Relating at a distance: Negotiating being together and being apart in long-distance relationships

http://spr.sagepub.com/Relationships

Journal of Social and Personal

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/21/5/689The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0265407504046115

2004 21: 689Journal of Social and Personal RelationshipsErin M. Sahlstein

long-distance relationshipsRelating at a distance: Negotiating being together and being apart in

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Association for Relationship Research

can be found at:Journal of Social and Personal RelationshipsAdditional services and information for

http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/21/5/689.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Oct 1, 2004Version of Record >>

at BROWN UNIVERSITY on September 12, 2012spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://spr.sagepub.com/

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/21/5/689

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.iarr.org

http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/21/5/689.refs.html

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/21/5/689.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


Relating at a distance:Negotiating being together and

being apart in long-distancerelationships

Erin M. SahlsteinUniversity of Richmond

ABSTRACTPartners in various relational types transition between beingtogether and apart, but these transitions are far fromseamless in long-distance relationships (LDRs). In this study,a relational dialectics framework was used to examine long-distance romantic relationships (LDRRs) and explore thecontradiction(s) experienced by LDRR partners as they nego-tiate between togetherness and separation. Twenty hetero-sexual couples participated in audio-taped ‘couple interviews’in which they answered a series of questions about themutual influence of togetherness and separation in theirrelationships. Results showed that across all 20 couples theinteraction states of being together and being apart mutuallyenable and constrain one another in many ways. Implicationsfor the study of long-distance relating using a relationaldialectics approach are presented.

KEY WORDS: absence • co-presence • long-distance relationships• relational dialectics

Absence makes the heart grow fonder. Out of sight, out of mind. Implied inthese cultural commentaries are two possible views of long-distancerelationships, one in which affections increase because of physicalseparation and the other in which physical absence creates com-fortable autonomy. Both are likely to be at play in the experience of being

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Copyright © 2004 SAGE Publications(www.sagepublications.com), Vol. 21(5): 689–710. DOI: 10.1177/0265407504046115

This paper was presented to the Interpersonal Communication Division for the annualmeeting of the National Communication Association, November 2001, in Atlanta. The authorbased this article on her dissertation at the University of Iowa, which she completed in May2000 under the supervision of Steve Duck (advisor), Leslie Baxter, Kristine Fitch, RandyHirokawa, Joy Hayes, and John Harvey. All correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Erin M. Sahlstein, Department of Rhetoric and Communication Studies,University of Richmond, 212 Booker Hall, Richmond, VA 23173, USA [e-mail:[email protected]]. Sandra Metts was the Action Editor on this article.

08_sahlstein_046115 (jk/d) 20/9/04 2:53 pm Page 689


www.sagepublications.com


in a long-distance relationship. On the one hand, living apart can be stress-ful and lonely for relational partners and most couples probably preferliving in the same place. However, living in the same place is not alwayspossible and relating at a distance can be quite beneficial for individualsand their relationships, for example, by allowing partners freedoms thatthey would not have if they lived in close proximity. On the other hand,being in the same place (either permanently or temporarily), although facil-itative of relationship development and immediate companionship, mayincrease feelings of ‘stepping on each other’s toes,’ ‘being in each other’sspace,’ or ‘limiting individual potential.’

Through the current study, I highlight how the two salient yet contra-dictory characterizations of relating partially reflect how distance and prox-imity between partners may mutually influence a relationship in bothpositive and negative ways. Specifically, I explore the extent to which thetensions between being together and being apart experienced in long-distance romantic relationships (LDRRs) construct a contradiction (Baxter& Montgomery, 1996) within these relationships. A tension is a contradic-tion if the two forces (e.g., being together and being apart) work both withand against one another by both enabling and constraining one another.

Relating at a distance

Although long-distance relationships are not the norm for relating intoday’s society, they are increasing in frequency. More than 10 years ago,Stafford and Reske (1990) suggested that as many as one-third of all collegedating relationships may be LDRRs. More recently, Dellmann-Jenkins,Bernard-Paolucci, and Rushing (1994) reported that 43.2% of their collegedating couple sample was in a long-distance relationship. Even thoughscholars have reported a significant number of LDRRs in undergraduatepopulations, long-distance relationships continue to be an ‘understudied’phenomenon (Rohlfing, 1995) and only a small group of predominantlyatheoretical studies reporting varied results have been published in theLDRR area.

Within the personal relationships literature, LDRRs are often comparedwith proximal romantic relationships (PRRs), typically in terms offrequency, quality, and amount of contact, maintenance strategies, mediausage, social networks, and relational satisfaction (see Sahlstein, 2000, fora thorough review of the literature). One of the most relevant findings forthe present study is that individuals in both LDRRs and PRRs reportaverage to high relational satisfaction despite the obvious differences incontact frequencies and quantity (Guldner & Swensen, 1995). Severalexplanations have been posited for the similar levels of relational satis-faction.

One possible reason for the similar satisfaction levels is that LDRRpartners may idealize their partners and their relationships, which wouldbring LDRR satisfaction levels up to the same levels as PRRs. Idealizationis the concept of perceiving one’s relationship through a positive frame andmainly occurs when the relational partners are not in physical presence

690 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 21(5)




with each other. Stafford and Reske (1990) reported that partners inLDRRs idealize their relationships more than PRRs and are more opti-mistic about their futures as couples. Because of their assumption thatLDRRs had limited, restricted communication, Stafford and Reskeconcluded that LDRRs were more likely to overlook the negative aspectsof their relationships, to accentuate the positive characteristics and to makethe most of their interactions.

Another possible explanation for the similarly high satisfaction levelsreported by individuals in LDRRs and PRRs is that LDRRs may havepositive qualities that are constructed as negative when experienced inPRRs (and vice versa). For example, being in a LDRR may allow indi-vidual partners more time to commit to their careers. However, PRRpartners may view more time devoted to career aspirations as taking awayfrom the relationship. Thus, PRR partners could view the same issue in anegative light with decreases in relational satisfaction as a possibleoutcome. Holt and Stone (1988) argue that relating at a distance (and inproximity) and the resulting relational satisfaction levels are more compli-cated than merely an interaction of miles apart and frequency of contact.Possibly, similar levels of global relational satisfaction (i.e., How satisfiedare you with this relationship overall?) are not so puzzling if LDRRs areviewed as having positive qualities and if PRRs are not conceptualized asthe standard for comparison.

In this study, I do not compare LDRRs and PRRs but extend Holt andStone (1988) by advocating for a rich understanding of LDRRs andassume, based on empirical findings, that LDRRs may be perceived asequally (dis)satisfying as PRRs at a global level. This perspective demandsa more detailed emphasis on the experience of being together and beingapart and how the two work together in relationships. Sigman’s (1991)framework of discontinuities in relationships and Baxter and Mont-gomery’s (1996) relational dialectics perspective provide a foundation fordiscussing the potential complexities of moving between being togetherand being apart in personal relationships.

Discontinuities in social relationships

Sigman (1991) argues that all relationships are maintained in a number ofways and in a variety of circumstances, most notably in the absence ofphysical co-presence. Relationships are not only constructed in the face-to-face interactions between partners, but are also ‘stretched’ (p. 106) acrosstime and space between face-to-face interactions. According to Sigman, theseemingly continuous nature of relationships is often conducted in thediscontinuous moments of non-copresent relating.

Sigman (1991) contends that the majority of research done on personalrelationships and communication ‘confuse[s] interaction and relationalboundaries’ (p. 108) by treating relationships as if they were onlyconstructed in the co-presences of the relational partners. The ‘talk’between partners is emphasized as the constitutive act of relating (Gold-smith & Baxter, 1996); thus, the dominant assumption is that personal

Sahlstein: Relating at a distance 691




relationships get done in the co-presence of partners. Sigman sees a dangerin researching personal relationships this way and does not want to equaterelationships with interaction; rather, he calls for the study of relationshipsas ‘larger’ than their physical co-presences. Relationships are not only(re)produced through interactions between the two partners, but they alsocontinue ‘outside and apart from any particular interactional event’ (p.108).

Long-distance relationships appear to be ideal for studying how relation-ships are maintained in the absence of physical co-presence. Long-distancerelationships are primarily maintained in the absence of the other partner;therefore, the non-copresent interactions and experiences outside of theimmediate relationship help define relationship continuity. In order forLDRRs to persist, partners must move in and out of one another’s co-presence more explicitly and consciously than partners in PRRs. Partnersin LDRRs, as well as in PRRs, must enact certain behaviors that helpconstruct and maintain their relationships across space and time. Sigman(1991) focuses on the behaviors that partners enact in order to maintain asense of being in a relationship given the discontinuity between physical co-present interactions. Although Sigman recognizes how relationships aremaintained in both co-present and non-copresent moments, he does notdiscuss the interaction between being apart and being together and thedynamic process these two states evoke. He also does not address the possi-bility of tensions that this ‘in and out’ process might construct for andbetween the partners and the members of their social network, or that thetension-constructing process might be in need of negotiation.

The goal of this investigation was to examine what partners experiencewhen they are moving in and out of one another’s co-presence (i.e., being‘together’) and non-copresence (i.e., being ‘apart’) in their long-distancerelationships as well as how they negotiate these two interaction states. Theinteraction between being together and being apart may not only be thebasis for tensions in LDRRs, but may, in fact, be experienced as contra-dictions in which togetherness and separation mutually enable andconstrain the experience of the other. The relational dialectics perspective(Baxter & Montgomery, 1996) is useful in making sense of these processes.

Relational dialectics

The relational dialectics perspective assumes that ‘social life is a dynamicknot of contradictions, a ceaseless interplay between contrary or opposingtendencies’ (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, p. 3). More specifically, a contra-diction, according to Baxter and Montgomery (1996), is the ‘dynamic inter-play between unified oppositions’ (p. 8). Various contradictions have beenidentified in the literature, including three particularly salient ones:autonomy and connection, openness and closedness, novelty (uncertainty)and predictability (certainty). One of the most widely examined dialecticalcontradictions in personal relationships is that between autonomy andconnection (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). For example, a personalrelationship can be defined as two individuals who come together and form





a connection with one another. Thus, personal relationships are at theirvery heart about individuals being connected and interdependent.However, at the same time, the relationship depends on the individualshaving some level of autonomy. People want to be a part of relationships,but they also desire being their own person; however, being your ownperson is accomplished by being defined in relation to others. Autonomyand connection are in opposition, but we cannot understand one except inconjunction with the other. Thus autonomy and connection are not only inopposition, but they are unified opposites; ‘. . . they negate one another atthe same time they are interdependent . . . with one another’ (Baxter &Montgomery, 1996, pp. 9–10). Moreover, relational contradictions do notalways occur in isolation; rather, several contradictions may be at playsimultaneously or overlap with one another at various points in time (e.g.,autonomy may also be in contradiction with openness in a relationship).

In the current investigation of LDRRs, I examine how relational partnersmay experience being together and being apart as enabling and constrain-ing one another in practice (i.e., how they are unified, yet opposed). There-fore, the following research questions guided the current study:

RQ1: How does being together work with and against being apart withinLDRR relating?

RQ2: How does being apart work with and against being together withinLDRR relating?

Although the data collected and examined for RQ1 and RQ2 shouldimply a contradiction between being together and being apart withinLDRRs, I chose to explicitly ask a third research question.

RQ3: Does a contradiction exist between being together and being apartin LDRR relating? If so, what are some of the variants or themes of thiscontradiction?

Data reported for RQ3 will stand as the most important contribution ofthis study, most notably to the relational dialectics scholarship. Scholarsstudying contradictions experienced in personal relationships have usedforces in opposition as evidence of contradiction. I would like to argue thatin order to show support of a contradiction forces, themes, or elementsshould be displayed as enabling and constraining one another in practice.

Method

Solicitation of participantsParticipants were solicited from three sources: undergraduate communicationcourses at a large, Midwestern university, adults within the surroundingcommunity, and personal contacts with the researcher. Once both partnersagreed to participate in the study, the researcher set up a meeting with theparticipant who lived in the area to give him/her the materials and providefurther instructions.





Participation was limited to couples who met two characteristics: (i) thecouple was currently in a long-distance, romantic relationship but were notmarried; and (ii) they would interact with their partners face-to-face within thetime frame of the study. In exchange for their full and complete participation,couples were offered two 60-minute, prepaid long-distance calling cards.

Defining and selecting casesAlthough a range of operational definitions have been employed in long-distance relationship research, I allowed the participants to decide if they wereinvolved in this type of relationship using their own criteria. In previous studies,researchers have defined what it means to be involved in a long-distancerelationship typically in terms of miles separating the partners (e.g., more than50 miles apart), whereas some studies have allowed the participants to deter-mine their own relational status. Given the consistency in designation betweenresearcher-determined criteria and participant-determined criteria (Dellmann-Jenkins et al., 1994; Sahlstein, 1996), and the desire to avoid potentially incor-rectly categorizing couples using research-derived mileage cut-offs, participantswere allowed to determine their own LDRR status.

ParticipantsThe final sample of 20 long-distance, heterosexual couples lived between 70and 5,600 miles apart (M = 774.58, SD = 1264.62). The mean length of time thecouples were in their relationships was approximately two years (M = 23.53months, SD = 18.53), and the mean length of time the partners reported theyhad been in a long-distance relationship was approximately 12 months(M = 12.39, SD = 14.96). The individual mean income was between $16,000 and$20,000. The majority of the participants was in their last year of college as full-time students (75%) and worked full- to part-time (65%). Finally, 90% of theparticipants were Caucasian (n = 36).

Across the sample, the reasons reported for being in a long-distance relation-ship differed. Nine couples reported that both partners attended college, but indifferent places. Eight couples reported that one of the partners attendedcollege, while the other partner worked or had an internship in a different city.Three couples reported that both partners worked, but in different locations.Across the sample, four couples reported that their relationship originated asa long-distance relationship.

ProceduresI met with at least one of the relational partners at a convenient location (e.g.,local coffee shop) a few days before the couple planned to conduct the coupleinterview. I gave participants an interview packet (i.e., two consent forms, oneinterview protocol, an audiocassette tape, and two survey measures withenvelopes) and thoroughly explained the proper procedures for the task, aswell as answered any final questions about the participation process.

Participants were instructed to first conduct a ‘couple interview’ during theirnext face-to-face visit. A ‘couple interview’ is one in which the relationalpartners interview themselves (i.e., the researcher is not present when theparticipants ask and answer the questions on audiotape). This type of protocolwas used in order to gain access to information that may be concealed intraditional interview scenarios (e.g., discussion of sex lives) and to have couplesco-construct their answers.





Once the participants completed reviewing and signing their consent forms,each couple was instructed to audiotape a conversation at their convenienceand in the absence of the researcher (e.g., at home in the living room). Theseconversations are guided by the first and second research questions posed bythe researcher and were presented in the form of an interview protocol. Thequestions were designed to solicit responses about how being together andbeing apart worked with and/or against one another in everyday, LDRRrelating. For example, couples responded to variants of the request, ‘Talk aboutall the ways in which being physically [together/apart] has a [positive/negative]influence on being physically [apart/together].’

In terms of the ordering of questions, couples were randomly assigned to oneof four sequences of questions so as to deter bias in the answers due to aconsistent ordering of the questions. Couples were told to start with the firstquestion and exhaust all possible examples and general characteristics theycould discuss with respect to their long-distance relationships. After couplesfelt they had completely exhausted their discussion of the issues in onequestion, they were told to move on to the next question and repeat theprocess. Once the couple interview was complete, partners were asked toindependently complete a questionnaire. Answers to items relating to demo-graphics and to long-distance relationship characteristics (e.g., length of long-distance relationship) are included in this article.

Data analysisThe first step in the analysis of the ‘couple interview’ data was a qualitativeanalysis of transcripts. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, resulting in391 pages of text-based data for analysis. Initially, the researcher utilized anopen-coding method of content analysis for one half of the transcribed conver-sations (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995). Open coding involves looking for thethemes, dimensions, and main ideas in data such as interview or conversationtranscripts. Each transcript was read in its entirety while listening to the taperecording and then each transcript was read twice in order to get a sense ofeach interview’s content. The researcher then open-coded each response, or‘thought unit,’ constructed by the couple in reference to each question. Utter-ances were considered ‘thought units’ if they conveyed a characterization ordistinct example of the relationship being referenced in the interview question.Thought units were included only if the content of the thought units was agreedupon by both partners, which was indicated by partners having a concurringresponse to their partners’ statements (e.g., ‘Yeah’). For example, in referenceto the question ‘How does being apart negatively impact your time together?’,Laura and Sam reported the following.

Laura: Yeah, sometimes there’s pressure to make that time together special.Sam: Kind of how we said it was a positive thing that we . . . usually have fun-filledweekends. It can also . . . turn negative it we try toLaura: Force it.Sam: Yeah.{C21, 232–237}

Laura and Sam construct agreement across their four turns at talk, which Iconsidered a complete thought unit displaying the theme of ‘Pressure forQuality/Positive Time.’ The thought units varied in length ranging from oneutterance with a one-word response to several lines of transcript that containnumerous turns at talk between the relational partners, but with one theme.





Using the qualitative analysis program Atlas.TI for data organization andextraction, each thought unit was then coded for its meaning using the constantcomparison method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) in order to construct categoryschemes for each of the four superordinate areas of the interview protocol (i.e.,together enables apart, together constrains apart, apart enables together, andapart constrains together). The researcher coded the first thought unit and thencompared its content with each subsequent thought unit coded. Each time anew issue was reported in a thought unit, a new code was constructed, result-ing in several codes for each superordinate area.

The remaining transcribed conversations were unitized as well for purposesof the final complete coding of the data set by two independent coders. Fourdifferent categorizing schemes were used, one for each set of responses: (i)together enables apart, (ii) together constrains apart, (iii) apart enablestogether, and (iv) apart constrains together.

Coding of thought unitsTwo trained graduate research assistants independently coded the data set ofthought units according to the category schemes constructed by the researcher.Coders categorized each thought unit by reading each one and choosing theappropriate category from the coding scheme. Inter-coder reliability was basedon the randomly selected 25% overlapped sample of thought units betweencoders. Percentage agreement and inter-coder reliability levels for the fourcategories were as follows: together enables apart (97.0% absolute agreement,kappa = .87, p < .05), together constrains apart (90.0% absoluteagreement, kappa = .84, p < .05), apart enables together (83.0% absolute agree-ment, kappa = .73, p < .05), and apart constrains together (81.8% absoluteagreement, kappa = .70, p < .05). The researcher resolved all coding discrep-ancies in the overlapped set. Data collected from the survey measure wereentered into SPSS for descriptive analyses of the sample.

Within each couple’s interviews, the researcher examined the transcripts forexplicit examples of the contradiction between being together and being apart.First, each couple’s thought units were re-read and examined for explicitlinkages across categories in terms of opposing issues (e.g., pressure for qualitytime, yet memories being constructed) and issues that were unified (e.g.,insuring quality time helps construct memories), as well as general themesacross categories (e.g., network negotiation; during their time apart networkmembers support the relationship but, when the couple is together, they mustmanage time with their social network, which can lead to conflicts over howand with whom time is spent). Then the researcher read each transcript onefinal time to gain a better sense of how the contradiction was working acrosseach couple’s conversations. The researcher then produced written summariesof these within couple contradictions.

Results

Research Questions 1 and 2Analyses of the 20 interview transcripts with regard to RQ1, ‘How does beingtogether work with and against being apart within LDRR relating?’ and RQ2,‘How does being apart work with and against being together within LDRRrelating?’, produced four main areas of experiences in long-distance





relationships: How (i) being ‘together’ enables being ‘apart’, (ii) being‘together’ constrains being ‘apart’, (iii) being ‘apart’ enables being ‘together’,and (iv) being ‘apart’ constrains being ‘together.’ Codes from the originalcoding manual were collapsed when low frequencies existed and whenmeanings were similar across codes. In the subsequent discussion, the mostfrequently reported categories are presented in detail. Owing to space limi-tations, I have only provided detailed examples for the most frequently notedcategories. Couples did not report information for every category (or they didnot report the most evocative examples); therefore, different couples arerepresented versus following the same couple across categories (see attachedtables for descriptions of each category in the four areas).

Being ‘together’ enables being ‘apart’. Long-distance relational partners indi-cated nine ways in which the time they spent with one another (e.g., on aweekend visit) had a positive influence/enabled the time they spent apart fromone another (Table 1). The five most frequently reported categories were:‘Rejuvenation’ (20.5%), ‘Reminder of the relationship/partner’ (19.2%),


TABLE 1Category descriptions of how ‘Together enables Apart’

1. Rejuvenation (20.5%): Partners report getting their relational or individual ‘gastank refilled.’ They get a sense of being recharged by the time they spend together.They feel ready to face the time apart refreshed.

2. Reminder of the relationship/partner (19.2%): Partners report that being togetherevokes reminders of the relationship and/or the partner (i.e., how and why they arein the relationship, what they like about the other and/or the relationship).

3. Constructs Memories (19.2%): Partners note that the time they spend together helpsconstruct memories and shared experiences that they can draw upon during theirtime apart.

4. Segmentation (14.1%): Being together creates a feeling of having separate lives, andso the time together is for the relationship, time apart is for their individual lives.They see this as enabling their time apart because they can get their ‘relationshiptime’ in and then go back to their autonomous lives to get that ‘work’ done in thosespaces.

5. Anticipation (11.5%): Partners report that the time together creates a basis forfeeling excited when they are apart for the next time they are together. Theyconstruct something to look forward to while they are separate through the time theyspend together.

6. Builds Trust/Faith (7.7%): By spending time together, partners re/gain faith andtrust in the relationship/partner.

7. Constructs the Known (6.4%): Time spent together helps partners gain a sense ofcertainty about the other person’s life (separate from them) and/or the relationship.Their time apart feels more ‘doable’ because they have decreased their uncertaintyregarding issues that surround their partner and/or their relationship.

8. Network Relationships (3.8%): Times together are opportunities to construct linkswith the other relationships (i.e., linked to the relationship), which help bind thepartners together when they are apart in various ways.

9. Constructs Intimacy (2.6%): Time together helps increase as well as diversify therelational intimacy between the partners. When they are apart, they feel more a partof a relationship because they have continued to build intimacy with one anotherwhen they were together which works to bind them when they are apart.




‘Constructs memories’ (19.2%), ‘Segmentation’ (14.1%), and ‘Anticipation’(11.5%). The remaining categories each accounted for less than 10% of thesethought units: ‘Builds trust/faith in the relationship’ (7.7%), ‘Constructs theknown’ (6.4%), ‘Network relationships’ (3.8%), ‘Constructs intimacy’ (2.6%),and ‘Other’ (6.4%).

The most frequently reported response was ‘Rejuvenation,’ which is apositive outcome of face-to-face interactions on the relational partners’ stateof being when they are apart. Participants indicated that spending time withtheir partner builds up their relational ‘reserves’ and inspires them to make itthrough the next period of being apart. Partners view their time together as amechanism for ‘making it through’ the time apart by leaving the partnersfeeling ‘full’ of one another. In each of the following excerpts, the partnersreported how being together gives them a renewed sense of being that aidstheir time apart.

Henry: Ok. Uh well I think . . . after being together, like it’s a Monday, I feel sorefreshed and ya know the time that we’ve been physically together really gives meenergy and strength . . . to like go through the time the next period of being apart.{C10, 65–68}

Tom: I have a new sense of energy and shit. You help me out. You help me throughthe times that I need it and then I can go on. I can move on to something that Ineed to be doing. {C5, 70–74}

Steve: I feel like I’ve had my batteries recharged after I’ve been with you, so I don’tmiss you right away. [I] feel like I’ve got a good dose of you and then after like twoor three days I’m ready to have it again and I wish you were here. {C12, 70–74}

Henry, Tom, and Steve all reported that spending time with their partnersenables the time they spend separate from them by ‘recharging’ their ‘batter-ies’ and they feel ready to face the time alone with more zest.

Being ‘together’ constrains being ‘apart’. The time couples spend with oneanother face-to-face is not a consistent positive influence on the time theyspend separated from one another by physical distance. Couples reportedseveral ways in which time together was not useful and specifically was anegative force working against the time they spent in different locations (Table2). Three subordinate categories emerged and accounted for over 70% of thethought units regarding how time together constrained time apart: ‘Let down’(40.7%), ‘Face-to-face standards’ (20.9%), and ‘Segmentation’ (10.5%). Theremaining categories of being together constraining time apart each accountedfor less than 10% of these thought units: ‘Network negotiation’ (8.1%),‘Residue issues’ (5.8%), ‘Adjustments’ (4.7%), and ‘Other’ (9.3%).

The largest category was ‘Let down.’ Partners reported how being togethersets up the time apart as a ‘disappointment’ or ‘not as fun and exciting’ as beingtogether. Partners reported that their separate lives are ‘boring,’ ‘suck,’ or theyfeel sad because they have just been with their partner and now they are nottogether.

Curt reported how he is extremely sad when he has just spent time with hispartner and then has to be apart from her.

Curt: And also uh I guess it’s a more . . . when we leave each other um that createsa great deal of sadness for both of us. And it usually carries on for quite a while,while we’re apart. {C7, 15–17}





Curt recognized that the sadness he feels immediately after departure issustained during the time apart.

Partners’ reports in this category reflected how the time together creates a‘longing’ or ‘pining’ for their partner that occurs right after they have spenttime together. Nancy reported, ‘Well I miss you like crazy sometimes’ {C5, 55}.Jenny and Curt discussed how they miss each other and how energy is takenfrom their productivity at times.

Jenny: Um first of all when we are together then since it’s such a short amount oftime that when we aren’t together we miss each other so much. And what else wasI going to say?Curt: We spend a lot of time when we’re apart . . . thinking about each other andmissing each other and we probably should be doing something productive other-wise. {C7, 2–8}

Hannah also discussed how she spends a lot of time missing her partner Steveand how this takes her ‘out of the moment’ of her individual life.

Hannah: Um-hum. And I spend a lot of time wishing that I was, this is actuallysomething Scott and I talked about, spend a lot of time not being in the moment.It’s hard to stay in the moment of your day and to live each day, because, especiallynow for me, it’s like I so want to be in Los Angeles, it’s hard to appreciate whereI am in school and all the cool things that are happening there, and doors that arehappening and all this kind of stuff and it’s really fun but I still keep going ‘Oh Ican’t wait. Only two more weeks. Only eight more days. Only seven more days.’


TABLE 2Category descriptions of how ‘Together constrains Apart’

1. Let down (40.7%): Partners report that being together constructs a sense of being‘let down’ when they are apart from one another. They have had such a good timewhen they are together that when they apart they feel like they lost something byseparating.

2. Face-to-face standards (20.9%): The time together provides a standard forinteraction that cannot be achieved when the partners are apart. The interactionsthey have when they are apart do not live up to the interactions they have when theyare face-to-face.

3. Segmentation (10.5%): Because they do certain things when they are together, thetime partners spend apart may feel completely separate or different from the timetogether (i.e., they feel like they lead different lives).

4. Network Negotiation (8.1%): Being together with one’s partner is time away fromothers (e.g., friends and relatives) or takes away from potentially establishing/developing other relationships. Therefore, the time apart is negatively influenced(i.e., constrained) because of the need/desire/responsibilities to the romanticrelationship/partner. Time together takes away from other relationships.

5. Residue Issues (5.8%): Issues that were addressed during the time together aresometimes not brought to closure, so the issues are ‘held over’ and hang there/influence the time they spend apart. Residue issues may linger during the time apartor they may actually be addressed during the time apart making it anunhappy/negative experience (e.g., destructive conflicts occur).

6. Adjustment (4.7%): Time together gets partners in a ‘groove’ or a pattern of being.Then when they go back to not being physically together, the partners have to gothrough an adjustment period in order to get used to being apart again (e.g., sleepingpatterns).




Ya know and it’s hard to, it’s hard to let my life pass like that and it’s also hard towait for you, and so, I spend a lot of time kind of in turmoil in my own head about,ya know, feeling like I want to be with you and feeling like I should enjoy themoment. {C12, 400–411}

Hannah feels that she is not living life to the fullest when she is apart fromSteve because the time she spends with him works to take her out of themoments of her separate life.

Being ‘apart’ enables being ‘together’. Couples discussed how their time aparthad a positive impact/force on their time together. Partners reported severaldifferent manifestations of how being apart enabled being together (Table 3).The five most frequently discussed characterizations of how time apart enablestime together were: ‘Fosters quality time’ (27.3%), ‘Segmentation’ (18.2%),‘Excitement’ (16.5%), ‘Appreciation’ (14.9%), and ‘Openness’ (10.7%). Eachof the two remaining categories was less than 10% of the thought units codedin this scheme: ‘New things to share’ (9.1%) and ‘Other’ (1.7%).

‘Fosters quality time’ included comments about how the time apart made thecouples want to have more fun when they were together and use the timetogether to its fullest potential. Rob reported that being apart from one anotherfosters a desire to ‘make the most’ of the time together.

Rob: It just makes us realize that we have to make the most of the time that we dohave together, since we realize that there’s no possibility to see each other duringthe middle of the week. On those weekends we really don’t leave each other’s side.{C6, 78–83}


TABLE 3Category descriptions of how ‘Apart enables Together’

1. Fosters Quality Time (27.3%): Being apart creates a desire in the partners to wantto have quality time with one another when they come together. They plan to docertain activities when they are together that help make it a good time.

2. Segmentation (18.2%): Partners can do things when apart (e.g., get work done) thathelps the time together. It can be focused, relational time. Being apart allowspartners to accomplish certain tasks that in turn allow for the couple to accomplishother things (e.g., relational ‘stuff’) when they are together.

3. Excitement (16.5%): Couples report that being apart helps build up excitement inthe relationship or for the relationship and/or the time they are about to spendtogether. Therefore, when they come together they do things for each other and/orhave a positive feeling/attitude of excitement.

4. Appreciation (14.9%): The time they spend apart makes the partners appreciatetheir partners/the relationship more and in different ways, so when they are togethertheir appreciation positively influences their time together in various ways.

5. Openness (10.7%): Partners report that either during the time apart they get to talkmore (mainly about the relationship, but not necessarily only this) and thus the timetogether is better because of that openness. Also, the time apart can create situationsthat when they are together they talk about the relationship, how they are feeling,and/or what is going on in their lives (i.e., disclosure of varied forms).

6. New Things to Share (9.1%): The time apart allows for new experiences that thepartners can share when they are together. In other words, things happen to thepartners or they experience things when they are apart that they can bring to thetime spent together and have it benefit that period of time/the relationship.




Rob and his partner want to make sure that when they are together that theyhave a good time, because when they are apart there are no opportunities todo fun things with one another.

LDRRs are concerned with making sure that the time they spend togetheris quality time due to the fact that they spend, on average, twice as long apartfrom one another as they do with one another (Sahlstein, 1996). Partners wantto do things together that they do not get to do all the time (e.g., go on a date)or activities that they do not typically do individually when they are apart (e.g.go to a museum). Mike commented on how he and his partner work to makethe time together quality because being apart makes them not want to taketheir time together for granted.

Mike: Because we always want to make it a big weekend and we don’t uh, I don’tthink we take our time for granted. So, we’re extra careful to really spend goodquality time with each other. {C11, 88–92}

Mike and his partner want to make the most of their time together and payspecial attention to doing so because they are apart so much.

Another way that the time apart enables the time together in terms of‘Quality time’ is that partners do not want anything ‘negative’ to happen duringtheir time together because they spend such a significant time apart. ‘We don’twaste our time fighting’ {Laura, C21, 317}. All of these examples reflect howbeing apart can improve or enable time together.

Being ‘apart’ constrains being ‘together’. Being apart is also a constraint on thetime LDRR partners spend together (Table 4). Three subordinate categoriesemerged as the most frequently reported: ‘Pressure for quality/positive time’(46.0%), ‘Network negotiation’ (13.8%), and ‘Constructs unknowns’ (11.5%).The remaining four categories were each less than 10.0% of these thoughtunits: ‘Segmentation’ (8.0%), ‘Communicative strain’ (6.9%), ‘Differentworlds’ (5.7%) and ‘Other’ (8.0%).

‘Pressure for quality/positive time’ was the most frequently reported codeacross all four schemes. Partners reported that, because they are apart forextended periods, there is a lot of ‘pressure’ on the couple to have a positive, fun-filled time when they are together. Partners experience stress due to the pressure,for example, to pack ‘a few weeks into a few days’ and have the entire weekendbe ‘quality’ time. Ally reported feeling pressure to have a good time with herpartner when they are together because being apart sets up this expectation:

Ally: Since we’re apart more than we’re together . . . I feel kinda pressured to makeit [a] perfect couple of days or whatever. We have so much stuff to do and . . . suchlittle time. {C11, 24–26}

Ally, like other partners, feels the need to have a good time when she is withher partner because she does not have the opportunities to do such things whenthey are apart. Laura and Sam discussed how trying to put so many fun thingsinto their weekend make them feel like they are ‘forcing’ quality time:

Laura: Yeah, sometimes there’s pressure to make that time together special.Sam: Kind of how we said it was a positive thing that we . . . usually have fun-filledweekends. It can also . . . turn negative it we try toLaura: Force it.Sam: Yeah.{C21, 232–237}





Laverne and Carmine also reported the difficulty with trying to cram the timethey were apart in the time they have available to them on the weekends.

Carmine: There is a lot of time to make up for. Seems like they have to be miracle days.Laverne: Yeah, like forty-eight hour days.Carmine: Yeah.Laverne: And everything’s rushed.{C14, 75–79}

Each of these examples displays how being apart can constrain being togetherfor long-distance partners by putting pressure on the relational partners to havea good time while they are together (i.e., because when they are apart – theymake ‘big plans’ for their next visit).

Research Question 3In reference to RQ3, ‘Do dialectical contradictions exist between beingtogether and being apart in long-distance relating? If so, what are some of thevariants or themes of this contradiction?’ All 20 couples were able to articulateissues related to all four aspects of the proposed tension (i.e., being togetherenables and constrains being apart, and being apart enables and constrainsbeing together), which taken as a totality arguably construct a contradiction


TABLE 4Category descriptions of how ‘Apart constrains Together’

1. Pressure for Quality/Positive Time (46.0%): The time apart creates this extremeneed/pressure to have a good time when partners are together. They report feelinglike they have to do fun and often unusual things when they are together becauseduring their time apart they are deprived of such activities and/or they feel they haveto ‘squeeze’ activities into the short amount of time they are together.

2. Network Negotiation (13.8%): The fact that partners only have a limited amount oftime together when they are face-to-face (i.e., because they spend most of their timeapart), other relationships are neglected when they come together because partnersspend that time, or the majority of the time, with one another.

3. Constructs Unknowns (11.5%): The time apart creates uncertainty and unknownsbecause partners are not sharing experiences (i.e., face-to-face). This makes the timetogether strained in particular ways (e.g. jealousy, uncertainty, conflicts occur).

4. Segmentation (8.0%): Being together is viewed as the time when the relationship is‘really happening’ and partners report the time together should be for therelationship only, but other issues are not so easily bracketed out (e.g., work).Therefore the time together is harder to make positive because of the need toaddress such issues, the partners are thinking about these issues, and/or the ‘issues’(e.g., work) are being forced on them (e.g., boss sends an angry email).

5. Communicative Strain (6.9%): Because they spend a lot of time apart, they spend asignificant portion of their time together catching up, discussing the future of therelationship (e.g., ‘Where is this relationship going?’), and/or talk about plans forfuture time together (e.g., ‘What are we going to do next time?’). The conversationscan take up time when they are together that could be spent doing things together(e.g., going on a hike).

6. Different Worlds (5.7%): Time spent apart is time when partners may start takingdifferent paths and changing. When they come together they begin to lose theirconnection and similarities making it hard to mesh their lives when together becauseof the separate lives they live when apart.




between time spent ‘together’ and time spent ‘apart.’ Across the transcripts,related issues (e.g., rejuvenation, let down, fosters quality time, and pressurefor quality/positive time) emerged in reference to each of the four interviewquestions (e.g., How does being together positively influence your time apart?).The related issues constitute themes or variants of the contradiction betweenbeing together and being apart.

Quality of time was one of three themes that emerged from the couples’discussions. Couples articulated both how the time together ‘rejuvenates’ themfor the time apart, but also that time together makes them feel ‘let down’ whenthey are apart. Couples reported that, because of the time apart, they feel aneed to have quality time, which was viewed as both an enabling and (but moreoften in these data) a constraining factor on time together. Because of the timeapart, couples work to insure they will have good, quality time together bydoing activities that are fun, exciting, and memorable. However, couples oftenfeel pressure to have a good time when they are together. Couples reportedfeeling the need to suppress conflicts and present their ‘best face’ to oneanother when they are together. Wanting quality time often leads to a let downduring the time apart if the weekend’s activities do not live up to the couple’sexpectations, but in turn partners reported having something to look forwardto based on their time together.

Jenny and Curt reported issues across the course of their interview that,taken in totality, indicate a contradiction between being together and apart thatsurrounds the theme of quality time. Jenny reported how because of their timeapart from one another they work harder on spending time only with oneanother and making it quality time. She reported that they both:

. . . feel like we should be doing something fun, exciting, we don’t take the timefor granted and we usually try to spend as much as we can of the time we’retogether together and not talking to other people or visiting other people which isI guess that also can be a negative part of that. But we don’t like to fight or any ofthat kind of stuff ‘cuz we aren’t together for that long. And it seems like we alwaystry to be happy um have fun . . . {Apart enables together, ‘Quality,’ C7, 44–55}

Curt in turn reported how being apart for such long periods places pressure onthem as a couple to have a quality, fun time together.

Curt: Uh I guess the first one that we thought of was we think that we think weshould be doing something fun and exciting uh rather than just sitting around andwatching a movie or something which is something that we’ve done many times,and we feel like uh there’s always just kinda at least in my mind, in the back of mymind, that that tuh we might be sort of wasting the time we have together if we’rejust doing something mundane like that when we could be out experiencing some-thing new that would create a lasting memory. {Apart constrains together,‘Pressure,’ C7, 28–36}

Jenny and Curt both acknowledged that although there is pressure to have agood time when they are together, these quality times provide a basis forexcitement during their time apart and give them something to look forwardto when they are apart.

Curt: Um. I guess even when we’re apart the time that we’ve spent together leavesus with a uh warm feeling inside for each other. Um and regardless of where weare we know that uh we love each other, and that’s always there. And also umthere’s always uh positive feeling of anticipation that when we get when that we’regoing to get to see each other. {Together enables apart, ‘Anticipation,’ C7, 85–90}





But, when the time together is good, Jenny and Curt reported feeling extremelysad immediately after they depart for the week. Curt stated that this ‘usuallycarries on for quite a while, while we’re apart’ {Together constrains apart, ‘Letdown’, C7, 15–17}. This particular example of how being together and beingapart are in contradiction reflects how the scheduling LDRRs must go throughplaces expectations on them for quality time during their visits together;although they look forward to the potential meetings, they feel strained by theexpectations for quality interactions as well.

A second theme was segmentation. Partners reported that time togetherpositively impacted their time apart, for example, because when together theycould spend time with only one another and when they were apart they couldfocus on their work (i.e., segmentation). Couples reported that the time theyspent together was for the relationship and therefore the time apart wasbracketed for work, school, and other responsibilities, which couples perceivedas a good way to manage their relational and separate lives. However, couplesalso reported how bracketing time in this way was problematic because theirtime together felt stressful, because they could not completely bracket out theresponsibilities that need attention when apart. Couples reported that theirsegmentation would also put a strain on the time apart because of the stress ofcoming back to, for example, a pile of work that remained untouched allweekend.

A third theme that was consistent across all four categories concerned theinteraction between the couple and its social network (i.e., network negotia-tions). When partners are together, they reported being focused on theirrelationship, which gives them the freedom to work on their separate socialnetwork ties when they are apart. However, at times, social network memberscan feel neglected (e.g., on the weekends) because of the time partners spendtogether, putting pressure on LDRR partners when they are apart from oneanother. Network members also enact supportive behaviors while LDRRpartners are apart from one another that help them feel more confident aboutand appreciate their LDRR relationship when partners are together. In turn,network members can help place doubt on the validity of the partners’ relation-ship, which can take away from the experience of being together.

Being together and being apart appear to enable and constrain one anotherin several different ways, at different points in time, and in different locationsfor the relational partners. These examples are only a sample of how these twointeraction states are intertwined with one another in the daily practices oflong-distance relating.

Discussion

Steve: But to me like that’s part of, that’s one of the . . . defining pointsabout a long-distance relationship is that there’s a lot of things that fallinto the bad categories and the good categories. {C12, 9–11}

Steve’s statement is a good surface assessment of long-distance relation-ships and how they have characteristics that can be viewed simultaneouslyas good and bad. However, reflections of pros and cons in relationships orforces that are opposites (e.g., good vs. bad) within a given relationshipare not necessarily reflective of relational contradictions. Relational





contradictions are the product of the dynamic movements between twoforces; in their flux, the two forces influence one another in both enablingand constraining ways.

In these data, couples reported how their time together and their timeapart enabled and constrained one another in the practice of relating at adistance, providing evidence of a contradiction between being together andbeing apart for partners in LDRRs. These two interaction states are notonly opposite states of relational interaction; the actions taken within eachinteraction state construct dynamic forces that influence one another inmultiple ways.

Together and apart: Mutually enabling/constraining contexts

Results indicated that these two interaction states influence one another inseveral different ways. These data evidence that being together and beingapart impact one another in both enabling and constraining ways. Forexample, couples reported how being together works with their time apartby having such positive impacts as serving as a reminder of the (quality ofthe) relationship and/or of their partner (i.e., ‘Reminder of the relation-ship/individual’). The time spent together also ‘refreshes’ (i.e., ‘Rejuve-nates’) the partners for the time apart as well as working to constructvaluable memories for partners to draw on when apart (i.e., ‘Constructsmemories’).

Being together works against being apart as well, such as providingexpectations for quality interaction (i.e., ‘Face-to-face standards’) thatcannot be achieved while partners are apart. Couples also reported thatduring their time together they bracket their time together from time theyare apart (i.e., ‘Segmentation’) to the extent that their time together doesnot allow for time apart activities to occur (e.g., work). Therefore, partnersreturn to being apart ‘stressed’ and ‘overwhelmed’ with the issues in thatregion of their lives.

Being apart also works with and against being together for these LDRRpartners. Couples report that the time apart makes them want to have agood time when they are together (i.e., ‘Quality time’); therefore, partnersare more conscious of making the time together special. In turn, being apartputs a lot of pressure on couples to have memorable times (i.e., ‘Pressurefor positive/quality time’), which can prove to be a strain on the partners,the relationship, and the time they have with their partners. However, timeapart allows for partners to get work done (i.e., ‘Segmentation’) and experi-ence new things (i.e., ‘New things to share’) that they can bring to the timethey spend with one another.

Contradictions of long-distance relating

These data provide evidence of a practical contradiction in that both inter-action states serve to enable and constrain the other in practice throughissues of quality time, segmentation, and network negotiations. These threevariants of the contradiction are related to those noted in the existingrelational dialectics research. The theme of ‘Quality time’ has ties to





contradictions of stability–change, certainty–uncertainty, and convention-ality–uniqueness. LDRR partners may desire and plan quality timetogether in order to feel like they are ‘really relating’ when they aretogether and can sense some sort of progress, change, and development intheir relationships. Partners also reported that during their time apart, theyexperience a range of ‘unknowns’ about the other person’s life. They reportdoing activities when they are together that help reduce uncertainty andproduce shared ‘knowns’ that can be drawn upon during their time apart.Partners use the quality time to negotiate their needs for certainty (e.g.,knowing more about one another’s lives) and uncertainty (e.g., having fun,exciting time together). LDRR partners also appear to use their ‘quality’time to both ‘feel like normal couples’ (i.e., conventionality) and to also‘not take their time for granted’ by doing ‘mundane’ activities thateveryone else does when they are together (e.g., uniqueness). LDRRcouples want to experience new things together and validate the existenceof their relationships by making sure to do fun things together. They alsowant to feel like ‘normal’ couples by doing ‘normal’ activities (e.g., hangingout).

‘Segmentation’ as a contradictory theme potentially overlaps with othercontradictions cited in the research literature such as autonomy–connec-tion and dyad–work. Participants in this study consistently identified thepositive and negative impacts of differentiating their relational and indi-vidual lives (i.e., typically equated with their time together and time apart,respectively). By making these clean divides between these two spheres,partners reported being able to negotiate their connection with the partnermore effectively and with fewer conflicts. Partners reported that theyenjoyed the fact that when apart they could come home at night, watch TVuntil all hours of the night, and end up sleeping on the couch without thehassles of being accountable to their partners. They also liked being ableto give their full attention to their partner when they were together andthat was their relational time. Because their interactions are constrained toparticular moments, partners can neatly manage the time they spend onthemselves versus the time they spend on their relationships. This cleandivide also helps partners work on their careers and focus on their successeswhen they are apart, again so they can devote dedicated time to therelationship when they are together.

Finally, the theme of ‘Network negotiations’ corresponds to contradic-tions between dyad and network. LDRR partners, like PRRs, are situatedin a social matrix of relations that work with and against the individual andthe dyad. LDRRs in this study reported social networks as both enablingand constraining their relationships. LDRRs also do not conform to rela-tional norms of proximity and thus have to work within their given culturefor validation and resources to maintain their relationships.

LDRRs appear to experience matrices of contradictions, not only thecontradiction between being together and being apart. Although these dataserve to illuminate the interplay of one specific contradiction in multipleforms, contradictions do not theoretically exist in a vacuum and should be





considered in concert with one another. More than one contradiction is atplay in long-distance relating, as displayed in these data, and futureresearchers should examine these multiple forces.

Issues for future research

Before suggesting possibilities for future research, I must note twomethodological issues of concern. First, scholars should consider thedecision to not have a researcher present during interviews and insteadhave partners conduct the interviews themselves in one another’s presence.My procedural choice may have positioned some of (if not all of) thepartners to conceal some of their feelings, experiences, and opinions dueto the possible contradiction(s) between openness and closedness. Forexample, individual partners may not have disclosed how they enjoyperiodic separations from their partner for fear they could have hurt theirpartners’ feelings. One possible remedy for future research using thisprocedure is to have the individual partners separately report, either ontape or in written form, what issues, ideas, opinions, feelings, and examplesthey did not feel comfortable disclosing in front of their partner.

The second methodological issue concerns the demographics of thesample. The couples who participated in this study were primarily white,students (either one or both of the partners were enrolled in undergradu-ate or graduate studies), who lived and/or were from the Midwest. TheLDRR research to date represents this population. Owing to the completeabsence of LDRR research using different populations, I cannot assumethat these results broadly apply to LDRRs nor can I assume that they applyto other LDRR demographics. LDRR scholars need to consider the limitedportion of the population currently represented in the research.

Despite these limitations, the current research serves as a heuristic fortheorizing, examining, and presenting contradictions of personal relation-ships. In particular, relational dialectics scholars should consider howcontradictions are identified and represented in future scholarship. To date,scholars studying relational dialectics use participants’ reports of opposi-tions as evidence of contradictions. The unity of opposites has not receivedas much attention. For purposes of this study, the contradiction wasconsidered present if couples were able to discuss how being together andapart enabled (unified) and constrained (opposed) one another. Differentthemes of the contradiction were identified when similar issues werereported across these data. Relational dialectics scholars should recognizethat, in practice, contradictions are overlapping and that across the historyof a relationship, issues intertwine in complex ways – far more complexthan represented here.

A second issue for consideration are differing abilities or tendencies ofparticipants to report contradictions in their relationships. In terms of thewithin-couple reports of this study, certain couples discussed quantitativelymore issues. Also, some couples hesitated at first to talk about how being‘together’ could have negative impacts (constraint) on anything in theirrelationship, and other couples were tentative at first when talking about





how being ‘apart’ can be positive. These differences may be due to partici-pants/couples’ differing abilities to articulate their relational dynamics,different relational ideologies, or different relational histories. Scholarsstudying relational contradictions should directly address this issue andcollect data examining potential differences across individuals and/orcouples given the implications for gathering and interpreting participants’reports. Longitudinal research certainly would improve our understandingof these issues.

Several lines of inquiry for future LDRR studies emerged out of thesedata as well. First, given the abundant reports of how being apart putspressure on partners to have ‘quality time’ together, LDRR scholars couldexamine in more depth how time-related pressures are constructed for andwithin LDRR couples. These may come from outside forces, such as friendsand family members, but the range of what informs this type of concern forLDRR partners is unclear. Future research could usefully address howLDRRs are embedded within social networks [see Milardo (1982) andcolleagues’ work; Montgomery, 1992] and are informed by general (i.e.,proximal) rules for relating (Baxter, Dun, & Sahlstein, 2001). Sahlstein(1997) examined the amount of time spent with social networks and howit relates to satisfaction, but LDRR researchers need to also examine howsocial network members communicate to the LDRR couple and how theyare supportive/non-supportive of the relationship. Sahlstein and Truong(2002a, 2002b) have studied individuals’ negotiation of both LDRRs andPRRs simultaneously and the emergent contradictions from those inter-secting relationships. I suggest that LDRR scholars continue these lines ofinquiry by focusing on the LDRRs that are situated within a multiplex ofrelations.

A second line of LDRR research could address specifically how LDRRcouples ‘segment’ their relationship from their individual lives. Severalcouples reported dividing their experience into these two distinct spheres,and future researchers need to examine how segmentation is working inthese relationships. The commuter marriage literature could usefullyinform this line of new research in long-distance relationships. Althoughmarriage is quite different from dating relations in terms of expectationsand rules of relating, there are similarities in terms of how partners in bothrelational types segment their individual and relational lives (see Gerstel& Gross, 1984).

A third issue for future research concerns the construction and use of‘memories’ for relational maintenance. Memories are important linksbetween the present and the past, and they also help partners makes senseof the future. The partners in this study repeatedly referenced thememories they constructed when they were together and how during timesof separation memories are resources for maintaining a sense of a relation-ship and a positive attitude toward their partners. Future LDRR researchcould focus on the memories partners construct individually and as a coupleand how partners draw upon these memorable moments when they areboth together and apart.





Finally, these data point to questionable assumptions about the value ofphysical proximity and dissatisfaction with relational distance. PreviousLDRR researchers have characterized and worked under the assumptionsthat LDRRs are ‘specific stressor[s]’ (Helgeson, 1994, p. 256), ‘a tough life-style’ involving painful tradeoffs and recognizable ‘emotional work’ (Gross,1980, p. 80), and a less-satisfying relational type than PRRs (Stafford &Reske, 1990). These data ‘challenge the assumption that LDRRs arenecessarily associated with “problems” ’ (Holt & Stone, 1988, p. 141) byreflecting both positive and negative influences that both being togetherand being apart have on the other. There are several different ways inwhich being together has a positive force on being apart as well as anegative force. While LDRR researchers have consistently assumed thattime apart is negative for relationships, these couples reported that beingapart had many positive influences on their time together. This projectprovides a basis for scholars to examine in particular how being apart has‘cons’ (as well as ‘pros’) and how together is not always a desired relationalstate.

REFERENCES

Baxter, L. A., Dun, T., & Sahlstein, E. (2001). Rules for relating: Communication amongsocial network members. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 173–199.

Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York:Guilford Press.

Dellmann-Jenkins, M., Bernard-Paolucci, T. S., & Rushing, B. (1994). Does distance make theheart grow fonder? A comparison of college students in long distance and geographicallyclose dating relationships. College Student Journal, 28, 212–219.

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Gerstel, N., & Gross, H. (1984). Commuter marriage: A study of work and family. New York:Guilford Press.

Goldsmith, D., & Baxter, L. A. (1996). Constituting relationships in talk: A taxonomy ofspeech events in social and personal relationships. Human Communication Research, 23,87–114.

Gross, H. E. (1980). Dual-career couples who live apart: Two types. Journal of Marriage andthe Family, 42, 567–576.

Guldner, G. T., & Swensen, C. H. (1995). Time spent together and relationship quality: Longdistance relationships as a test case. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12,313–320.

Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Long distance romantic relationships: Sex differences in adjustmentand breakup. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 254–265.

Holt, P. A., & Stone, G. L. (1988). Needs, coping strategies, and coping outcomes associatedwith long distance relationships. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 136–141.

Milardo, R. M. (1982). Friendship networks in developing relationships: Converging anddiverging social environments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 162–172.

Montgomery, B. M. (1992). Communication at the interface between couples and culture.Communication Yearbook, 15, 475–507.

Rohlfing, M. A. (1995). Doesn’t anyone stay in one place anymore? An exploration of theunder-studied phenomena of long distance relationships. In S. Duck & J. Wood (Eds.),Under-studied relationships: Off the beaten track (pp. 173–196). London: Sage.





Sahlstein, E. (1996, November). Time spent in long-distance relationships: What are the effectson satisfaction? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech CommunicationAssociation, San Diego, CA.

Sahlstein, E. (1997, June). Long distance romantic partners: What are they doing with their timeapart and with whom? Paper presented at the biannual meeting of the InternationalNetwork on Personal Relationships, Oxford, OH.

Sahlstein, E. (2000). Relating at a distance: Being together and being apart in long-distancerelationships. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.) Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national, 61, 2105.

Sahlstein, E., & Truong, T. (2002a, November). Long-distance and proximal relations: A webof contradictions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National CommunicationAssociation, New Orleans, LA.

Sahlstein, E., & Truong, T. (2002b, July). Long-distance and proximal relations: Totality inpractice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International CommunicationAssociation, Seoul, Korea.

Sigman, S. J. (1991). Handling the discontinuous aspects of continuing social relationships:Towards research of the persistence of social forms. Communication Theory, 1, 106–127.

Stafford, L., & Reske, J. R. (1990). Idealization in communication in long distance premari-tal relationships. Family Relations, 39, 274–279.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory proceduresand techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.





Documents

Relating at a distance: Negotiating being together and being apart in long-distance relationships