratt MW, Adams GR, Birnie-Lefcovitch S, Winter MG. A longitudinal study of breadth and intensity of activity involvement and the transition to university. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2010; 21 :512–518. [ Google Scholar ]
• Connolly J, McIsaac C. Adolescents’ explanations for romantic dissolutions: A developmental perspective. Journal of Adolescence. 2009; 32 :1209–1223. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Curran PJ, Bauer DJ. The disaggregation of within-person and between-person effects in longitudinal models of change. Annual Review of Psychology. 2011; 62 :583–619. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dainton M, Aylor B. A relational uncertainty analysis of jealousy, trust, and maintenance in long‐distance versus geographically close relationships. Communication Quarterly. 2001; 49 :172–188. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan A. The turkey dump: Why so many college couples break up over Thanksgiving. 2012 Nov; Retrieved from http://www.hercampus.com/love/relationships/turkey-dump-why-so-many-college-couples-break-over-thanksgiving .
• Dworkin J. Risk taking as developmentally appropriate experimentation for college students. Journal of Adolescent Research. 2005; 20 :219–241. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dykstra PA, Fokkema T. Social and emotional loneliness among divorced and married men and women: Comparing the deficit and cognitive perspectives. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 2007; 29 :1–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberger N. Broken hearts and broken bones: A neural perspective on the similarities between social and physical pain. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2012; 21 :42–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ficara LC, Mongeau PA. Relational uncertainty in long-distance college student dating relationships; Paper presented at the National Communication Association annual conference; Seattle, WA. 2000. Nov, [ Google Scholar ]
• Finlay AK, Ram N, Maggs JL, Caldwell LL. Leisure activities, the social weekend, and alcohol use: Evidence from a daily study of first-year college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2012; 73 :250–259. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Firmin M, Firmin R, Lorenzen K. A qualitative analysis of loneliness dynamics involved with college long-distance relationships. College Student Journal. 2014; 48 :57–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fleming CB, White HR, Oesterle S, Haggerty KPW, Catalano RF. Romantic relationship status changes and substance use among 18- to 20-year-olds. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2010; 71 :847–856. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garimella VRK, Weber I, Dal Cin S. From “i love you babe” to “leave me alone”- Romantic relationship breakups on Twitter. In: Aiello LM, McFarland D, editors. Social informatics. Springer International Publishing; 2014. pp. 199–215. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guldner GT. Long-distance romantic relationships: Prevalence and separation-related symptoms in college students. Journal of College Student Development. 1996; 37 :289–296. [ Google Scholar ]
• Helgeson VS. Long-distance romantic relationships: Sex differences in adjustment and breakup. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1994; 20 :245–265. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holt PA, Stone GL. Needs, coping strategies, and coping outcomes associated with long-distance relationships. Journal of College Student Development. 1988; 29 :136–141. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson AJ, Haigh MM, Becker JA, Craig EA, Wigley S. College students’ use of relational management strategies in email in long-distance and geographically close relationships. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2008; 13 :381–404. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kitchener C. Lots of college freshman are about to dump their high-school sweethearts. 2013 Nov; Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/11/lots-of-college-freshmen-are-about-to-dump-their-high-school-sweethearts/281860/
• Knox D, Zusman ME, Daniels V, Brantley A. Absence makes the heart grow fonder?: Long distance dating relationships among college students. College Student Journal. 2002; 36 :364–366. [ Google Scholar ]
• Larson M, Sweeten G. Breaking up is hard to do: Romantic dissolution, offending, and substance use during the transition to adulthood. Criminology. 2012; 50 :605–636. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee CM. College Transitions Project: 14 day web-based diary measures. University of Washington; 2004. Unpublished manuscript. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee CM, Maggs JL, Neighbors C, Patrick ME. Positive and negative alcohol-related consequences: Associations with past drinking. Journal of Adolescence. 2011; 34 :87–94. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maguire KC. “Will it ever end?”: A (Re)examination of uncertainty in college student long-distance dating relationships. Communication Quarterly. 2007; 55 :415–432. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maguire KC, Kinney TA. When distance is problematic: Communication, coping, and relational satisfaction in female college students’ long-distance dating relationships. Journal of Applied Communication Research. 2010; 38 :27–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Magura M, Shapiro E. Alcohol consumption and divorce: Which causes which? Journal of Divorce. 1989; 12 :127–136. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marshall TC, Bejanyan K, Ferenczi N. Styles and personal Attachment growth following romantic breakups: The mediating roles of distress, rumination, and tendency to rebound. PloS One. 2013; 8 :1–11. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mietzner S, Li-Wen L. Would you do it again? Relationship skills gained in a long-distance relationship. College Student Journal. 2005; 39 :192–200. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore J, Lovell CD, McGann T, Wyrick J. Why involvement matters: A review of research on student involvement in the collegiate setting. College Student Affairs Journal. 1998; 17 :4–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Osler M, McGue M, Lund R, Christensen K. Marital status and twins’ health behavior: An analysis of middle-aged Danish twins. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2008; 70 :482–487. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patrick ME, Maggs JL, Lefkowitz ES. Daily associations between drinking and sex among college students: A longitudinal measurement burst design. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2015; 25 :377–386. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rhoades GK, Kamp Dush CM, Atkins DC, Stanley SM, Markman HJ. Breaking up is hard to do: The impact of unmarried relationship dissolution on mental health and life satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology. 2011; 25 :366–374. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rohlfing M. “Doesn’t anybody stay in one place anymore?”: An exploration of the under-studied phenomenon of long-distance relationships. In: Wood J, Duck S, editors. Under-studied relationships: Off the beaten track. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995. pp. 173–196. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sahlstein EM. Relating at a distance: Negotiating being together and being apart in long-distance relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2004; 21 :689–710. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sahlstein EM. Making plans: Praxis strategies for negotiating uncertainty-certainty in long-distance relationships. Western Journal of Communication. 2006; 70 :147–165. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salvatore JE, Kendler KS, Dick DM. Romantic relationship status and alcohol use and problems across the first year of college. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2014; 75 :580–589. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sbarra DA, Emery RE. The emotional sequelae of nonmarital relationship dissolution: Analysis of change and intraindividual variability over time. Personal Relationships. 2005; 12 :213–232. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schroder KEE, Carey MP, Vanable PA. Methodological challenges in research on sexual risk behavior: II. Accuracy of self-reports. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2003; 26 :104–123. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schulenberg JE, Maggs JL. A developmental perspective on alcohol use and heavy drinking during adolescence and the transition to young adulthood. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2002; 14 :54–70. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer JD, Willett JB. Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sprecher S. “I love you more today than yesterday”: Romantic partners’ perceptions of changes in love and related affect over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999; 76 :46–53. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tinto V. Research and practice of student retention: What’s next? Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, & Practice. 2007; 8 :1–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Bureau of Statistics. Work and play: What do Americans do all day? American time use survey. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Horn K, Arnone A, Nesbitt K, Desilets L, Sears T, Giffin M, Brudi R. Physical distance and interpersonal characteristics in college students’ romantic relationships. Personal Relationships. 1997; 4 :25–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1988; 54 :1063–1070. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitton SW, Weitbrecht EM, Kuryluk AD, Bruner MR. Committed dating relationships and mental health among college students. Journal of American College Health. 2013; 61 :176–183. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yıldırım BF, Demir A. Breakup adjustment in young adulthood. Journal of Counseling and Development. 2015; 93 :38–44. [ Google Scholar ]

• Relationships

The Advantages of Long-Distance Relationships

Research reveals how remote romance can survive and thrive..

Posted March 10, 2019 | Reviewed by Jessica Schrader

Most people have experienced strong feelings towards someone who is geographically out of reach. But in terms of embarking on long-distance relationships, the question becomes: Are such feelings sustainable? Many people say yes and are open to the prospect of finding the perfect partner, regardless of location. Catering to this desire, some dating websites are specifically geared to connecting prospective paramours across the globe, emphasizing compatibility over geography. The good news for individuals inclined to consider remote romance is that long-distance relationships can both survive and thrive.

Out of Sight, Not Out of Touch

Numerous studies over the years have examined long-distance relationships (LDRs), including the factors that impact relational quality and sustainability. As electronic methods of communication have become more prevalent and easy to access, couples are able to keep in touch more frequently, such as via text messaging, and through more intimate methods, as live video calls have replaced phone calls. The goal is to create and maintain a sense of closeness and relational comfort even if partners are oceans apart.

Still, some LDRs fare better than others. What makes the difference? Why do some remote relationships sizzle while others fizzle? Research provides some insight.

When Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder

Gretchen Kelmer et al. (2013) compared LDRs to geographically close relationships in terms of relationship quality, commitment, and stability.[i] Using 870 subjects in a national sample, they found that, generally, individuals involved with geographically distant partners reported higher relationship quality and dedication in a number of areas. They also reported a lower perception of constraint or “being trapped.”

Regarding specifics, the higher levels of relationship quality reported by long-distance partners included love for a partner, having fun with a partner, relationship adjustment, and quality of conversation. These couples also reported less negative communication, compared with close-proximity sets of partners.

The authors suggest that perhaps people have higher standards for LDRs when it comes to partner selection. The authors note that as a result of “setting the bar” higher at the outset, the “idealized” long-distance partner may in reality actually be more “ideal” than a partner living in close proximity. This dynamic might be in play when deciding to become involved with a partner at the outset, knowing he or she might be deployed or called away to attend to out-of-state or international business.

Future Prospects and Great Expectations

Remote romance may even enhance relational optimism . Kelmer et al. found that long-distance couples believed they were more likely to marry their partner, and viewed a breakup within the next year as less likely at the beginning of the experiment. In reality, however, they were just as likely as the close-proximity couples to have dissolved the relationship by the time a follow-up assessment was conducted. Why the initial optimism? The authors suggest that the “sense of stability and anticipation of a long-term future might be relevant to individuals’ willingness to make the short-term sacrifices associated with geographical separation.”

Separation Security

Kaitlyn Goldsmith and E. Sandra Byers (2018) compared positive relational maintenance behaviors (RMBs) used in LDRs to those used in geographically close relationships (GCRs).[ii] Among many other findings and observations, they found that the only RMB that long-distance couples used more than close-proximity couples was “introspective behaviors”—such as phone and electronic communication.

Of great interest, however, were Goldsmith and Byers' suggestions as to how long-distance partners can make the most of their time apart. They observe that the challenges of sustaining a long-term relationship might be mitigated by engaging in positive self-help behaviors while separated, such as hobbies, career pursuits, and friendships, as opposed to being focused solely on relationship well-being.

It is also true that some people are better equipped to handle LDRs than others. Goldsmith and Byers speculate that perhaps people who choose to have a long-distance relationship have different relational expectations to begin with. These individuals may not expect (or desire) frequent contact with a romantic partner, and may actually enjoy the benefits of having more independence and time to pursue other personal endeavors.

Meeting of the Hearts and Minds

This research seems to indicate that LDRs can not only survive but thrive—with the right mindset and the right partner. Choosing a like-minded paramour who is similarly emotionally equipped to weather the challenges of remote romance will increase the chances of relational success. Discussing relational expectations at the outset will allow both parties to enjoy their time apart, with an eye towards enjoying their reunion all the more.

[i] Gretchen Kelmer, Galena K. Rhoades, Scott Stanley, and Howard J. Markman. “Relationship Quality, Commitment, and Stability in Long‐distance Relationships.” Family Process 52, no. 2 (2013): 257–70.

[ii] Kaitlyn Goldsmith and E. Sandra Byers. “Maintaining long-distance relationships: comparison to geographically close relationships.” Sexual and Relationship Therapy (2018): 1-24.

Wendy L. Patrick, J.D., Ph.D., is a career trial attorney, behavioral analyst, author of Red Flags , and co-author of Reading People .

• Find Counselling
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United Kingdom
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Study: Long Distance Relationships Can Work

Greater distance apart actually predicted more intimacy, communication, and satisfaction.

Problem: Long-distance relationships (or LDRs, as they are sometimes known) are pretty universally acknowledged to be a bad idea, especially if the separation has no finite end-date. And sure, there are exceptions to the rule. One of the best couples I know dated long-distance for years, and they’re married now. But do you really want to bank on being an exception, in the face of a hazy future filled with Skype calls and expensive plane tickets?

Recommended Reading

American Exorcism

The Pre-wedding Parties Where Couples Charge Admission

Can a Boxer Return to the Ring After Killing?

But of course people do defy the advice of their more level-headed friends and go for the LDR. And a recent study provides them with some warm and fuzzy data to snuggle up to on nights when they’re missing their partners.

Methodology: Researchers at Queen's University in Ontario, and the University of Utah, looked at 717 people in long-distance relationships, and 425 people in “geographically close relationships.” The sample size included both students and non-students, people of different sexualities, and a wide range of actual distances. The participants answered questions about their attitudes toward LDRs, and then completed multiple questionnaires designed to assess the quality of their relationships:

• An assessment that measures emotional, social, sexual, intellectual and recreational intimacy
• A commitment scale
• A scale that measures a relationship’s communication levels
• “Dyadic Adjustment Scale,” which measures couples’ disagreement on things like demonstrating affection and handling finances.
• “Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale,” which measures how well couples communicate about their sexual relationship.
• A measurement of female sexual satisfaction
• A measurement of male sexual satisfaction
• An assessment of the amount of psychological distress, anxiety, and depression a person has felt in the last month.

Results: “It appears as though those in [LDRs] are no less satisfied than those in [geographically close relationships],” the study reads. “Indeed, comparing participants based on sexual orientation, relationship composition, and student status revealed very similar relationship patterns. These results indicate that being in an [LDR] does not guarantee negative relationship outcomes.”

The factors that predicted positive relationship outcomes were not measured in miles. For example, those who felt more certainty in their relationships’ future had higher quality relationships. What’s more, greater distance apart actually predicted more intimacy, communication, and satisfaction in the relationship.

Implications: I made a tagline for a romantic comedy based on the results of this study: “It isn’t the length of the distance; it’s the strength of your love.” We could call it “LDR” and cast Shailene Woodley or Selena Gomez as an earnest college freshman who constantly Skypes with her boyfriend Josh Hutcherson.

The study, "Go Long! Predictors of Positive Relationship Outcomes in Long Distance Dating Relationships" appeared in Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy.

Long-Distance and Extended Time Effect on Relationships Essay (Literature Review)

Introduction, improved intimacy, enhanced communication, sense of autonomy, improvement of sex life, appreciation of one another, tests the love.

Long-distance relationships are common phenomena in the contemporary world. Factors such as job assignments and education force couples to live miles away (Kelmer, Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2013). The general perception is that long-distance relationships do not work. Most people argue that it is difficult for couples to wait for each other for an unspecified duration. Individuals opposed to long-distance relationships are unwilling to live a life characterized by Skype calls and expensive travels (Kelmer et al., 2013). Despite the negative views that many people have regarding long-distance relationships, research shows that there are couples who are in such arrangements and happy with the way they relate to each other. Being in a long-distance relationship does not necessarily result in negative interaction. Individuals who have defied the general perception about long-distance relationships have proved that the arrangement strengthens companionship. This literature review will discuss how long-distance and extended amounts of time reinforce relationships.

The popular knowledge has it that distance impacts romantic relationships, and that being away from one’s spouse or partner affects their happiness. Individuals in support of this argument hold the adage that “out of sight, out of mind” (Mark & Jozkowski, 2013). They do not understand how couples can allege to be happy yet live miles away from one another. Recent research shows that absence has significant impacts on relationships because it results in couples missing each other, thus developing compassionate feelings (Mark & Jozkowski, 2013). Indeed, men and women who do not meet on a regular basis have more meaningful relationships than those who live together. According to Mark and Jozkowski (2013), couples in long-distance relationships have higher chances of sharing valuable emotions and thoughts than those who interact on a daily basis. Additionally, they are likely to romanticize their spouses’ behaviors, resulting in a better sense of intimacy.

Couples should not part ways if circumstances do not allow them to live together. Research shows that geographical distance does not prevent spouses from sharing intimacy. A study on 63 heterosexual couples aged below 21 found that they were happy in their relationships despite having limited interactions (Mark & Jozkowski, 2013). They claimed that their occasional communications were extended and more consequential. The interactions gave them an opportunity to share their emotions and talk more about themselves. Studies are yet to confirm why long-distance relationships promote deep interactions. Nevertheless, there are propositions that men and women who do not meet regularly can romanticize their spouse’s confessions.

Technology has revolutionized the nature of long-distance relationships. In the past, people could only communicate through telegraphs or letters, which took time to reach the intended persons. The correspondence between couples could take days, if not weeks. Today, social platforms like Skype, Facebook, and Twitter have made it possible for couples to communicate instantly, bridging the geographical distance between them. Bao and Lyubomirsky (2013) argue that technology enables couples in long-distance relationships to read each other’s facial expressions as they communicate, which boosts their intimacy. At times, partners may get distracted when talking via phone. However, they tend to pay attention to each other if chatting via video calls.

The critics of long-distance relationships argue that the allegation that it enhances intimacy overlooks factors such as stress and loneliness that are attributed to living apart (Firmin, Firmin, & Lorenzen, 2014). Some relationship therapists posit that not all couples who are in long-distance relationships are happy (Bao & Lyubomirsky, 2013). The counselors allege that they occasionally come across men and women who regret living apart. Some spouses even disclose to them that they are doubtful of their relationships. Some counselors admit that they do not encourage couples to live separately as such a relationship is quite stressful (Bao & Lyubomirsky, 2013). The major problem is that most of the existing studies focus on the demerits of long-distance relationships. Nevertheless, it is imperative to appreciate that such relationships are not inevitably bound to fail. Technology has made it possible for couples to remain in a romantic relationship despite the distance between them.

Communication is paramount in a relationship. Long-distance or geographically close relationships cannot work without adequate connection between couples. One of the mistakes that spouses make is failure to have heart-to-heart conversations with their partners (Jiang & Hancock, 2013). Instead, they live like two strangers without knowing how the other party feels about their behaviors. Research shows that partners in long-distance relationships endeavor to show understanding and love. According to Borelli, Rasmussen, Burkhart, and Sbarra (2014), couples who live together have a propensity to disregard their daily interactions. The fact that they see each other on a regular basis makes them believe that they understand their partners’ thoughts and feelings.

It might not necessarily be the case since some couples may conceal their emotions to please their partners. On the other hand, couples in long-distance relationships take advantage of the time that they interact to express their feelings. Jiang and Hancock (2013) hold that spouses in long-distance relationships make sure that they utilize their communication time fully. They share not only their emotions and feelings but also thoughts. Eventually, they gain experience in how to speak with one another. A study on couples who lived distances apart found that most men and women believed that their partners did not hide their thoughts and feelings during conversations (Jiang & Hancock, 2013). It helped not only to understand one another but also strengthen their bond.

Couples in a long-distance relationship are better at communication than those who live together. Living apart compels partners to enhance their communication skills to avoid misunderstandings. As per Jiang and Hancock (2013), Cornell researchers found that long-distance couples work hard to defeat communication challenges. They learn each others’ ways of communicating, thus knowing what to say or not to say during a discussion. For a long-distance relationship to work, both parties must know what they require to feel connected. Communication between spouses enables them to understand each other’s needs and work towards fulfilling them.

Being in a relationship entails more than just watching movies together and having sex. Jiang and Hancock (2013) claim that individuals ought to take advantage of relationships to discern how to connect on different levels with their partners. Couples who experience the challenges and joy of being in a long-distance relationship acknowledge that there are multiple ways of strengthening love than just being together. According to Jiang and Hancock (2013), individuals who survive long-distance relationships do not let the geographical gap thwart their intimacy. Instead, they look for alternative ways of communication that enable them to connect. Some couples share surprise gifts while others send thoughtful messages to partners to remind them of their love.

One of the unique features of long-distance relationships is the sense of independence that couples develop. Firmin et al. (2014) argue that living miles away from one another results in couples developing individual freedom, identities, and a sense of control, which are vital to a relationship. In instances where couples live together, one of the partners may feel overwhelmed or “crowded” by the presence of the other. Such feelings affect their relationships, forcing them to drift apart. On the other hand, couples that live a distance apart are not bothered by their partner’s proximity. One may argue that living apart leads to couples developing jealousy and a sense of insecurity, which affect their relationships. However, couples who trust in each other are not afraid of living separately. Firmin et al. (2014) aver, “Fully trusting your partner and their actions as they live away from you is a true act of faith and a testament to the health of your relationship” (p. 63). Despite the freedom that the couples who live apart have, they consult each other before doing anything.

Firmin et al. (2014) claim that men and women treasure the dynamics attributed to long-distance relationships such that they miss them when they finally settle together. A study conducted in 2006 found that at least 33% of couples who were in long-distance relationships could not sustain their love for each other after moving in together (Firmin et al., 2014). Some spouses cited loss of autonomy, jealousy, disagreements, and time management as some of the factors that contributed to breakups. It showed that long-distance relationship was not only good for the couples but also appreciated and ideal. Therefore, the interaction is healthy for men and women who prefer autonomy and trust each other.

Relationship experts argue that distance should not interfere with an individual’s love life. Morey, Gentzler, Creasy, Oberhauser, and Westerman (2013) argue, “Distance introduces a whole new element to the idea of monogamy” (p. 1774). Even though many couples won’t admit it, long-distance relationships have the temptation. Some people develop the urge to establish new relationships with men or women who live close to them. Only couples who are disciplined and dedicated to a relationship can withstand the urge. Morey et al. (2013) assert that men and women who are creative overcome the temptations associated with living apart. Skype sex allows couples to understand each other sexually. There are intimate things that husbands and wives cannot share face-to-face due to being shy. However, they can say them freely via Skype, making it possible for them to improve their sex life.

Couples are liable to taking each other for granted when they spend a lot of time together. They get preoccupied with their everyday activities and programs such that they do not have time to value each other’s presence. It underscores the reason most husbands and wives who live together are caught up in petty squabbles that result in break-ups. Such challenges are mostly witnessed in times of stress, especially if one or both partners had a rough day at work. Borelli et al. (2014) argue that being away from your spouse can be useful for both of you. Distance teaches couples the significance of their relationship. Consequently, men and women appreciate the time that they spend with their partners. They begin to miss their company, jokes, and laughter. Such feelings are not wrong because they enable couples to understand how much they love their partners, thus appreciating their presence whenever they meet.

Most people tend to think that couples who live together have greater love, which is not always correct. Many men women who spend a lot of time together break up when distance separates them. The inability to cope with the distance leads to partners dissolving the relationship. Borelli et al. (2014) maintain that it is depressing to find that many couples are willing to sacrifice their relationships for the immediate safety attributed to living together. They fail to realize that being apart may give them a chance to grow individually. Moreover, the separation is mostly short-lived. Hence, couples are confident of being together in the future. A long-distance relationship helps to gauge the husband’s and wives’ love for one another. Borelli et al. (2014) posit, “To be ready to spend days, weeks, or even months apart is a great sacrifice, and in the end, it can bring much happiness when you and your partner are reunited” (p. 1091). Nevertheless, this demands commitment from both parties.

Long-distance relationships are not always destined to fail, contrary to what many people believe. One of the mistakes that couples commit is to focus on the negative attributes of the relationship. In a situation where men and women love each other, long-distance relationships can help to strengthen their connection. Couples who live apart appreciate the significance of communication and work hard to understand and meet each others’ needs. Living apart makes husbands and wives to miss and value each other, thus treasuring the moments that share. It becomes easy for partners to resolve their differences because they do not like to lose one another. Separation helps to determine the couples’ commitment to a relationship.

Bao, K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). Making it last: Combating hedonic adaptation in romantic relationships. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8 (3), 196-206.

Borelli, J., Rasmussen, H., Burkhart, M., & Sbarra, D. (2014). Relational savoring in long-distance romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32 (8), 1083-1108.

Firmin, M., Firmin, R., & Lorenzen, K. (2014). A qualitative analysis of loneliness dynamics involved with college long-distance relationships. College Student Journal, 1 (1), 57-71.

Jiang, L., & Hancock, J. (2013). Absence makes the communication grow fonder: Geographic separation, interpersonal media, and intimacy in dating relationships. Journal of Communication, 63 (3), 556-577.

Kelmer, G., Rhoades, G., Stanley, S., & Markman, H. (2013). Relationship quality, commitment, and stability in long-distance relationships. Family Process, 52 (2), 257-270.

Mark, K., & Jozkowski, K. (2013). The mediating role of sexual and nonsexual communication between relationship and sexual satisfaction in a sample of college-age heterosexual couples. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 39 (5), 410-427.

Morey, J., Gentzler, A., Creasy, B., Oberhauser, A., & Westerman, D. (2013). Young adults’ use of communication technology within their romantic relationships and associations with attachment style. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (4), 1771-1778.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, June 9). Long-Distance and Extended Time Effect on Relationships. https://ivypanda.com/essays/long-distance-relationships-literature-review/

"Long-Distance and Extended Time Effect on Relationships." IvyPanda , 9 June 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/long-distance-relationships-literature-review/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Long-Distance and Extended Time Effect on Relationships'. 9 June.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Long-Distance and Extended Time Effect on Relationships." June 9, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/long-distance-relationships-literature-review/.

1. IvyPanda . "Long-Distance and Extended Time Effect on Relationships." June 9, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/long-distance-relationships-literature-review/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Long-Distance and Extended Time Effect on Relationships." June 9, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/long-distance-relationships-literature-review/.

• The Movie “Hancock”
• Drama Scene in the "Hancock" Movie
• Contributions of Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji to China
• The John Hancock Tower Discussion
• Skype: All you Need to Know
• Long-Distance Runner as Career
• Photojournalist: Mark M. Hancock
• Long-Distance Trade In Venice: 1500-1914
• Long-Distance Trade and Western Sudanese Politics
• Major Determinants of Long-Distance Running Events
• Love Components in Sternberg’s Triangular Theory
• Attraction and Relationships Analysis
• Online Relationships Are Real and Positive
• Early Dating Rituals in Filter Theory
• Students and Faculty Members' Romantic Relations

Home / Essay Samples / Life / Relationship / Long Distance Relationships: Challenges and Opportunities

Long Distance Relationships: Challenges and Opportunities

• Category: Sociology , Life
• Topic: Communication in Relationships , Relationship

Pages: 1 (404 words)

• Downloads: -->

Challenges of Distance

Opportunities for growth.

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Fear Essays

Empathy Essays

Inspiration Essays

Courage Essays

Hope Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->