This article was downloaded by: [Duke University Medical Center]

On: 12 October 2014, At: 09:17

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Applied Communication

Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjac20

When Distance is Problematic:

Communication, Coping, and Relational
Satisfaction in Female College Students'
Long-Distance Dating Relationships
Katheryn C. Maguire & Terry A. Kinney
Published online: 12 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Katheryn C. Maguire & Terry A. Kinney (2010) When Distance is Problematic:
Communication, Coping, and Relational Satisfaction in Female College Students' Long-
Distance Dating Relationships , Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38:1, 27-46, DOI:
10.1080/00909880903483573

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909880903483573

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Journal of Applied Communication Research
Vol. 38, No. 1, February 2010, pp. 27
46

When Distance is Problematic:

Communication, Coping, and
Relational Satisfaction in Female
College Students’ Long-Distance
Downloaded by [Duke University Medical Center] at 09:17 12 October 2014

Dating Relationships
Katheryn C. Maguire & Terry A. Kinney

This manuscript is one of many in a special issue of the Journal of Applied Communication Research on
‘‘Communication and Distance,’’ Volume 38, No. 1.

The purposes of this study are to gain an in-depth understanding of the situations in
which long-distance dating relationships (LDDRs) are distressing for female college
students, and to examine the associations between the perceived helpfulness of various
communication coping strategies and relational satisfaction in both high and low distress
LDDRs. Results indicate that the perceived helpfulness of joint problem solving was a
major predictor of satisfaction among participants in low distress LDDRs, whereas
the perceived helpfulness of openness was a major predictor of satisfaction among the
participants in high distress LDDRs. Implications for research on LDDRs and coping are
discussed.

Keywords: Long-Distance Dating Relationships; Stress; Coping; Relationship

Maintenance; Relational Satisfaction

Long-distance dating relationships (LDDRs) are fairly common (Stafford, 2004;

Stafford & Reske, 1990), constituting 25% to 50% of college student dating
relationships on residential campuses (Aylor, 2003; Guldner, 1996; Stafford, 2005).

Katheryn C. Maguire is an Assistant Professor, and Terry A. Kinney is an Associate Professor in the Department
of Communication at Wayne State University. The authors would like to thank the editors and reviewers for
their helpful comments. A version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the National
Communication Association, San Antonio, TX, in November, 2006. Correspondence to: Katheryn C. Maguire,
525 Manoogian Hall, 906 W. Warren Ave., Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48292, USA. E-mail:
kmaguire@wayne.edu

ISSN 0090-9882 (print)/ISSN 1479-5752 (online) # 2010 National Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/00909880903483573
 28 K. C. Maguire & T. A. Kinney
Whereas some scholars claim that geographic separation poses a challenge for
relational partners as they try to maintain their LDDRs (Aylor, 2003; Ficara &
Mongeau, 2000; Rohlfing, 1995), others argue that LDDRs are not uniformly
problematic (Stafford, 2005), emphasizing that there are different types of LDDRs,
only some of which are stressful (Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Maguire, 2007; Sahlstein,
2004). Given the frequency and possible impact of LDDRs on academic performance,
relational well-being, and psychological health (Aylor, 2003; Guldner, 1996; Paul,
Poole, & Jakubowyc, 1998), counselors and relationship scholars have sought to
determine the extent to which geographic separation influences communication
behaviors and relationship outcomes like satisfaction and stability (e.g., Dainton &
Downloaded by [Duke University Medical Center] at 09:17 12 October 2014

Aylor, 2001; Stafford & Merolla, 2007). Several communication behaviors, such as
relationship maintenance, problem-focused communication, and seeking social
support, appear to vary across LDDR experiences (Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Maguire,
2007), suggesting that some strategies may be more predictive of relational
satisfaction than others. This study examines the extent to which the perceived
helpfulness of communication coping strategies is associated with relational
satisfaction in both stressful and relatively stress-free LDDRs.
This study focuses on women’s perceptions of satisfaction and coping in LDDRs,
with the recognition that men’s LDDRs may be problematic as well (e.g., Cameron &
Ross, 2007). Research shows that women report and exhibit higher levels of
psychological distress than men, and they may cope in different ways as well (Thoits,
1991). In particular, Helgeson (1994) found that female college students in LDDRs
reported higher levels of distress than males. The information gained in this study
will provide insight into the nature and functioning of LDDRs (Rohlfing, 1995) and
help counselors by identifying the circumstances under which LDDRs face distress.

Stress and Coping in Female College Students’ LDDRs

When reviewing research on LDDRs, two conclusions pertinent to this study can be
made. First, there are two aspects to consider when understanding LDDRs: (a) the
physical distance separating the couple, and (b) the amount of time spent apart (e.g.,
Guldner & Swensen, 1995; Holt & Stone, 1988). Similar to scholars who do not
specify a number of miles to qualify a relationship as ‘‘long distance,’’ we follow the
example of Dellman-Jenkins, Bernard-Paolucci, and Rushing (1994) and define an
LDDR as one in which it would be difficult or impossible for dating partners to see
each other on a frequent basis, thereby incorporating time and distance in the
definition.
Second, there is inconsistency in the research regarding how distance may affect
perceptions of relational well-being. For instance, Van Horn et al. (1997) found that
participants in proximal dating relationships (PDRs) were more satisfied than those
in LDDRs. Then again, Stafford and Merolla (2007) found that those in LDDRs were
more in love and reported higher-quality communication than those in PDRs.
Similarly, whereas Guldner and Swensen (1995) found no significant differences
between LDDRs and PDRs when examining the association between time spent
 Coping in LDDRs 29

together and relationship quality, Holt and Stone (1988) and Dainton and Aylor
(2002) found that relational partners who visited each other frequently reported
higher levels of satisfaction than those who rarely saw their partners. These results
suggest that not all LDDRs are problematic, but that potential constraints may lead to
different outcomes (Stafford, in press). Thus, it becomes important to identify those
stressors that may affect perceptions of relationship quality. Following the work of
Bodenmann (2005), we classify stressors in LDDRs into two categories according to
‘‘whether the stressor resulted from within the couple’s relationship or from some
event external to the couple’’ (pp. 37
38). Whereas external stressors involve
problems stemming from sources outside of the relationship, internal stressors result
Downloaded by [Duke University Medical Center] at 09:17 12 October 2014

from problems within the relationship (e.g., personality issues, inequity).1

External and Internal Stressors

Four sources of external stress appear to be a direct result of maintaining a college
student LDDR. First, because being apart from one’s partner is a defining quality of
LDDRs, some research has assumed that separation is a primary source of difficulty
in the LDDR (e.g., Helgeson, 1994; Holt & Stone, 1988) that can damage or end it
(Knox, Zusman, Daniels, & Brantley, 2002), particularly for individuals who are
anxious about their relationship (Feeney, 1998). Second, traveling to see one’s partner
and planning face-to-face visits or communication opportunities (e.g., telephone
calls, on-line chats) can be problematic as well (Sahlstein, 2006). Another commonly
mentioned difficulty associated with college student LDDRs is the economic hardship
brought on by travel expenses and phone bills (Aylor, 2003). Last, given the cultural
belief in the United States that frequent face-to-face contact and close proximity are
needed to maintain relationships (Stafford, 2005), social network members may not
support the LDDR (Rohlfing, 1995), or could become potential rivals (Guldner,
2004).
Internal stressors involve difficulties with one’s partner or with the LDDR itself.
For instance, some individuals in LDDRs experience frustration as a result of
communication difficulties (Guldner, 2004; Rohlfing, 1995; Westefeld & Liddell,
1982). Similarly, interpersonal or relational differences may promote couples to drift
apart (Dainton & Aylor, 2001; Guldner, 2004; Sahlstein, 2004). Furthermore, Stafford
(2005) suggests that inequity could be a stressor for LDDR partners if there are
perceptions that one individual is investing more into the relationship than the other.
A final source of internal stress, considered here, involves relational uncertainty
(Dainton & Aylor, 2001; Ficara & Mongeau, 2000; Sahlstein, 2006), or doubts about
the relationship, including whether the couple will be together in the future
(Knobloch & Solomon, 1999; Maguire, 2007). Indeed, previous research has reported
negative associations between uncertainty and outcomes such as liking, trust, and
satisfaction (Dainton & Aylor, 2001; Maguire, 2007).
While previous LDDR research suggests various sources of external and internal
stress, the extent to which they may affect female college students in LDDRs has not
 30 K. C. Maguire & T. A. Kinney
been examined. This knowledge is important when understanding how individuals
may appraise the utility of coping responses (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Primary and Secondary Appraisals

From a process approach to understanding coping, relational members first appraise
whether a situation is taxing (i.e., a primary appraisal), then decide what coping
strategies would be useful (i.e., a secondary appraisal) (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985;
Lyons, Mickelson, Sullivan, & Coyne, 1998). Primary appraisals involve judgments of
whether an encounter is stressful, often measured in terms of damage that has already
been done (i.e., harm) as well as damage that can still happen (i.e., threat) (Folkman
Downloaded by [Duke University Medical Center] at 09:17 12 October 2014

& Lazarus, 1985; Lazarus, 1999). In the present study, perceptions of relational
distress will be used to assess harm, and perceptions of relational threat will be used
to assess potential for damage.
Similar to Conger, Reuter, and Elder (1999), we argue that perceptions of relational
threat, relational satisfaction, and various communication coping strategies will differ
depending on how the stressor is appraised (i.e., the extent to which harm has
happened in terms of relational distress) as well as its locus of causality (i.e., internal
or external). To determine the levels of stress associated with different sources in
LDDRs, and how different stress levels may be associated with perceptions of threat
to the relationship and relational satisfaction, we pose the following research
questions:
RQ1a: For female college students in LDDRs, which sources of stress are
associated with relational distress?
RQ1b: For female college students in LDDRs, are there differences between high
and low distress groups in reports of threat to the relationship and
relational satisfaction?
Secondary appraisals include assessments of what can be done to prevent harm
from happening or to increase the prospects of benefiting from the stressful situation
(i.e., coping; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). The secondary appraisal of interest involves
the perceived helpfulness of various communication strategies. Bodenmann (2005)
identified a number of ways that married couples use communication to cope with
stress: (a) individual coping efforts, (b) dyadic coping efforts in which both partners
work together to solve problems, (c) relationship-focused coping efforts used to
bolster relationship functioning, and (d) social support efforts where relational
partners go outside the relationship for assistance. Following this view of coping, we
include all four types of coping in the present study.
Individual coping. One type of communication-based coping involves strategies
that are enacted independently from one’s partner but may influence the partner. For
example, social withdrawal involves partners distancing themselves from others to
manage emotional reactions to stress (Kayser, 2005). The use of withdrawal has been
associated with higher levels of anxiety (Hobfoll, Dunahoo, Ben-Porath, & Monnier,
1994), as well as lower levels of relationship adjustment (Monnier, Cameron, Hobfoll,
& Gribble, 2000). Bodenmann (2005) reported that chronic daily stress might lead to
 Coping in LDDRs 31

more withdrawal, which would then lead to lower levels of relational satisfaction.
Thus, we expect that the perceived helpfulness of withdrawal to be inversely
associated with relational satisfaction. We also expect that those in high distress
LDDRs will perceive withdrawal to be more helpful than those in low distress LDDRs.
Thus:

H1a: For female college students in both high and low distress LDDRs, the
perceived helpfulness of withdrawal will be negatively associated with
relational satisfaction.
H1b: Female college students in high distress LDDRs will perceive withdrawal as
more helpful than will those in low distress LDDRs.
Downloaded by [Duke University Medical Center] at 09:17 12 October 2014

Dyadic coping. With dyadic coping, relational partners work together to reduce stress
(Bodenmann, 2005). Such problem-focused coping efforts are aimed at managing or
altering the problem, and are most frequently enacted when conditions are appraised as
amenable to change (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Partners who handle stress together
decrease their perceptions of distress (Bodenmann & Shantinath, 2004) and tend to
have higher levels of satisfaction compared to those who resolve problems in a
competitive, win-lose manner (Sanderson & Karetsky, 2002). In the LDDR context,
problem-focused coping may be perceived as helpful in situations where there is less
stress and less threat to the relationship, such as when relational partners know they will
be together in the same city in the future and are happy about that possibility (Maguire,
2007). Then again, because the use of joint problem solving by distressed couples has
been associated with frustration due to trouble arriving at a solution (Conger et al.,
1999), it may be that individuals in distressed LDDRs will perceive problem-focused
coping as less helpful than those in relatively stress-free LDDRs. Thus, we hypothesize:

H2a: For female college students in LDDRs, the perceived helpfulness of

problem-focused coping strategies will be positively associated with
relational satisfaction in low distress LDDRs, but not in high distress
LDDRs.
H2b: Female college students in low distress LDDRs will perceive problem-
focused coping as more helpful than those in high distress LDDRs.

Relationship-focused coping. A third type of communication-based coping response

involves communication enacted to keep the relationship strong. This is sometimes
referred to as relationship-focused coping (Coyne & Smith, 1991). Although not
studied in the context of stressful relationships per se, there is a growing body of
communication research that investigates the strategies individuals use to maintain a
satisfactory relationship (e.g., Dainton & Stafford, 1993; Stafford & Canary, 1991).
One of the best known conceptualizations of relationship maintenance is Stafford and
Canary’s (1991) typology of five strategies: (a) openness (i.e., direct discussion of the
relationship), (b) assurances (i.e., implications of a future together and commitment
to one another), (c) positivity (i.e., behaviors that make the interactions cheerful and
pleasant), (d) sharing tasks (i.e., behaviors indicating a willingness to take equal
responsibility in the relationship), and (e) use of social networks. Research on LDDRs
 32 K. C. Maguire & T. A. Kinney
shows three strategies to be particularly relevant. For example, Johnson, Haigh,
Becker, Craig, and Wigley (2008) found that assurances, openness, and positivity
were the most frequently reported maintenance strategies in emails sent to romantic
partners. Carpenter and Knox (1986) found that females often use commitment to
the future (i.e., assurances) as a maintenance strategy, while Westefeld and Liddell
(1982) identified being positive and having open and honest communication as
important to sustaining an LDDR. Ficara and Mongeau (2000) found an inverse
relationship between the use of maintenance strategies such as positivity, assurances,
and openness and relational uncertainty in LDDRs.
We expect that relationship maintenance strategies serve as another form of coping
Downloaded by [Duke University Medical Center] at 09:17 12 October 2014

that we term maintenance-focused coping. Given that stress appraisals are associated
with coping efforts (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), it is likely that perceptions of threat
to the relationship will be associated with ratings of maintenance-focused coping.
Whereas we expect individuals will perceive maintenance-focused coping as generally
helpful regardless of appraisals of threat, research has shown that stress can negatively
affect relational communication, leading to less positive and more negative
interactions (Bodenmann & Shantinath, 2004). To understand how appraisals are
associated with maintenance-focused coping, the following question is posed:
RQ2: For female college students in both high distress and low distress LDDRs,
what is the association between the perceived helpfulness of maintenance-
focused coping strategies and perceptions of threat to the relationship?
Additionally, research indicates a positive association between the use of relationship
maintenance strategies and relational satisfaction (Dindia, 2000). We expect the same
to hold here. Thus:

H3: For female college students in both high distress and low distress LDDRs, the
perceived helpfulness of maintenance-focused coping strategies will be
positively associated with relational satisfaction.

Social support. A fourth type of communication-based coping is social support

(Gerstel & Gross, 1984; Thoits, 1995). Although seeking social support is often used
to help individuals manage their emotional distress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), it has
received mixed empirical support in terms of effectiveness (Folkman & Moskowitz,
2004). Whereas the approval and support from one’s social network may be an
important maintenance strategy for individuals in LDDRs (Stafford, 2004), a lack of
support could lead to negative relational outcomes such as decreased romantic
involvement (Parks, Stan, & Eggert, 1983). To explore this issue, the following
research question is posed:
RQ3: For female college students in both high distress and low distress LDDRs,
what is the association between the perceived helpfulness of seeking outside
social support and relational satisfaction?
Given the number of communication coping strategies available to LDDR partners,
it remains to be seen as to which coping strategies (measured in terms of their
 Coping in LDDRs 33

perceived helpfulness) will account for the most variance in relational satisfaction.
This information may be critical when determining the best courses of action for
female college students who find themselves in a problematic LDDR. Thus, the
following research question is posed:
RQ4: For female college students in both high distress and low distress LDDRs,
the perceived helpfulness of which coping strategies account for the most
variance in relational satisfaction?

Method
Downloaded by [Duke University Medical Center] at 09:17 12 October 2014

Participants
This study was part of a larger investigation of communication, stress, and coping in
college student dating relationships (N 318 females). Participants involved in a
dating relationship were recruited from undergraduate courses at a large, south
central university. Following the example of Guldner and Swensen (1995),
participants who agreed with the statement ‘‘my partner lives far enough away
from me that it would be very difficult or impossible to see him every day’’ (p. 315)
were considered to be in an LDDR (n 119). The average age was 19.84 (SD 1.38).
The average length of the relationship was 16.82 months (SD15.21), and all
participants were geographically separated from their partner for at least a month,
with an average of 11.30 months (SD10.22). The average number of miles
separating the partners was 444.86 (SD808.71) with a median of 194 miles. Most of
the participants saw their partner at least once a month (n94). Although the
participants were somewhat uncertain if they would be reunited in the same city
(M 2.79; SD1.48; scale: 1 ‘‘I know approximately when and where we will be
together in the same city’’; 5 ‘‘I do not know whether we will ever reunite in the
same city’’), they were quite happy with that possibility (M8.49, SD 2.16; scale:
1 ‘‘Not at all happy;’’ 10‘‘Completely happy’’).

Instrumentation
Respondents were asked to choose the one stressor that has affected their relationship
the most from a list of eight stressors previously identified in the research and report
if this was ongoing. This procedure was similar to the method used by Lazarus and
his colleagues (e.g., Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). The stressors differed according to
locus of causality: (a) stress attributed to external sources (i.e., being apart from your
partner, n 52; visitation issues, n 4; strain on resources, n 7; third party
influences, n12); and (b) stress attributed to internal sources (i.e., uncertainty, n 
16; communication issues, n10; relational/personal differences, n12; inequity,
n6). The participants were instructed to keep this stressor in mind as they
completed the survey. Only participants who reported that the stressor was on-going,
or resolved but not to their satisfaction, were included in the study. Additionally,
consistent with Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, and Gruen’s (1986)
 34 K. C. Maguire & T. A. Kinney
procedure, participants were asked to appraise the level of threat that the stressor
posed on a five-point Likert-type scale (1strongly disagree; 5strongly agree).
Because the focus of this study is on relationships, an additional item was added to the
Folkman et al. threat scale, resulting in a three-item measure of threat to the
relationship (‘‘Losing a relationship important to you,’’ ‘‘Losing the affection of
someone important to you,’’ ‘‘Harm to a loved one’s emotional well-being’’) (a .75).2
The next section of the survey assessed the perceived helpfulness of maintenance-
focused and problem-focused coping, withdrawal, and social support. Using a five-
point Likert-type scale (1 not at all helpful; 5 very helpful), individuals were
asked to report the extent to which they perceived the coping responses helpful. In
Downloaded by [Duke University Medical Center] at 09:17 12 October 2014

total, 43 items were used to create the overall Coping Strategies scale, which was
composed of items from a number of sources. First, three sub-measures from Stafford
and Canary’s (1991) Relationship Maintenance Scale were used to create items
representing maintenance-focused coping: openness (7 items, e.g., ‘‘discuss the
quality of our relationship;’’ a.79), assurances (5 items, e.g., ‘‘talk about the future
of our relationship;’’ a .79), and positivity (11 items, e.g., ‘‘attempt to make our
interactions very enjoyable;’’ a .86). The social support (5 items, ‘‘talk to my friends
and family about it;’’ a.81), withdrawal (5 items, e.g., ‘‘keep feelings to myself;’’
a.70), and two problem-focused coping strategies (cooperation: 4 items, e.g., ‘‘try
to be cooperative in the ways that we handle stress;’’ a.72; and joint problem-
solving: 6 items, e.g., ‘‘have a discussion about the situation;’’ a .83), were drawn
from existing research (Coyne & Smith, 1991; Folkman et al., 1986; Hobfoll et al.,
1994; Maguire, 2007; McCubbin, Boss, Wilson, & Lester, 1980; Pearlin & Schooler,
1978; Thoits, 1991). The 43 items were submitted to a Principle-Axis factor analysis,
which confirmed the items formed the four supra-factors of social support,
withdrawal, maintenance-, and problem-focused coping.3
The last section of the survey measured relational satisfaction and distress. The
participants were asked to complete a modified version of Norton’s (1983) Quality
Marriage Index (QMI). The QMI was altered slightly to reflect relational satisfaction
in dating as opposed to married couples. Following the recommendation of Sabatelli
(1988) and Norton, all QMI scores were changed to z-scores to account for positive
skewness and unequal response values. Summing the z-scores for all QMI items
created the overall relational satisfaction score for each participant (M 4.60, SD
2.54, range 0 to 8.15). To measure relational distress, a modified version of the
Marital Stress Scale (MSS; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978) was used. The wording of the
instructions was changed slightly to reflect relational distress in dating couples.
Analyses indicated the QMI (a.94) and MSS (a .89) were reliable.

Results
The data set (n119) was reviewed to create the low and high distress LDDR groups.
Based on the distribution of the relational distress measure in the data set (M 2.18,
SD.81, range 1 to 4.67) the low distress LDDR group was formed by clustering
those participants who reported the lowest levels of distress (51.78; n49), while
 Coping in LDDRs 35

the high distress LDDR group was formed by clustering those participants who
reported the highest levels of distress (]2.56; n 37). This method captured the
lowest 42% and the highest 31% of the distress distribution, which allowed adequate
numbers of participants in each distress group to conduct subsequent analyses. As
Table 1 shows, comparisons across the distress groups reveal that they differed in
meaningful ways, with moderate to high effect sizes.

Main Analyses
To answer RQ1a, a chi-square analysis was conducted to examine the nature of the
differences across the distress groups in terms of the source of stress reported. As Table 2
Downloaded by [Duke University Medical Center] at 09:17 12 October 2014

shows, two notable differences emerged. First, whereas being apart was the most
frequently identified stressor in both the low and high distress groups, it constituted a
greater proportion of the stressors in low distress LDDRs than in high distress LDDRs
[low: n 27; high: n12, x2 (1)6.08, p B.05].4 Second, nearly 30% (n10) of the
participants in high distress LDDRs identified uncertainty as an important source of
stress, compared to 6% (n3) in low distress LDDRs who identified uncertainty as
their top stressor [x2 (1)14.35, p B.01].

Table 1 Means (SD), t-test, and effect size results across the high/low distress sub-groups
Low distress High distress Effect size
(n49) (n 37) t (df) (Cohen’s d)

Demographic variables
Likelihood of reunion 2.59 (1.44) 3.14 (1.45) 1.73 (84) .38
Satisfaction of reunion 9.06 (1.97) 7.65 (2.39) 2.99 (84)** .66
Status of stressor 3.31 (.87) 2.43 (1.04) 4.12 (69)** .81
Miles apart 372.84 (400) 455.15 (1197) .43 (74) .09
Length of the relationship 13.75 (11.98) 17.97 (16.15) 1.39 (84) .30
Time together in an LDDR 9.38 (8.69) 12.11 (10.13) 1.33 (84) .29
Age 19.81 (1.30) 19.97 (1.68) .48 (83) .11
Appraisal
Threat 3.11 (1.16) 4.12 (.88) 4.33 (83)** 1.60
Perceived helpfulness of
coping strategies
Positivity 4.45 (.50) 4.12 (.74) 2.45 (84)* .54
Openness 4.34 (.52) 4.04 (.74) 2.18 (84)* .48
Assurances 4.36 (.72) 4.01 (.82) 2.06 (84)* .46
Cooperativeness 4.52 (.55) 3.99 (.85) 3.52 (84)** .76
Joint problem-solving 4.08 (.83) 3.66 (.89) 2.27 (84)* .49
Seeking outside support 4.10 (.84) 4.09 (.86) .05 (84) .01
Withdrawal 1.78 (.61) 2.09 (.68) 2.19 (84)* .49
Relational satisfaction 6.25 (1.65) 2.13 (1.98) 10.07 (77)** 2.19
Relational distress 1.44 (.22) 3.19 (.50) 21.74 (84)** 4.73

Note. See Warner (2008) for suggested interpretations of Cohen’s d effect size estimates. Cohen’s d
values .20 and under are considered to be small; d values between .20 and .79 are considered to be
medium; and d values .80 and above are considered to be large.
*p B05; **p B.01.
 36 K. C. Maguire & T. A. Kinney
Table 2 Chi-square results and percent distribution for the stressors in the full data set
and the distress subgroups
Data set

Stressor source Full (N 119) Low (n49) High (n 37) x2 (df)

Being apart 44% (n 52) 55% (n27) 32% (n 12) 6.08 (1)*
Uncertainty 13% (n 16) 6% (n3) 27% (n 10) 14.35 (1)**
Differences 10% (n 12) 12% (n6) 14% (n 5) .17 (1)
Third party 10% (n 12) 8% (n 4) 14% (n 5) 1.64 (1)
Communication 8% (n 10) 4% (n2) 3% (n 1) .14 (1)
Strain on resources 6% (n 7) 4% (n2) 3% (n 1) .14 (1)
Inequity 5% (n 6) 6% (n3) 5% (n 2) .08 (1)
Downloaded by [Duke University Medical Center] at 09:17 12 October 2014

Visitation 3% (n 4) 4% (n2) 3% (n 1) .14 (1)

*p B05; **p B.01.

To answer RQ1b and to test the predictions regarding perceptions of coping

strategies (H1b, H2b), t-test comparisons were run across the low and high distress
groups in regards to threat, coping, and relational satisfaction.5 In answer to RQ1b,
participants in low distress LDDRs were significantly more satisfied (M6.25, SD
1.65) and appraised the stressor as significantly less threatening to the relationship
(M 3.11, SD1.16) than did those in high distress LDDRs (satisfaction: M 2.13,
SD1.98; threat: M 4.12, SD .88) (see Table 1). In support of H1b, individuals in
high distress LDDRs rated withdrawal as significantly more helpful (M 2.09, SD
.69) than those in low distress LDDRs (M 1.78, SD.61). Hypothesis 2b received
support as well, in that participants in low distress LDDRs rated problem-focused
coping strategies as significantly more helpful (joint problem solving: M4.08, SD
.83; cooperation: M 4.52, SD.55) than the participants in the high distress
LDDRs (joint problem solving: M 3.66, SD .89; cooperation: M 3.99, SD.85).
To test H1a, H2a, and to answer RQ2, correlations were run between the coping
measures and relational satisfaction within the full data set and within the two
distress groups (see Table 2). Although in the predicted direction, results indicate that
the perceived helpfulness of withdrawal was not significantly associated with
satisfaction in either low distress LDDRs, r(49).10, ns, or high distress LDDRs,
r(37) .13, ns; thus, H1a failed to receive support. In support of H2a, the
perceived helpfulness of both joint problem solving, r(49) .56, p B.01, and
cooperativeness, r(49).30, p B.05, were positively associated with relational
satisfaction in low distress LDDRs, but did not reach significance in high distress
LDDRs [joint problem solving: r(37).20, ns; cooperation: r(37) .22, ns].
Regarding RQ2, no significant correlations were detected between the perceived
helpfulness of seeking social support and relational satisfaction in either of the two
distress groups [low distress: r(49).12, ns; high distress: r(37).13, ns].
To answer RQ3 and to test H3, correlations were run among the maintenance-
focused coping strategies (positivity, openness, assurances), the appraisal measure
(threat), and relational satisfaction. In regards to RQ3, within low distress LDDRs, the
perceived helpfulness of openness correlated significantly with threat, r(48).26,
 Coping in LDDRs 37

Table 3 Correlations Between Coping Strategies, and Relational Satisfaction within the
Full Data Set and the Distress Subgroups
Relational satisfaction

Strategy Full (N 119) Low (n 49) High (n37)

Positivity .32** .41** .10

Openness .43** .43** .36*
Assurances .44** .48** .24
Cooperativeness .44** .30* .22
Joint problem solving .46** .56** .20
Seeking outside support .07 .12 .13
Withdrawal .24** .10 .13
Downloaded by [Duke University Medical Center] at 09:17 12 October 2014

*p B.05; **p B.01.

p B.03. None of the other associations between the threat appraisal and the perceived
helpfulness of maintenance-focused coping were significant. Also, whereas the
perceived helpfulness of assurances, r(49).48, p B.01, openness, r(49) .43,
p B.01, and positivity, r(49).41, p B.01, were significantly and positively associated
with relational satisfaction in low distress LDDRs, only the perceived helpfulness of
openness was significantly correlated with relational satisfaction in high distress
LDDRs, r(37).66, pB.05 (see Table 3). Thus, H3 was fully supported in low distress
LDDRs but only partially supported in high distress LDDRs.
To address RQ4, hierarchical regressions were run within the full data set and the
two distress groups to determine which coping strategies accounted for the most
variance in relational satisfaction, after accounting for the influence of the threat
appraisal. Thus, threat to the relationship was entered in Block 1 and the set of coping
strategies was entered in Block 2 (see Table 4). Given that the set of coping strategies
were correlated at moderate to high levels, ranging from r(119) .04, ns to
r(119) .77, pB.001, the stepwise procedure was utilized to account for potential
multicollinearity among the independent variables.
As can be seen in Table 4, within the full data set, results indicate that the full
regression equation was significant on relational satisfaction. However, only threat to
the relationship and the perceived helpfulness of joint problem solving and
assurances emerged as significant, positive predictors of relational satisfaction. In
answer to RQ4, within low distress LDDRs, results indicate that the full regression
equation was significant on relational satisfaction, with one variable emerging as a
significant positive predictor: the perceived helpfulness of joint problem solving.
Similarly, within high distress LDDRs, results indicate that the full regression
equation was significant on relational satisfaction, with one variable emerging as a
significant positive predictor: the perceived helpfulness of openness (see Table 4).

Discussion
The purposes of this study were (a) to gain an understanding of the situations in
which LDDRs may be more or less distressing, and (b) to examine the associations
 38 K. C. Maguire & T. A. Kinney
Table 4 Stepwise hierarchical regression within the full data set and the distress
subgroups
Relational satisfaction

Predictors Full data set Low distress High distress

Block 1: Control
Threat appraisal .27** .11 .14
R2 .11** NA NA
F (df) 13.56 (1, 106)** NA NA
Block 2: Coping
Joint problem-solving .27** .56** .11
Assurances .27** .22 .16
Downloaded by [Duke University Medical Center] at 09:17 12 October 2014

Openness .07 .06 .36*

Cooperativeness .10 .03 .19
Positivity .01 .11 ‘.18
Seeking social support .03 .11 .01
Withdrawal .11 .04 .04
R2 .22** NA NA
F (df) 24.72 (7, 106)** NA NA
Total R2 .33** .32** .13*
Total F (df) 17.26 (8, 106)** 20.46 (8, 45)** 4.51 (8, 32)*

Note. Cell entries are standardized betas. NA: values reported due to non-significance, which caused
the stepwise procedure to exclude variables from the output results and conflated Block 1 and 2’s
contributions with the total R2 reported above.
*p B.05; **p B.01.

between the perceived helpfulness of various communication coping strategies and

relational satisfaction in both high and low distress LDDRs. Overall, results indicate
that communicative coping strategies were differentially helpful for various stressors
depending on whether the participants were in a low or high distress LDDR.

Implications for the Study of LDDRs

Results of the present investigation provide insight into college student LDDRs by
differentiating relational experiences of females in terms of distress level. Indeed, the
females in low distress LDDRs, particularly those who reported that their top source
of stress was being apart, indicated they were in relatively satisfying relationships. The
identification of low distress LDDRs lends support to Stafford’s (2005) claim that
LDDRs are not uniformly problematic.
Furthermore, the participants in low distress LDDRs reported that stressors, such
as being apart, posed at least a moderate level of threat to the relationship, also
indicating that the relationship is of value and something they likely wish to continue,
particularly if they see a future together. When compared to high distress LDDRs,
females in low distress LDDRs also reported more satisfaction with a potential
reunion with their partner*a situation that has positive implications for both
perceptions of relational satisfaction and evaluations of pro-social communication
(Maguire, 2007). In addition, participants evaluated their stressors as generally
resolved but not yet to their satisfaction. Similar to Stafford, Merolla, and Castle
 Coping in LDDRs 39

(2006), who found that most LDDR partners desire to become a PDR and believe
that their situation will improve once that happens, the results of this study suggest
that participants in low distress LDDRs are coping with stressors generally
attributable to the situation that may end upon reunion. It should be noted,
however, that the stressors may endure upon reunion, or be replaced by new,
unexpected stressors that could lead to additional difficulties in the relationship
(Stafford & Merolla, 2007).
A number of participants did report moderate to high levels of relational distress in
their LDDRs, many of whom reported being apart or uncertainty as their primary
stressor. As a group, they were significantly less satisfied, and felt that the stressor
Downloaded by [Duke University Medical Center] at 09:17 12 October 2014

threatened their relationships more than those in the low distress LDDRs. Previous
research has shown that relationship uncertainty is perceived to be a threat to the
relationship (Ficara & Mongeau, 2000; Solomon & Knobloch, 2004) and may lead to
a downturn in the relationship (see Baxter & Bullis, 1986). Thus, when separation is
accompanied by doubts about likelihood of reunion, relational uncertainty, and/or an
unresolved stressor, then being in an LDDR is stressful, thereby lending support to
Guldner (1996) and others who claim that LDDRs can be problematic. As such, these
individuals, and their relationships, may be at risk of harm (Cameron & Ross, 2007).

Implications for Coping Research and Practice

One of the key goals of coping research is to identify and design interventions to help
people cope with stress (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). A step towards this goal is to
examine the association between ratings of helpfulness of coping and relevant
relationship outcomes like satisfaction. An examination of the means indicates that
maintenance-focused and problem-focused coping are helpful responses, and with-
drawal, an unhelpful response (see Table 1). Yet, differences exist between high and
low distress LDDRs. Before discussing these differences, however, there are two
similarities to be noted.
First, the correlations between the perceived helpfulness of withdrawal and
relational satisfaction were small in both distress groups. The most likely explanation
for this finding is that this coping strategy was generally rated as unhelpful. Despite
the research that has associated withdrawal with decreases in relational well-being
(Bodenmann, 2005), emotional withdrawal may have had limited helpfulness for
these participants as they were already separated from their partners. Nevertheless,
withdrawal was rated as more helpful for those in high distress LDDRs than low
distress LDDRs, indicating that distressed individuals in LDDRs may find some
utility in that strategy. Future research is needed to explore the role of withdrawal as a
coping response in LDDRs.
Second, although participants generally rated seeking outside support as helpful,
its perceived helpfulness was not significantly correlated with relational satisfaction.
Whereas Stafford and Merolla (2007) hypothesized that network support may be
pivotal to maintaining an LDDR, its utility did not appear to be associated with
relational well-being. One reason for this may be a general lack of support for the
 40 K. C. Maguire & T. A. Kinney
LDDR. According to Rohlfing (1995), ‘‘although those in LDRRs [long-distance
romantic relationships] perceive their relationships to be close and intimate, many
report that those in their proximal networks do not necessarily acknowledge or affirm
them when their spouses or lovers are absent’’ (p. 178). Another reason may be that
social support is not directly related to relational outcomes like satisfaction or
distress. Had we assessed individual level outcomes such as depression instead, the
results and their interpretation might have been different, as going outside the LDDR
may help individuals cope with their emotional distress (Thoits, 1995). Thus,
scholars interested in studying relational distress may desire to include clinical
measures to assess the extent to which LDDRs are associated with dysfunction and
Downloaded by [Duke University Medical Center] at 09:17 12 October 2014

how LDDR partners may best cope with these forms of distress, especially among
college students.

Coping with Low Distress LDDRs

The results of this investigation suggest that problem-focused and maintenance-
focused coping could promote satisfaction in one’s relationship. Results indicate that
as the perceived helpfulness of joint problem solving increased, so did evaluations of
relational satisfaction. This finding can be interpreted in two ways. First, satisfied
individuals may rate joint coping activities such as problem solving as more helpful
due to their positive view of the relationship. Second, when working with one’s
partner to solve a problem is seen as helpful, females in LDDRs reported being more
satisfied, an interpretation in line with research linking joint problem-solving with
increased relational satisfaction (Sanderson & Karetsky, 2002) and decreased marital
distress after conflict (Conger et al., 1999). In order to determine which of these two
interpretations is more accurate, however, longitudinal research is needed to establish
a causal link between problem-focused coping and relational outcomes. Nevertheless,
problem-solving ability is an important skill for couples (Widmer, Cina, Charvoz,
Shantinath, & Bodenmann, 2005). In particular, counselors assisting female students
in low distress LDDRs may desire to encourage them to work with their partner to
manage or eliminate sources of stress, particularly if they plan to transition to a PDR,
given the problems that can occur upon reunion (Stafford & Merolla, 2007).
The participants in low distress LDDRs also rated assurances, positivity, and
openness as helpful ways to cope. These results are similar to Rabby’s (2007) findings
that ‘‘cyber emigrants’’ (i.e., couples who met face-to-face but now use the Internet as
a primary means of communication) used positivity to maintain their LDDRs, and
Maguire’s (2007) findings that participants who felt certain about their LDDRs rated
openness and assurances as more helpful than those who were less certain.
Furthermore, the positive association between the perceived helpfulness of the
maintenance-focused strategies and relational satisfaction reinforces the importance
of supportive, positive interaction in the face of adversity (Bodenmann, 2005; Conger
et al., 1999). As the perceived helpfulness of openness was negatively associated with
threat in the present investigation as well, having open discussions with one’s partner
may be particularly helpful for couples when they feel their relationship is threatened.
 Coping in LDDRs 41

Given these results, counselors may want to encourage their female clients in low
distress LDDRs to try to remain positive and upbeat in their interactions with their
partner, engage in open joint problem-solving discussions when needed (recognizing
that these conversations may be difficult), and reinforce their commitment to one
another to help them cope.

Coping in High Distress LDDRs

Unlike low distress LDDRs, where significant associations were detected, only one
significant correlation existed in high distress LDDRs. The small sample size in high
distress LDDRs (n37) might have prevented significant associations with relational
Downloaded by [Duke University Medical Center] at 09:17 12 October 2014

satisfaction from emerging. Given that the highly distressed individuals reported
greater uncertainty than the less distressed individuals, it is also possible that the
uncertainty among the participants in high distress LDDRs may have limited the
variance and thus inhibited a positive association between the perceived helpfulness
of problem-focused and maintenance-focused coping and satisfaction from emer-
ging. When there is uncertainty about the relationship, particularly in terms of
reuniting, partners may see less utility in maintaining their LDDR (Maguire, 2007;
Rusbult, Drigotas, & Verette, 1994). Based on the results of this study, counselors are
encouraged to promote the use of problem-focused and maintenance-focused coping
in their clients’ relationships, but also to advise their clients that they might need
their partner to help them ease their uncertainty and ultimately, their distress.
Indeed, openness appeared to be an important coping resource for our
participants, in that the perceived helpfulness of openness was positively correlated
with relational satisfaction for females in high distress LDDRs. This conclusion seems
to contradict previous research that shows a negative relationship between openness
and satisfaction after controlling for assurances and/or positivity (Canary & Stafford,
1994; Stafford, Dainton, & Haas, 2000), as was done in this study. Whereas Stafford
(2003) claims that self-disclosure plays an equivocal role in relationship maintenance
under ‘‘normal’’ (i.e., less stressful) circumstances, it might play a more critical role
when couples are faced with difficulties. Similarly, whereas Conger et al. (1999) found
that positive marital interactions can buffer partners from distress in the face of
external sources of stress, they believed that other behaviors such as reaching
common ground are needed in the face of internal sources of stress. A ‘‘helpful’’ open
conversation may serve two coping functions simultaneously: (a) to maintain
satisfaction (a maintenance-focused coping response) and (b) to mitigate levels of
distress by encouraging open discussion that may, in turn, reduce uncertainty (a
problem-focused coping response). As coping is often context-dependent (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984), further investigation into what is discussed during these conversa-
tions is warranted to clarify the role of openness as a helpful coping response.

Limitations and Future Directions

There are a number of limitations in this study. First, whereas the present
investigation sheds light on the coping process in female college student LDDRs, it
 42 K. C. Maguire & T. A. Kinney
remains uncertain whether the results extend to male college student LDDRs.
Research in this area is needed, as males may have a greater need for face-to-face
contact (Carpenter & Knox, 1986) and seem to experience lower levels of intimacy
(Dellman-Jenkins et al., 1994) and satisfaction (Helgeson, 1994) than females in
LDDRs. Similarly, as information about ethnicity or socio-economic status was not
collected, caution should be taken in these conclusions until they can be verified in a
more diverse sample. Third, the data for this study came from self-report measures
from only one member of the relational dyad. To get a more accurate picture of
dyadic coping, researchers should follow the examples of Cameron and Ross (2007),
Sahlstein (2004), and Stafford and Merolla (2006) who collected data from LDDR
Downloaded by [Duke University Medical Center] at 09:17 12 October 2014

couples.
One important avenue for future research is to examine the positive side of
LDDRs. Several scholars such as Sahlstein (2004), Stafford et al., (2006), and
Mietzner and Lin (2005) have identified benefits of LDDRs. Given these benefits, and
the importance of positivity as a coping strategy in LDDRs, a positive focus may
indeed buffer individuals in LDDRs, and their relationships, from harm. Also, there
may be other communication strategies, such as antisocial action (Hobfoll et al.,
1994), protective buffering (Coyne & Smith, 1991), or creativity (Westefeld & Liddell,
1982), as well as individual difference variables such as attachment style (Hazen &
Shaver, 1987) or perceived mastery (Rotter, 1966), that might have an influence on
coping with the LDDR experience and warrant further attention. Given the results of
the present investigation, however, we believe that counselors should assess the
distress level of their clients and identify specific sources of stress when suggesting
strategies that may help them maintain their LDDR.

Notes
[1] Recognizing that the initial separation can be a particularly turbulent time for LDDR
partners (Guldner, 1996; Lydon, Pierce, & O’Regan, 1997), the present study focuses on
stressors that continue after the initial separation period.
[2] Consistent with Folkman et al.’s (1986) procedure, participants were asked to appraise the
level of threat that each stressor posed on a five-point Likert-type scale (1strongly disagree;
5 strongly agree). Folkman et al.’s original 13-item measure included items measuring
perceived threats to (a) self-esteem, (b) to a loved one’s well-being, or (c) to one’s own
resources, goals or well-being (p. 994). Because the focus of this study was on relationships,
an additional item (‘‘harm to the well-being of the relationship’’) was added to assess ‘‘threat
to the relationship.’’ The items were subjected to Principal Axis Factoring with Oblimin
rotation to verify the previously identified subscales. Components with an eigenvalue greater
than one that contained at least two items with factor loadings above .40 on only one of the
other factors were kept. Using these criteria, 13 items were retained on three factors
accounting for 60.2% of the variance: threat to self-esteem (a .86), threat to personal goals
(a.57), and threat to the relationship (a.75). Only the measure of threat to the
relationship is reported in this study.
[3] Factor analysis results can be obtained by contacting the first author.
[4] Follow-up comparisons between the high distress and low distress participants who identified
being apart as their top stressor revealed that they differed significantly in regards to
 Coping in LDDRs 43

satisfaction (low distress: M6.66, SD 1.35; high distress: M2.42, SD1.90; t(32) 7.28,
p 5.001), threat to the relationship (low distress: M2.91, SD 1.22; high distress: M4.08,
SD .87; t(36) 3.0, p .005), and uncertainty about the likelihood of reunion (low distress:
M2.55, SD1.39; high distress: M 3.58, SD 1.38; t(37) 2.13, p .04).
[5] Due to the number of t-tests conducted to test the predictions encompassed within Table 1,
caution needs to be exercised regarding interpretations of significance across the high and
low distress groups within each set of tests. Given that this study is an initial assessment of
these types of relationships, however, we report the results using the traditional values of
significance (p B.05 and pB.01).

References
Downloaded by [Duke University Medical Center] at 09:17 12 October 2014

Aylor, B. (2003). Maintaining long-distance relationships. In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.),

Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural
variations (pp. 127
140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Baxter, L. A., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning points in developing romantic relationships. Human
Communication Research, 12, 469
493.
Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significance for marital functioning. In T. Revenson,
K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic
coping (pp. 33
50). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bodenmann, G., & Shantinath, S. D. (2004). The Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET):
A new approach to prevention of marital distress based upon stress and coping. Family
Relations, 53, 477
484.
Cameron, J. J., & Ross, M. (2007). In times of uncertainty: Predicting the survival of long-distance
relationships. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 581
604.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1994). Maintaining relationships through strategic and routine
interactions. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance
(pp. 3
22). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Carpenter, D., & Knox, D. (1986). Relationship maintenance of college students separated during
courtship. College Student Journal, 28, 86
88.
Conger, R. D., Reuter, M. A., & Elder, G. H. (1999). Couple resilience to economic pressure. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 54
71.
Coyne, J. C., & Smith, D. A. F. (1991). Couples coping with a myocardial infarction: A contextual
perspective on wives’ distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 404
412.
Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2001). A relational uncertainty analysis of jealousy, trust, and
maintenance in long-distance versus geographically close relationships. Communication
Quarterly, 49, 172
199.
Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2002). Patterns of communication channel use in the maintenance of
long-distance relationships. Communication Research Reports, 19, 118
129.
Dainton, M., & Stafford, L. (1993). Routine maintenance behaviors: A comparison of relationship
type, partner similarity and sex differences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10,
255
271.
Dellman-Jenkins, M., Bernard-Paolucci, T. S., & Rushing, B. (1994). Does distance make the heart
grow fonder? A comparison of college students in long-distance and geographically-close
dating relationships. College Student Journal, 28, 212
219.
Dindia, K. (2000). Relational maintenance. In C. Hendrick & S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships:
A sourcebook (pp. 287
299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Feeney, J. A. (1998). Adult attachment and relationship-centered anxiety: Responses to physical and
emotional distancing. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close
relationships (pp. 189
220). New York: Guilford Press.
 44 K. C. Maguire & T. A. Kinney
Ficara, L. C., & Mongeau, P. A. (2000, November). Relational uncertainty in long-distance college
student dating relationships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Communication Association, Seattle, WA.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping
during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,
150
170.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a
stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992
1003.
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of Psychology,
55, 745
774.
Gerstel, N., & Gross, H. E. (1984). Commuter marriage. New York: Guilford Press.
Downloaded by [Duke University Medical Center] at 09:17 12 October 2014

Guldner, G. T. (1996). Long-distance romantic relationships: Prevalence and separation-related

symptoms in college students. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 289
296.
Guldner, G. T. (2004). Long distance relationships: The complete guide. Corona, CA: JF Milne.
Guldner, G. T., & Swensen, C. H. (1995). Time spent together and relationship quality: Long-
distance relationships as a test case. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 313
320.
Helgeson, V. (1994). Long-distance romantic relationships: Sex differences in adjustment and
breakup. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 254
265.
Hobfoll, S. E., Dunahoo, C. L., Ben-Porath, Y., & Monnier, J. (1994). Gender and coping: The dual-
axis model of coping. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 49
81.
Holt, P. A., & Stone, G. L. (1988). Needs, coping strategies, and coping outcomes associated with
long-distance relationships. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 136
141.
Johnson, A., Haigh, M. M., Becker, J. A. H., Craig, E. A., & Wigley, S. (2008). College students’ use
of relational management strategies in email in long distance and geographically close
relationships. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 381
404.
Kayser, K. (2005). Enhancing dyadic coping during a time of crisis: A theory-based intervention
with breast cancer patients and their partners. In T. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann
(Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 175
194).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of relational
uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50, 261
278.
Knox, D., Zusman, M. E., Daniels, V., & Brantley, A. (2002). Absence makes the heart grow fonder?
Long distance dating relationships among college students. College Student Journal, 36,
364
367.
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lydon, J., Pierce, T., & O’Regan, S. (1997). Coping with moral commitment to long-distance dating
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 104
113.
Lyons, R. F., Mickelson, K. D., Sullivan, M. J. L., & Coyne, J. C. (1998). Coping as a communal
process. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 579
605.
Maguire, K. C. (2007). Will it ever end? A (re)examination of uncertainty in college student
premarital long-distance romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly, 55, 415
432.
McCubbin, H. I., Boss, P., Wilson., & Lester, G. (1980). Developing family invulnerability to stress:
Coping patterns and strategies wives employ in managing family separations. In J. Trost
(Ed.), The family in change. Vasteras, Sweden: International Library.
Mietzner, S., & Lin, L. (2005). Would you do it again? College Student Journal, 39, 192
200.
Monnier, J., Cameron, R. P., Hobfoll, S. E., & Gribble, J. R. (2000). Direct and crossover effects of
prosocial and antisocial coping behaviors. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 570
584.
Norton, N. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 45, 141
153.
 Coping in LDDRs 45

Parks, M. R., Stan, C. M., & Eggert, L. L. (1983). Romantic involvement and social network
involvement. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 116
131.
Paul, E. L., Poole, A., & Jakubowyc, N. (1998). Intimacy development and romantic status:
Implications for adjustment to the college transition. Journal of College Student Development,
39, 75
86.
Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
19, 2
21.
Rabby, M. K. (2007). Relational maintenance and the influence of commitment in online and
offline relationships. Communication Studies, 58, 315
337.
Rohlfing, M. E. (1995). Doesn’t anyone stay in one place anymore?’’ An exploration of the under-
studied phenomenon of long-distance relationships. In J. Woods & S. Duck (Eds.), Under-
studied relationships: Off the beaten track (pp. 173
196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Downloaded by [Duke University Medical Center] at 09:17 12 October 2014

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external content of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs, 80, 1
28.
Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., & Verette, J. (1994). The investment model: An interdependence
analysis of commitment processes and relationship maintenance phenomena. In D. Canary &
L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 115
139). New York:
Academic Press.
Sabatelli, R. M. (1988). Measurement issues in marital research: A review and critique of
contemporary survey instruments. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 891
915.
Sahlstein, E. M. (2004). Relating at a distance: Negotiating being together and being apart in long
distance relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 689
710.
Sahlstein, E. M. (2006). Making plans: Praxis strategies for negotiating uncertainty
certainty in
long-distance relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 70, 147
165.
Sanderson, C. A., & Karetsky, K. H. (2002). Intimacy goals and strategies of conflict resolution in
dating relationships: A mediational analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19,
323
343.
Solomon, D. S., & Knobloch, L. K. (2004). A model of relational turbulence: The role of intimacy,
relational uncertainty, and interference from partners in appraisals of irritations. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 795
816.
Stafford, L. (2003). Maintaining romantic relationships: Summary and analysis of one research
program. In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships through
communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural variations (pp. 51
78). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stafford, L. (2004). Romantic and parent
child relationships at a distance. Communication
Yearbook, 28, 37
85.
Stafford, L. (2005). Maintaining long-distance and cross-residential relationships. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stafford, L. (in press). Geographic distance and communication during courtship. Communication
Research.
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender
and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 217
242.
Stafford, L., Dainton, M., & Haas, S. M. (2000). Measuring routine and strategic relational
maintenance: Scale revision, sex versus gender roles, and the prediction of relational
characteristics. Communication Monographs, 67, 306
232.
Stafford, L., & Merolla, A. (2007). Idealization, reunions, and stability in long distance dating
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 901
919.
Stafford, L., Merolla, A., & Castle, J. (2006). When long-distance dating partners become
geographically close. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 901
919.
Stafford, L., & Reske, J. R. (1990). Idealization and communication in long-distance premarital
relationships. Family Relations, 39, 274
279.
 46 K. C. Maguire & T. A. Kinney
Thoits, P. A. (1991). Gender differences in coping with emotional distress. In J. Eckenrode (Ed.),
The social context of coping (pp. 107
138). New York: Plenum Press.
Thoits, P. A. (1995). Stress, coping, and social support. Where are we? What is next? Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, (extra issue), 53
79.
Van Horn, K. R., Arnone, A., Nesbitt, K., Desilets, L., Sears, T., Griffin, M., et al. (1997). Physical
distance and interpersonal characteristics in college students’ romantic relationships. Personal
Relationships, 4, 25
34.
Warner, R. M. (2008). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques. Los Angeles,
CA: Sage.
Westefeld, J. S., & Liddell, D. (1982). Coping with long-distance relationships. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 23, 550
551.
Widmer, K., Cina, A., Charvoz, L., Shantinath, S., & Bodenmann, G. (2005). A model dyadic-
Downloaded by [Duke University Medical Center] at 09:17 12 October 2014

coping intervention. In T. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping with
stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (pp. 159
174). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.