Two studies explore the seeming paradox reported in prior research on long-distance dating relationships (LDDRs): Despite limited interaction, LDDR partners evidence greater relational stability than partners in geographically close dating relationships (GCDRs). We investigate speculations that romantic idealization may be a key component in LDDR stability. Idealization (i.e., idealistic distortion, romantic love, relational reminiscence, perceived agreement) and satisfaction with communication was more pronounced in LDDRs than GCDRs. Idealization was also associated with infrequent face-to-face communication. LDDRs were more stable than GCDRs as long as LDDR partners remained geographically separated, but LDDR partners were likely to terminate their relationship upon becoming proximal. Longer absences between face-to-face visits and extreme idealization during separation predicted instability upon reunion.

No abstract

Extended geographic separation is increasingly common in people's personal relationships.This article proposes a model explaining how partners sustain their relationships as they cycle in and out of physical copresence. The article discusses several research applications of the model in various long-distance relationship types (dating, commuter, military, transnational). Also offered is a conceptualization of noncopresence experiences in relationships based on 5 linear and cyclical temporal concepts explicated by C. M. Werner and L. A. Baxter (1994): amplitude, scale, pace, sequence, and rhythm. This 5-pronged conceptualization highlights important differences within relationships regarding duration, frequency, emotional intensity, and routine-ness of separations. This framework can promote new approaches to relational research that move beyond the oversimplified binary classification of relationships as ''long-distance'' or ''geographically close.''

This study explored long-distance dating relationships’ (LDDRs) transition to geographic proximity. About half of LDDR partners experience this transition, whereas the other half end their relationships during separation. Among reunited relationships, one-third terminate within 3 months of reunion. Participants’ open-ended responses highlight changes associated with reunion, including the loss of autonomy; increased positive and negative knowledge; time management difficulties; and heightened conflict and jealousy. Desirable features of LDDRs (e.g., autonomy and novelty) appear to be lost, and missed, upon reunion. Individuals whose relationships terminated upon reunion were more likely to report missing aspects of LDDRs. Overall, we propose reunions facilitate relational and partner knowledge acquisition, the dissipation of quixotic ideals, and increased partner interdependence.

Rooted in hope theory, this study examined how dispositional and relationship-specific hope influence communication in romantic relationships. In Study 1a, dispositional hope was positively associated with active and constructive conflict responses and negatively associated with passive and destructive conflict responses. In Study 1b, dispositional hope was mainly a positive predictor of active and constructive responses. Hope was also found to predict certain relational maintenance behaviors. Study 2 then examined the influence of hope in specific relational conflict episodes. Dispositional and relationship-specific hope predicted unique variance in conflict goals and styles. High-relative to low-hope individuals reported more prorelationship goals and fewer hostility-domination goals. They also reported greater integrative problem solving and less personal attacking, withdrawal, and third-party assistance.