Transcript Slide 1
Long Distance and Geographically Close Relationships: Attachment, Maintenance, Conflict, and Stress Chapman, M., Purdue University Pistole, M. C., Purdue University Roberts, A., Grand Valley State University Ray, K., Purdue University Chapman, M. L., Pistole, M. C., Roberts, A., & Ray, K. (2005, July). Long Distance and Geographically Close Relationships: Attachment, Maintenance, Conflict, and Stress. Poster session presented at the International Association for Relationship Research Conference, Indianapolis, IN. Long Distance Relationships (LDRs) Long distance relationships (LDRs): Have become more visible (Kaslow, 2001) Are increasing due to women’s education and careers (Groveats & Dixon, 1988) Enable individuals to continue their relationship without either partner sacrificing career goals Seem as strong as geographically close relationships (GCRs) in many ways (DellmannJenkins et al., 1994; Van Horn et al., 1997). Long Distance Romantic Relationships LDR – Unique Stresses Separation-reunion cycles Separation should trigger the attachment system Individual differences (i.e., attachment styles) could influence interaction and the separation-reunion cycle Travel Costs associated with travel and communication LDRs possibly more stressful than GCRs? Chronic stress may influence health (Cohen, 1994). Need LDR knowledge to support health outcomes Attachment (Bowlby, 1988) The emotional bonding and strong emotional reactions associated with romantic relationships Provides feelings of security, a secure base, a safe haven, and protection When a certain range of physical or symbolic proximity is exceeded (e.g., too much time apart), The exploratory system (e.g., work, play) is inhibited, The person experiences separation anxiety, Attachment behavior to regain proximity is exhibited. Relevant to LDRs separation-reunion cycles Attachment Styles Reflect different rules directing attention to and regulation of attachment information (Fuendeling, 1998) Attachment Prototypes (Bartholmew & Horowitz, 1991) Secure: Positive beliefs about self and partner, seeks proximity Preoccupied: Negative self, idealized partner, high attachment anxiety, seeks near constant partner accessibility Dismissing: Positive self, negative partner, self-reliant, deactivates attachment system, distant Fearful: Negative self and partner. High avoidance (i.e., deactivates attachment system) and high anxiety, distances to protect from rejection. Relationship Maintenance Strategies Behaviors that keep the couple together and continue desirable features of the relationship Strategic behaviors, consciously designed to maintain the relationship (Stafford & Canary, 1991 Routine strategies, daily behaviors that are more routine than conscious (Dainton & Stafford, 1992) Strategies that define the meaning of physical separations (Gilbertson, Dindia, & Allen, 1998) Linked to satisfaction and commitment Purpose Attachment Styles Consistently associated with differences in interpersonal and general competence (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003), May influence the use of relationship maintenance strategies and experienced stress. LDRs vs. GCRs May require different maintenance strategies Rationale No research has examined attachment, maintenance strategies, stress, and conflict in LDRs Some maintenance strategies (e.g., assurances, positivity) might be used more in LDRs, because of the separation LDR partners cannot share tasks in the same way as GCR couples. Attachment style might be related to maintenance strategies and stress LDR preoccupied might report more stress than GCR preoccupied, due to travel and anxiety associated with separations Preoccupied might report more stress than Dismissing who prefer selfreliance and avoidance LDR Preoccupied might avoid conflict, engage in more assurances, and use more maintenance strategies because of hyper-activating (anxious) attachment strategies than GCR Preoccupied. Hypothesis Expect significant attachment style and relationship structure (i.e., LDR/GCR) differences for Relationship maintenance strategies Conflict Stress Method Procedure web-based research Participants recruited via listservs & non-electronic postings of a URL. Participants N = 244 35 male, 209 female 132 LDR, 94 GCR 202 Caucasian 201 Never married, 177 steady dating partners Education range: 3% high school to 97% college Instruments Relationship Questionnaire (RQ) (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) Person’s chose one of four paragraphs representing secure, dismissing, preoccupied, and fearful attachment Routine and Strategic Relational Maintenance Scale (RSRMS) (Stafford, Dainton, & Haas, 2000) 31 items, 7 subscales Assurance, 8 items, = .91 Openness, 7 items, = .86 Conflict Management, 5 items, = .83 Shared Tasks, 5 items, = .88 Positivity, 2 items, = .66 Advice, 2 items, = .75 Social Networks, 2 items, = .68 Instruments Relationship Continuity Constructional Unit (RCCU) (Gilbertson, Dindia, & Allen, 1998) 22 items, 3 subscales, Prospective, 7 items, tell partner what you’ll do while apart, = .74 Introspective, 11 items, telephone partner while apart, = .83 Retrospective, 10 items, kiss/hug partner hello, = .80 Conflict Questionnaire (Klein & Lamm, 1996) 15 items, 3 subscales, Self expression, 5 items, = .94 Listening, 5 items, = .95 Problem solving, 5 items, = .92 LDR Conflict, Designed for this study 6 items, I avoid conflict when my partner & I cannot be together = .89 Global Measure of Perceived Stress (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) 10 items, unidemensional, = .75 Results A 2 x 4 MANOVA IVs – Relationship structure & attachment style DVs = RSRMS subscales, RCCU subscales, Conflict scales, and Stress Main Effects Relationship structure, Wilks’ Lambda = .84, F(15,204) = 2.57, p < .01, η2 = .16; Attachment, Hotelling’s Trace = .45, F(45,608) =2.02, p < .001, η2 = .13. No significant interactions. Results – Univariate LDR/GCR significant differences (Table 1) Shared Tasks (RSRMS) Prospective maintenance strategies (RCCU) Introspective maintenance strategies (RCCU) LDR Conflict Attachment significant differences Assurances, Openness, Conflict Management, Positivity, Advice, Social Networks (RSRMS) Prospective, Retrospective (RCCU) Stress LDR Conflict Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed which groups were significantly different (Table 2). Discussion and Implications LDRs and GCRs show some differences in communication patterns of their romantic relationships. There are some attachment style differences in the way one relates in a LDR. Psychologists can facilitate clients’ long distance romantic relationships with their partner by focusing the attachment-related stress of one’s maintenance strategies and LDR conflict Table 1 Variable Share Pro Intro Retro LDR Conf Relationship Structure LDR (n = 132) GCR (n = 94) M SD M SD 28.51 44.33 55.96 51.40 18.56 5.05 4.29 11.29 5.19 8.55 29.85 43.76 52.79 50.77 14.65 4.87 5.00 12.76 5.81 7.43 F(1 , 218) η2 4.30* 4.91* 7.39** 4.19* 8.76** .02 .02 .03 .02 .04 Note. Share = Shared Tasks (RSRMS); Pro = Prospective, Intro = Introspective, Retro = Retrospective (RCCU). *p < .05. **p < .01.