1 / 16

Chapman, M., Purdue University Pistole, M. C., Purdue University

Long Distance and Geographically Close Relationships: Attachment, Maintenance, Conflict, and Stress. Chapman, M., Purdue University Pistole, M. C., Purdue University Roberts, A., Grand Valley State University Ray, K., Purdue University.

swaantje-grevink
Télécharger la présentation

Chapman, M., Purdue University Pistole, M. C., Purdue University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Long Distance and Geographically Close Relationships: Attachment, Maintenance, Conflict, and Stress Chapman, M., Purdue University Pistole, M. C., Purdue University Roberts, A., Grand Valley State University Ray, K., Purdue University Chapman, M. L., Pistole, M. C., Roberts, A., & Ray, K. (2005, July). Long Distance and Geographically Close Relationships: Attachment, Maintenance, Conflict, and Stress. Poster session presented at the International Association for Relationship Research Conference, Indianapolis, IN.

  2. Long Distance Relationships (LDRs) • Long distance relationships (LDRs): • Have become more visible (Kaslow, 2001) • Are increasing due to women’s education and careers (Groveats & Dixon, 1988) • Enable individuals to continue their relationship without either partner sacrificing career goals • Seem as strong as geographically close relationships (GCRs) in many ways (Dellmann-Jenkins et al., 1994; Van Horn et al., 1997).

  3. Long Distance Romantic Relationships • LDR – Unique Stresses • Separation-reunion cycles • Separation should trigger the attachment system • Individual differences (i.e., attachment styles) could influence interaction and the separation-reunion cycle • Travel • Costs associated with travel and communication • LDRs possibly more stressful than GCRs? • Chronic stress may influence health (Cohen, 1994). • Need LDR knowledge to support health outcomes

  4. Attachment (Bowlby, 1988) • The emotional bonding and strong emotional reactions associated with romantic relationships • Provides feelings of security, a secure base, a safe haven, and protection • When a certain range of physical or symbolic proximity is exceeded (e.g., too much time apart), • The exploratory system (e.g., work, play) is inhibited, • The person experiences separation anxiety, • Attachment behavior to regain proximity is exhibited. • Relevant to LDRs separation-reunion cycles

  5. Attachment Styles • Reflect different rules directing attention to and regulation of attachment information (Fuendeling, 1998) • Attachment Prototypes (Bartholmew & Horowitz, 1991) • Secure: Positive beliefs about self and partner, seeks proximity • Preoccupied: Negative self, idealized partner, high attachment anxiety, seeks near constant partner accessibility • Dismissing: Positive self, negative partner, self-reliant, deactivates attachment system, distant • Fearful: Negative self and partner. High avoidance (i.e., deactivates attachment system) and high anxiety, distances to protect from rejection.

  6. Relationship Maintenance Strategies • Behaviors that keep the couple together and continue desirable features of the relationship • Strategic behaviors, consciously designed to maintain the relationship (Stafford & Canary, 1991 • Routine strategies, daily behaviors that are more routine than conscious (Dainton & Stafford, 1992) • Strategies that define the meaning of physical separations (Gilbertson, Dindia, & Allen, 1998) • Linked to satisfaction and commitment

  7. Purpose • Attachment Styles • Consistently associated with differences in interpersonal and general competence (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003), • May influence the use of relationship maintenance strategies and experienced stress. • LDRs vs. GCRs • May require different maintenance strategies

  8. Rationale • No research has examined attachment, maintenance strategies, stress, and conflict in LDRs • Some maintenance strategies (e.g., assurances, positivity) might be used more in LDRs, because of the separation • LDR partners cannot share tasks in the same way as GCR couples. • Attachment style might be related to maintenance strategies and stress • LDR preoccupied might report more stress than GCR preoccupied, due to travel and anxiety associated with separations • Preoccupied might report more stress than Dismissing who prefer self-reliance and avoidance • LDR Preoccupied might avoid conflict, engage in more assurances, and use more maintenance strategies because of hyper-activating (anxious) attachment strategies than GCR Preoccupied.

  9. Hypothesis • Expect significant attachment style and relationship structure (i.e., LDR/GCR) differences for • Relationship maintenance strategies • Conflict • Stress

  10. Method • Procedure • web-based research • Participants recruited via listservs & non-electronic postings of a URL. • Participants • N = 244 • 35 male, 209 female • 132 LDR, 94 GCR • 202 Caucasian • 201 Never married, 177 steady dating partners • Education range: 3% high school to 97% college

  11. Instruments • Relationship Questionnaire (RQ) (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) • Person’s chose one of four paragraphs representing secure, dismissing, preoccupied, and fearful attachment • Routine and Strategic Relational Maintenance Scale (RSRMS) (Stafford, Dainton, & Haas, 2000) • 31 items, 7 subscales • Assurance, 8 items,  = .91 • Openness, 7 items,  = .86 • Conflict Management, 5 items,  = .83 • Shared Tasks, 5 items,  = .88 • Positivity, 2 items,  = .66 • Advice, 2 items,  = .75 • Social Networks, 2 items,  = .68

  12. Instruments • Relationship Continuity Constructional Unit (RCCU) (Gilbertson, Dindia, & Allen, 1998) • 22 items, 3 subscales, • Prospective, 7 items, tell partner what you’ll do while apart,  =.74 • Introspective, 11 items, telephone partner while apart,  = .83 • Retrospective, 10 items, kiss/hug partner hello,  = .80 • Conflict Questionnaire (Klein & Lamm, 1996) • 15 items, 3 subscales, • Self expression, 5 items,  = .94 • Listening, 5 items,  = .95 • Problem solving, 5 items,  = .92 • LDR Conflict, Designed for this study • 6 items, I avoid conflict when my partner & I cannot be together •  = .89 • Global Measure of Perceived Stress (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) • 10 items, unidemensional,  = .75

  13. Results • A 2 x 4 MANOVA • IVs – Relationship structure & attachment style • DVs = RSRMS subscales, RCCU subscales, Conflict scales, and Stress • Main Effects • Relationship structure, Wilks’ Lambda = .84, F(15,204) = 2.57, p < .01, η2 = .16; • Attachment, Hotelling’s Trace = .45, F(45,608) =2.02, p < .001, η2 = .13. • No significant interactions.

  14. Results – Univariate • LDR/GCR significant differences (Table 1) • Shared Tasks (RSRMS) • Prospective maintenance strategies (RCCU) • Introspective maintenance strategies (RCCU) • LDR Conflict • Attachment significant differences • Assurances, Openness, Conflict Management, Positivity, Advice, Social Networks (RSRMS) • Prospective, Retrospective (RCCU) • Stress • LDR Conflict • Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed which groups were significantly different (Table 2).

  15. Discussion and Implications • LDRs and GCRs show some differences in communication patterns of their romantic relationships. • There are some attachment style differences in the way one relates in a LDR. • Psychologists can facilitate clients’ long distance romantic relationships with their partner by focusing the attachment-related stress of one’s maintenance strategies and LDR conflict

  16. Table 1 Variable Relationship Structure LDR (n = 132)GCR (n = 94) M SD M SD F(1 , 218) η2 Share 28.51 5.05 29.85 4.87 4.30* .02 Pro 44.33 4.29 43.76 5.00 4.91* .02 Intro 55.96 11.29 52.79 12.76 7.39** .03 Retro 51.40 5.19 50.77 5.81 4.19* .02 LDR Conf 18.56 8.55 14.65 7.43 8.76** .04 Note. Share = Shared Tasks (RSRMS); Pro = Prospective, Intro = Introspective, Retro = Retrospective (RCCU). *p < .05. **p < .01.

More Related