In the study “Physical distance and interpersonal characteristics in college students' romantic relationships”, the authors have a clear purpose: “To investigate interpersonal characteristics of romantic relationships among college students as a function of physical separation.” Before the conducted study, the authors assumed that distance would affect a relationship by restricting opportunities for partners to engage in intimacy processes. In the text, intimacy processes are defined as feelings of being understood, cared for, and validated that result from a romantic partners self disclosure. Often in the text, intimacy processes are defined and measured in ten categories as follows, affection, companionship, enhancement of worth, instrumental help, self-disclosure, nurturance, reliable alliance, perspective taking, satisfaction and closeness. The study concluded of a gathering of 162 students currently in relationships, long distance (LDR) or not (non LDR). These students were asked to fill out a questionnaire about their current relationship based on the ten intimacy processes. They then checked back with the students in three months to see if the status of the relationships had changed. The studies then produced results showing the authors that being in a long distance relationship compared to a geographically close relationship, displayed little to no difference in the break-up rate, nor did the stated intimacy processes change dramatically from LDR to non-LDR. In fact, the study stated that closeness and instrumental help were greater in LDRs. The authors made note that other studies on this topic were invalid. Affirming that some provided conflicting results and that others did not reach firm conclusions. This study provides valid, clear and concise points about being in a long distance relationship. The points of which they measured the subject’s relationships were intelligent and made sense to an innocent reader.
At the start of this study, the authors lay out the purpose to give the reader a general ground as to what this study will hopefully prove. They introduce us to some terms that most people would not know, they then describe them in great detail so that now, to the reader, they are second knowledge. The authors then tear down fifteen other studies that have been done by different researchers. They state that these studies don’t reach firm conclusions, nor do they have “comprehensive theoretical models that can impact LDRs.” The authors continue to say that other studies provided conflicting results, using an example of two specific studies. They stated that one study showed “students involved in LDRs rated their relationships higher on such variables as satisfaction, love and communication, then did non LDRs.” They contrasted this with another study that found significantly lower satisfaction in LDRs than in non-LDRs. They went on to prove that the stated studies failed because they did not take into account the frequency of visits among LDRs. Which therefore, “does not yield a coherent picture of LDRs”.
The authors further back up their claims about the “failed” studies by taking what they thought went wrong, and making sure that in their own study, they did not have the same faults. However, the authors’ study did have a few imperfections of its own, as they pointed out in the conclusion of their article. For the students in LDRs they did not take into account the fact that this may have not been a first time separation for some couples. This could hinder their results, as first time separation is known to be more challenging. The fact that the authors realized their own fault further pushes the validity of their argument, knowing that other factors go into these types of relationships. Still yet, students that could have been long distance before still qualify for the requirements of an LDR based on this study.
The conclusion of the study seems to be the most powerful point. The authors repeat their findings that the break up rate from LDRs to non-LDRs does not differ, even if the couples that were long distance stated that being apart played a big role in the ending of their relationship. They then go on to insightfully state “perhaps members of LDRs are influenced in both their satisfaction and confidence ratings by the common belief that such relationships do not last.” And “distance is a concrete and nonthreatening explanation for the breakup of an LDR.” They conclude with a point that states that their studies can indicate that partners in an LDR should know that they could last. The effectiveness of these insights really brings this study home. For many, it puts the results in perspective. Seeing that a study can really apply to ones relationship further proves the validity and easiness to understand what the authors are talking about. There may be some light at the end of the long tunnel that is long distance relationships!
Van Horn, K. Roger, Angela Arnone, Kelly Nesbitt, Laura Desllets, Tanya Sears, Michelle Giffin, and Rebecca Brudi. "Physical Distance and Interpersonal Characteristics in College Students%u2019romantic Relationships - HORN - 2005 - Personal Relationships." Personal Relationships 4.1 (1997): 25-34. Wiley Online Library. 20 May 2005. Web. 17 Feb. 2012. <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1997.tb00128.x/abstract>.
Van Horn, K. Roger, Angela Arnone, Kelly Nesbitt, Laura Desllets, Tanya Sears, Michelle Giffin, and Rebecca Brudi. "Physical Distance and Interpersonal Characteristics in College Students%u2019romantic Relationships - HORN - 2005 - Personal Relationships." Personal Relationships 4.1 (1997): 25-34. Wiley Online Library. 20 May 2005. Web. 17 Feb. 2012. <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1997.tb00128.x/abstract>.
