Attachment, relationship maintenance, and stress in long distance and geographically close romantic relationships

Abstract

This study investigated attachment, maintenance behaviors, and stress in long distance (LDR) and geographically close (GCR) romantic relationships. Data was analyzed from participants (N = 473) who were in a serious romantic relationship and who completed two attachment measures, two maintenance behaviors measures, and a perceived global stress measure. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed significant attachment style and significant LDR/GCR differences for some maintenance behaviors. Two hierarchical multiple regressions indicated that different attachment and maintenance behaviors contributed uniquely to perceived global stress in LDRs and in GCRs. Research and counseling implications are briefly discussed.

Being Secure Means Being Willing to Say You're Sorry: Attachment Style and the Communication of Relational Dissatisfaction and Disengagement

“…They show higher regard for the partner and use more assurances and positive tone (Anders & Tucker, 2000;Tucker & Anders, 1999). These behaviours help sustain and improve the relationship through pleasant interaction, cooperative conflict management, statements of intimacy, pledges of love, and assurances of relationship continuation (Pistole et al, 2010).…”

“…This positive orientation moderates emotional expressions through confident proximity-seeking with a partner and flexible, responsive patterns of communication (Abaied & Rudolph, 2010;Pistole et al, 2010). A secure attachment style provides an encouraging and accepting relational basis for emotional availability and acceptance that promotes an increased sense of self-esteem, self-efficacy, confidence, relational interdependence, autonomous functioning, positive mood, and continued positive perceptions of the other (Feeney & Van Vleet, 2010).…”

“…Negative perceptions of self increase feelings of being unworthy in the relationship and can create a hypervigilance to perceived relational threats. This can increase self-doubt, anxiety about the relationship, and eagerness to please in an attempt to avoid rejection (Hawley, Shorey, & Alderman, 2009;Pistole et al, 2010).…”

“…This style emerges from a discomfort with intimacy and closeness, a view of others as needy and dependent, a desire to not feel obligated to others, and a preference for not being dependent on them (Arseth et al, 2009). This discomfort with dependency and intimacy can lead to a preference for low emotional involvement, distancing from stressrelated stimuli, concealment of negative emotions, and use of behavioral disengagement coping strategies (Abaied & Rudolph, 2010;Pistole et al, 2010).…”

“…This combination can produce high relational anxiety with both a desire for closeness and a fear of rejection. This desire for closenessfear of rejection tension produces a hoped for intimacy but a behavioral tendency toward relational avoidance (Arseth et al, 2009;Pistole et al, 2010).…”