The discourses surrounding long-distance romantic relationships and perceived network support: A mixed methods investigation

Abstract

This multi-method investigation focuses on perceived network support and its association with well-being for people in long-distance romantic relationships (LDRRs). In Study 1, interviews with 35 individuals in LDRRs were conducted. Analysis identified a general lack of support and understanding of LDRRs from peers and explored how partners manage unsupportive discourses. Study 2 quantitatively examined perceived network support for relationships and relational partners, and the association between perceived support and relational well-being. Participants (N = 217) in LDRRs and geographically-close romantic relationships (GCRRs) completed online surveys. Results indicated that LDRR participants reported significantly lower network support for their relationship compared to those in GCRRs, but no significant differences were found for relational well-being. Perceiving support for one’s romantic partner from one’s network was predictive of relational well-being regardless of relationship type.

Keywords

Commitment long-distance romantic relationships mixed methods network support satisfaction

Long-distance romantic relationships (LDRRs) are increasingly prevalent in a mobilized world; 75% of college students report having been in a LDRR (Jiang & Hancock, 2013). Yet, a common misconception is that LDRRs hardly ever work out. This negative narrative is perpetuated in popular media and on websites that people use for relational advice (e.g., Reddit). Negative attitudes about LDRRs are commonly reported in research studies as well (e.g., Butler & Goodfriend, 2015; Dargie et al., 2015), which may explain why some people in LDRRs feel alienated and lonely (Firmin et al., 2014; Fleming et al., 1982; Uchino et al., 1996). However, people in LDRRs also report commitment and satisfaction equal to or sometimes greater than those in geographically-close romantic relationships (GCRRs) (Dargie et al., 2015; Jiang & Hancock, 2013). Therefore, individuals in LDRRs must manage the unsupportive attitudes expressed by others to protect their relationship (Van Horn et al., 1997).

Beliefs persist that LDRRs are destined to fail despite the technological advances that have made it easier to maintain nonproximal relationships (Dargie et al., 2015; Kelmer et al., 2013; Schmall, 2018). These negative beliefs regarding LDRRs could be said to marginalize individuals in such relationships. Marginalized relationships are socially devalued relationships, meaning they are framed as nonnormative, ineffective, or less-than when compared to the norm (Lehmiller & Agnew, 2006). This project is not arguing that LDRRs are marginalized to the same degree as other marginalized relationships, but as Parcell (2019) noted, LDRRs are “a relationship type that is atypical and subject to questioning and resistance from others (even from those involved in them!)” (p. 337). One exploration of the rules of romantic relationships (i.e., Baxter et al., 2001) found that a common rule was do not pursue a LDRR. Thus, a LDRR can be understood as marginalized due to the devalued position they hold within a societal narrative of what relationships should be. Therefore, it is not surprising that individuals in LDRRs often perceive a lack of support from those around them (Firmin et al., 2014; Fleming et al., 1982; Uchino et al., 1996).

Marginalization can influence internal relationship processes. Lehmiller and Agnew (2006) tested the association between the perceived relationship marginalization and partners’ commitment by comparing investment by partners in marginalized relationships with partners in nonmarginalized relationships. They found that partners in marginalized relationships tend to invest less in their relationships, yet still report significantly higher levels of commitment compared to their nonmarginalized counterparts. Higher commitment was attributed to a reduced perception of relationship alternatives, not an increased level of relational satisfaction. Furthermore, Lehmiller and Agnew (2007) found that general societal marginalization of a relationship does not significantly predict relationship commitment and stability, but the degree of perceived support from an individual’s social network was positively related to stability. Thus, perceived network support may be the process by which marginalization influences relational commitment and satisfaction (Blair & Holmberg, 2008; Lehmiller & Agnew, 2006; 2007). It stands to reason the relational well-being of LDRRs could be impacted by the support they perceive from their social network.

The concept of social support is multifaceted and broad. This research focuses solely on perceived network support, defined in this study as the perception that one’s social network approves of and supports one’s relationship type and relational partner. As highlighted by Felmlee (2001; Sprecher & Felmlee, 1992), there are several reasons why a person’s social network might not support their romantic relationship. It could be specific to the romantic partner. For example, friends and family may not think the partner treats their loved one how they should be treated. Therefore, one component of perceived relational support is support for the partner. Another component of support is for the type of relationship. As Lehmiller and Agnew (2006) noted, people in marginalized romantic relationships tend to perceive their relationship as less socially acceptable and more nontraditional compared to others.

The purpose of this multi-study mixed methods investigation is to extend previous research regarding associations between network support, relational well-being, and mental well-being for individuals in LDRRs. This research adds to the LDRR literature by exploring how young adults manage unsupportive discourses and by documenting whether a lack of support for one’s partner and one’s relationship is associated with lower commitment and relationship satisfaction as well as lower mental well-being. Using relational dialectics theory (Baxter, 2011), Study 1 focused on unsupportive discourses surrounding LDRRs to explore the dialectical tensions experienced by individuals in LDRRs. Interviews with individuals in LDRRs (N = 35) were conducted to understand how participants’ social networks talked about LDRRs and to what extent those discourses were (un)supportive. When unsupportive, participants were asked how they managed such discourses.

This exploration of discourses was further developed in Study 2, which examined how the perception of network support is associated with commitment and satisfaction, and whether network support differed between LDRRs and GCRRs. Study 2 used quantitative analyses to test the mediation model proposed by Blair and Holmberg (2008), which predicted that the association between perceived network support (i.e., for the partner, for the relationship) and overall well-being (i.e., loneliness, stress) would be mediated by the well-being of the relationship (i.e., satisfaction, commitment). This model explored whether relationship-specific support is directly and indirectly associated with relational and mental health outcomes, thus extending prior literature on whether romantic partners’ social support system is associated with relationship functioning.

Study 1

Study 1 utilized relational dialectics theory (RDT; Baxter, 2011; Baxter & Norwood, 2014) and was guided by two research questions:

RQ1: What are the supportive and unsupportive discourses surrounding LDRRs?

RQ2: What dialectical strategies do those in LDRRs use to manage unsupportive discourses?

By exploring the discourses using RDT, Study 1 sought to understand how LDRR partners make sense of and manage unsupportive messages from their social networks. This offers a nuanced glimpse of the way such communication is understood by and how it impacts young adults in LDRRs.

RDT (Baxter, 2011; Baxter & Norwood, 2014) is useful for answering RQs that focus on meaning-making within the discourses themselves as it examines dialectical tensions that arise when meaning is made between competing discourses (Baxter, 2011). According to Baxter and Norwood (2014), dialectical tensions are at play within all relationships and these tensions shape, change, and constitute relationships over time. There are three dominant, ever-present tensions: centripetal (brings together) versus centrifugal (pulls apart); synchronic (happening in the moment) versus diachronic (happening at a different time—past or future); and proximal (between the two partners in the relationship) versus distal (between the couple and their social environment) (Baxter & Norwood, 2014). Proximal discourses refer to dialogue occurring between the two relational partners, and distal discourses refer to the cultural discourses wherein the relationship is embedded and can be articulated both by media and by one’s peers (Baxter & Norwood, 2014). To answer the RQs, the distal discourses between study participants and people in their social network were examined.

Study 1: Methods

Participants for this study were recruited using convenience sampling. To recruit participants that were not American college students, which aimed to broaden the range of experiences in LDRRs for data analysis, a Reddit account was created, and a recruitment message was posted on three different subreddits dedicated to the topic of LDRRs: r/LongDistance (29,417 subscribers), r/LDR (577 subscribers), and r/Long_Distance (104 subscribers). Participants (n = 14) recruited via Reddit were interviewed using Skype. Other participants (n = 21) were recruited from communication courses at a large midwestern university, were offered extra credit for participation, and were interviewed face-to-face. To be eligible, participants had to be living apart from their romantic partner for at least a month at the time of the study.

Overall, 35 interviews were conducted with 17 women and 18 men. Although all participants were asked to refer their partner to participate, only three partners participated (i.e., six participants were members of three couples). Participant ages ranged from 18 to 28 years old (M = 19.4, SD = 5.19) and came from countries including England (n = 2), France (n = 1), Indonesia (n = 1), and the United States (n = 31). Most participants were currently working toward their college degrees and those who were not in college had already obtained a college degree. Participants were Caucasian (n = 21), African American (n = 12), Hispanic (n = 1), and Asian (n = 1) and in LDRRs for various reasons, but most were separated for school with the exception of four participants. One couple was separated due to the military deployment of one partner. Two other participants were separated by virtue of having met their partner online and were not living in the same geographic location. All participants in Study 1 were in the dating phase of their relationships. One participant noted being in a non-monogamous relationship. It was left up to participants to determine that they were long-distance, no mileage cutoff was used. Most participants had been apart at the time of the interviews for 1 to 2 months, but some participants were separated for longer periods of time. Several participants noted that they had lived with their partners briefly (e.g., during the summers or during breaks from school).

Semi-structured, one-on-one interviews were conducted and audio recorded. The interview protocol included four sets of questions addressing topics related to the participant’s LDRR. Example questions included, “What do other people say about your Skype [video chat] habits with your significant other?”, “Would you say that you are still able to maintain a sense of co-presence when you are apart? How so or why not?”, and “How would you say you communicate when you are apart versus together?” Participants were asked if they understood the questions and further clarification was given when necessary. The semi-structured nature of these interviews allowed the researcher to follow-up with questions regarding how friends and family react to the behaviors they disclosed. Specifically, participants were asked these follow-up questions about network support: “Do other people make comments about your relationship?” and “Do you see those sorts of comments as unsupportive of LDRRs?” Participants’ responses to these follow-up questions provided much of the results reported here.

Contrapuntal analysis

Contrapuntal analysis is preferred when utilizing RDT (Baxter, 2011). First, consistent with dialectical analysis, thematic analysis was conducted by the first author to generate manifest and latent themes (Baxter, 2011). Manifest themes appear directly on the surface of the text and are obvious to the researcher. Latent themes are hidden within the text and the researcher needs to “read between the lines” by carefully attending to participants’ examples and explanations to identify discourses or tensions that participants themselves may not be explicitly aware of.

In the second step of contrapuntal analysis, the researcher should identify whether discourses compete. Baxter (2011) emphasizes that “[c]ontrapuntal analysis presumes the native’s point of view; that is, it is important to support the claim that the researcher’s identification of competing discourses rings true to participants themselves” (p. 165). The first author, guided by RDT and the RQs of this investigation, searched for discourses that participants themselves framed in opposition to one another (e.g., a supportive discourse versus an unsupportive discourse). This was done to strengthen the validity of the themes because when participants explicitly acknowledge the discourse it provides evidence of the presence of the discourse beyond the researcher’s interpretation. To do so, the first author followed-up with participants to ensure agreement; no objections to the themes were raised.

The third step is identifying the interplay of competing discourses (Baxter, 2011). According to Baxter (2011), “The task at this stage of contrapuntal analysis is that of determining whether the text enacts monologue, diachronic separation, or synchronic interplay” (p. 169). A text is a monologue when it reveals a single discourse that silences all competing discourses. A text enacts diachronic separation when individuals align themselves with a discourse at one time and then later align themselves with another discourse. Texts enact synchronic interplay when a person gives voice to one discourse but does not give equal importance to other discourses. For example, synchronic interplay occurred in the current study when participants would explain the discourses others have presented on LDRRs and then they themselves would present competing discourses or alternative ways to understand LDRRs. This third step allows researchers to understand where meaning is made within competing discourses.

Study 1: Results

The discourses presented by the participants fell squarely under the category of distal tensions (i.e., cultural discourses and discourses occurring with people outside the primary relationship). Participants often referred to peers outside of the relationship making comments and did not report comments shared between romantic partners. Therefore, this study focuses solely on distal tensions in response to the two RQs. Two manifest and two latent themes emerged during analysis. The two manifest themes are discourses of nonsupport and to tell or not to tell. These are considered manifest as they emerged clearly and directly from the data. The two latent themes include discourses of exceptionalism and discourses of misunderstanding. These are considered latent themes as they took more parsing on the part of the researcher and were not immediately evident in the data.

Discourses of (non)support

To answer RQ1, the primary distal discourses identified by participants about LDRRs were rather pessimistic. Participants were asked the question, what comments, if any, have other people made to them regarding their relationship and their communication habits with their partner. A little over half of the participants responded that at some point they had gotten the comment that their relationship would not work out for a myriad of reasons: “it is too hard to maintain,” “your partner will cheat on you,” “you will end up growing apart from one another,” and “somebody will get bored with the other one so far away.” Such discourses often left participants feeling frustrated, misunderstood, and isolated. All comments were direct examples of a lack of support for LDRRs, centering on the idea that they were more work than it is worth to maintain.

In addition to comments from peers, some participants noted that media representation of LDRRs are rare and negative. Participants believed these negative narratives in popular media impacted how others think about LDRRs. One participant noted:

There is a part [in How I Met Your Mother] where he is dating somebody, and she goes to Germany and a big theme—it’s mentioned a couple of times in the series—is that long-distance relationships never work. Like they say that in the show and it’s like, it kinda sucks because that’s for him, you know? It’s just conveying that it doesn’t work and then that shows everybody else that might be in a long-distance romantic relationship that theirs isn’t gonna work either, so people don’t understand the influence that something like that has.

These negative discourses surrounding LDRRs are consistent with previous research. For at least 20 years, the societal rhetoric about LDRRs has been negative (Baxter et al., 2001) despite the rise in communication technologies that facilitate maintaining LDRRs.

To tell or not to tell

Due to this pessimistic and pervasive view of LDRRs, it became clear that balancing relational privacy and disclosing information about the relationship was something nearly all participants discussed and had to carefully consider. Over half of the participants noted that due to negative comments, they had to decide what to tell and whom to talk to about their relationship. These were not easy decisions. When asked if she felt comfortable using video chat, one participant noted:

I don’t talk about [Skyping] that openly because I feel like people think, ‘Oh, you’re just always talking to your boyfriend,’ you know? They think—or if I’m going on a Skype date—like my dad jokes that I’m having Skype dates or whatever, but [laughing]—sometimes, I’ll say, ‘Well, I’m tired,’ and he’ll know what that means, but my dad gets it, but like I don’t tell other people. I make up other excuses.

When participants recalled unsupportive discourses, they were asked by the researcher how they responded to such comments and how they discussed their LDRR with those people afterward. The discursive tension of concealing versus revealing relational information emerged. Participants noted that if someone in their support system was making negative or unsupportive comments regarding LDRRs they would no longer bring up any topics of conversation relating to their LDRR with that person. Reframing negative discourses in terms of exceptionalism and misunderstanding was another prevalent discursive strategy.

Discourses of exceptionalism

Participants often felt success was dependent on the people within the relationship; they just had to put in some effort. When one participant was asked for a reaction to people who say that LDRRs never work out, she responded:

Maybe they just haven’t found the right person. I feel like those people are the ones that want the instant gratification, like they see a person, they want to be with that person like right there, at that moment, they’re not willing to put the work into it, and so it’s also like…maybe they’re kind of lazy too. Like, if you really, if you really want something, you’re gonna work for it.

Another participant stated, “If you want something to work, you’ll make it work.” Participants often reframed the discourse surrounding LDRRs from “long-distance always fails” to “it depends on the people within the relationship.” Having the belief that LDRRs never work is not so much about the situation itself or about defending LDRRs as a successful type of relationship, but more of a reflection of that person and the couple’s relationship. Therefore, participants were able to provide a countering discourse to the unsupportive narratives, explaining that it was more about the partner(ship) and less about the relationship type.

Discourses of misunderstanding

The discourses of exceptionalism focused on the idea that even if LDRRs do not typically work out, their own relationship would because they were exceptions. Discourses of misunderstanding worked to negate the idea that LDRRs do not work out and that people who hold that view simply do not realize how untrue it is. Though both discourses are in response to negative narratives about LDRRs, the approaches are different and hinge on whether participants saw themselves as an exception to the rule (exceptionalism) or if they were negating that rule altogether (misunderstanding). In response to the narrative of LDRRs as hopeless, participants felt that LDRRs should at least be given a chance. As one participant expressed:

[The people that say that it will never work out] don’t understand because it’s like, it would be easier to just break up and have him go to Michigan and me stay here or whatever, but he’s worth the long distance and I want to make it work—it’s still really early, but I can see a future and I want to at least try to make it work.

Though the above quote has elements of the discourse of exceptionalism, overall it speaks to those that make unsupportive comments and focuses on the idea that they do not grasp the commitment it takes to be in a LDRR in the first place.

Participants reported that it could be hard to discuss their LDRR with others, especially when those people do not understand what it is like to be in one. When asked why she refrained from discussing her LDRR, one participant responded that she felt a bit judged, “because they don’t understand” what exactly being in a LDRR entails. However, another participant noted: “I don’t care what people say…because in the beginning, I definitely did [care what people said], but now, like, I just don’t care, I don’t.” Such responses to the discourse that LDRRs do not work highlight the idea that it is merely a misunderstanding on the part of the unsupportive peer. In other words, by reframing negative comments as indicators that the peer does not get what it is like to be in a LDRR, the partners were able to protect their relationship from that negativity (e.g., “that criticism just doesn’t apply to me and my partner”).

Study 1: Discussion

The purpose of Study 1 was to understand the discourses of support surrounding LDRRs and to explore the dialectical tensions arising from partners trying to manage unsupportive discourses. Participants reported that much of the discourse from others centered on the idea that LDRRs were doomed to fail because they were long-distance. In response to these negative discourses, participants were careful about who they disclosed their relationship to. Furthermore, participants reframed unsupportive narratives using discourses of exceptionalism and misunderstanding.

Though there were instances of supportive discourses among participants, there were too few to warrant in-depth exploration. Study 1 included mostly college student participants, which may have played a role in what people heard from peers and what peers said about LDRRs. For example, one interviewee was separated from their significant other because of where they were stationed by the military. That participant was the only one who found explicitly positive supportive discourse from their support network because separation is considered a normal part of military life.

More commonly, negative messages left individuals feeling frustrated, misunderstood, and isolated. Study 2 sought to quantify the degree to which this lack of support for one’s relationship may directly and indirectly be associated with relational and mental well-being.

Study 2

When individuals are in relationships that are devalued because they do not conform to a societal narrative of what relationships should look like (Parcell, 2019), they often feel isolated and lonely due to lack of network support (Firmin et al., 2014). To explain how marginalization may influence the internal dynamics of relationships, Blair and Holmberg (2008) proposed and tested a structural model in the context of same-sex versus mixed-sex romantic relationships. Their model suggests that a person’s perceived relational support will have a direct influence on the well-being of the relationship, which will, in turn, have a direct effect on the physical and mental health of the individual. Blair and Holmberg’s (2008) structural model was based on research by Lehmiller and Agnew (2006) that stipulated that perceived marginalization of the relationship influences relational commitment and satisfaction, specifically the marginalization of same-sex romantic partners compared to mixed-sex romantic partners. Lehmiller and Agnew (2006) posited that the consequences of network disapproval for the relationship manifested in lower commitment and satisfaction within that relationship. Although not typically thought of as marginalized relationships, individuals in LDRRs do feel judged as being in a nonnormative relationship (Baxter et al., 2001; Parcell, 2019). This suggests that Blair and Holmberg’s (2008) structural model may be applicable to the experiences of those in LDRRs.

Network support plays an important part in coping and overall mental health. For women who relocated internationally with their husbands, higher adjustment was associated with support from established networks and more reliance on geographically-proximal networks (Copeland & Norell, 2002), a finding bolstered by a recent study reporting the importance of higher levels of social support from geographically-close best friends (Weiner & Hannum, 2012). In the case of LDRRs, support from proximal peers helps mitigate loneliness. Drawing from the experiences of 16 college-aged women in LDRRs, Firmin et al. (2014) report that participants felt less lonely when they were participating in activities with proximal friends and had supportive people available to them. These findings suggest that a supportive proximal network positively influences coping and well-being for those who relocate or are geographically separated from their romantic partner. How might perceived network support for the romantic relationship type and for one’s romantic partner influence the relationships and mental health of those in LDRRs?

The current study adopted Blair and Holmberg’s (2008) structural model with two changes. As Felmlee (2001) noted, perceived relationship support can be both partner-specific and specific to relationship type. For example, a person can believe that their partner is well-liked and approved of by friends and family and perceive a lack of support for the type of relationship they are in, in this case, long-distance versus geographically-close. Second, this study focused on the association between perceived network support and mental well-being, not physical health as in Blair and Holmberg’s (2008) research. Responding to calls to conduct research comparing relationship types (Butler & Goodfriend, 2015; Kelmer et al., 2013; Van Horn et al., 1997), this study explores whether there is a significant difference in perceived support and relational well-being for individuals in LDRRs and GCRRs. To that end, the following hypotheses are offered:

H1: The perceived support for (a) one’s partner and (b) one’s relationship type (LDRR vs. GCRR) will be associated with higher relational well-being.

H2: Relational well-being will be positively associated with enhanced mental well-being.

H3: The effect of perceived support on mental health will be mediated by relational well-being.

H4: Those in LDRRs will report lower relational support than those in GCRRs.

Additionally, we offer a research question and hypothesis to explore whether those in LDRRs experience lower relational well-being, and whether perceived support differentially effects those in LDRRs compared to GCRRs. These explore whether the effects of marginalization have different relational and personal consequences for those in marginalized groups.

RQ3: Will those in LDRRs and GCRRs report similar levels of relational well-being?

H5: The association between perceived support for one’s partner and one’s relationship and relationship well-being will be stronger for GCRRs compared to LDRRs.

Study 2: Methods

Participants and procedures

Participants in GCRRs and LDRRs that were at least 18 years of age and in a romantic relationship of greater than 2 months were recruited. Long-distance participants had to be living apart from their romantic partner for at least 2 months at the time of the surveys. Convenience sampling was used (i.e., word of mouth, via departmental research calls, Facebook, Reddit, etc.) and after posting the call to various sites, participants contacted the first author. Surveys were sent to the participants’ mobile device via Qualtrics. Students were given partial course credit for participation, but nonstudents received no compensation.

Participants completed online surveys on Monday, Thursday, and Friday of the same week. On the first day, participants answered demographic questions and measures of support for the relationship type and partner-specific support. The second survey gathered information about relational well-being (i.e., commitment, satisfaction). The final survey measured mental well-being (i.e., stress, loneliness). We elected to space the surveys over 3 days to reduce common method variance (Rodriguez-Ardura & Meseguer-Artola, 2020) and to reduce participant burden, which may have increased attentiveness and data quality. Unfortunately, 272 participants began the study, but 39 did not complete more than 1 day of data collection and were removed from the final sample, suggesting the reduction of burden did not prevent attrition. Due to challenges in recruiting a sufficient sample size for LDRR participants, data was collected at four different waves (from February 2018 through February 2019).

Ten participants who were in relationships of less than 2 months were removed. Three attention checks were conducted (i.e., responding with the same, non-midpoint response to a positively and negatively worded item on the same scale). Six participants who failed any of these checks were removed. The final number of participants was 217 (LDRRs n = 102, GCRRs n = 115). Only 12 participants from nonstudent populations were included in the final sample and all were in LDRRs.

Most participants were female (69.4%), White (77.8%) and heterosexual (92.5%) (7.5% identified as bisexual). Participants could identify with as many racial and ethnic categories as they wished. They self-identified as 12% Asian or Asian-American, 6% Latino/Hispanic, 5.1% African American, 3.7% Mixed Race, 1.8% Other, and .9% Pacific Islander. Participants were 21.54 years of age on average (SD = 5.79, mdn = 20, range 18–51) and reported having been in a relationship with their partner for 3 years on average (M_months = 36.9 SD = 55.33, mdn = 24, range 2–407 months).

Study 2: Measures

Perceived network support

This concept was measured on two levels—relationship-specific network support (i.e., long-distance or geographically-close) and partner-specific network support. Relationship-specific network support was measured using a modified version of Sprecher and Felmlee’s (1992) Network Support Index (NSI). This measure was used to gauge how approving or disapproving the participant’s social network was about the type of relationship. Participants answered items referring to the couple-type they were in. This modified measure was tested using exploratory factor analysis on pilot data in conjunction with perceived support for the romantic partner. Three reliable items were identified, including “To what degree do you think your friends disapprove/approve of a committed romantic/committed romantic long-distance relationship?”). Responses ranged from 1 (very much disapproves) to 7 (very much approves) on a Likert-type scale. Relationship-specific network support showed adequate reliability for LDRRs, α = .72. Unlike in the pilot data where the reliability was acceptable, relationship-specific network support showed poor reliability (α =.57) for GCRRs in Study 2. Partner-specific network support measured the degree of support (or lack thereof) of the specific romantic partner using similarly worded items to the relationship-type measure. The participants responded on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). This measure was reliable for LDRRs α = .76, and for GCRRs, α = .86.

Relational well-being

Relational well-being was measured using relational satisfaction and commitment measures. Satisfaction refers to how happy a person is with their romantic relationship. A modified version of the Quality of Marriage Index (QMI) (Norton, 1983) was used, including five Likert-type questions on 7-point scales. Items were modified to refer to a romantic relationship, but not marriage specifically. Sample items include “My relationship with my partner is very stable,” and “I really feel like part of a team with my partner.” The reliability was: LDRRs, α = .85, and for GCRRs, α = .87. Commitment was measured using Rusbult et al.’s (1998) 8-item scale. Participants responded with their level of agreement to the statements on a Likert scale from 1 to 7 (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Example items included, “I want our relationship to last for a very long time” and “It is likely that I will date someone other than my partner within the next year.” The reliability was LDRRs, α = .86, and for GCRRs, α = .87.

Mental well-being

Consistent with Blair and Holmberg (2008), the present investigation kept stress as one part of this measure but differed by adding loneliness as the other well-being measure. Loneliness was chosen because it has been linked to lower social support among women in LDRRs (Firmin et al., 2014), as well as for the general population (Fleming et al., 1982; Uchino et al., 1996). Stress was measured using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), which is a 10-item scale (Cohen et al., 1983). In this study, the stem of the items focused on the week of the study (e.g., “In the last week, how often have you felt nervous and ‘stressed’?” and “In the last week, how often have you felt that things were going your way?”). Participants were asked to respond to these questions on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = Never, 5 = Very often). Two items were dropped as they contributed to a lack of reliability (e.g., “In the last week, how often have you felt that you were coping with important changes that were occurring in your life?” and “In the last week, how often have you dealt successfully with irritating life hassles?”). The 8-item measure had good reliability for LDRRs, α = .79, and for GCRRs, α = .83.

Loneliness was measured using the UCLA loneliness scale (Russell, 1982), which has 20-items including, “I feel in tune with the people around me” and “No one really knows me well.” Participants were asked to answer these items in accordance to the week the study took place. Participants responded to each statement on a 4-point scale (1 = Never, 4 = Often). This measure was reliable for LDRRs, α = .84, and for GCRRs, α = .87.

Study 2: Results

Following the proposed model, the measured variables were initially put into a path model with three latent constructs (i.e., perceived relational support, relational well-being, mental well-being) identified by two latent variables each in Mplus 7.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012–2015). Missing data was imputed using ML. Byrne (2011) recommends the following criteria for SEM fit statistics: for both CFI and TLI, >.90 indicates an acceptable fit and >.95 indicates a very good fit and <.90 indicates unacceptable fit; for both RMSEA and SRMR, <.05 indicates a very good fit to the data. The theoretical path model demonstrated a poor fit to the data. Second, a revised path model was created that removed all latent constructs; relational support was represented by partner-specific network support and relationship-specific network support separately, relational well-being was represented by satisfaction and commitment separately, and mental health was represented by stress and loneliness separately. The revised path model was also a poor fit to the data, X² = 54.1, df = 5, p < .001, CFI. = .67, TLI = .092, RMSEA = .214; SRMR = .083 (Byrne, 2011). The process of model fitting in SEM requires attention to both the overall fit of the model as well as the path estimates. In the case where theoretically relevant, but poor-fitting variables are a primary cause of poor model fit, it is common practice to remove such variables (Byrne, 2011). Third, the revised path model was changed into the final model with two changes: loneliness was not associated with either measure of relational well-being and was dropped from the final model, and all nonsignificant paths were not estimated in the final model.

The final path model showed an excellent fit to the data according to standards offered by Byrne (2011), X² = 4.49, df = 3, p = .213, CFI. = .99, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .048; SRMR = .036. To account for alternative explanations for the variance in the mediators and dependent variables, Figure 1 reports path estimates for the model controlling for four covariates (i.e., age, sex, length of relationship, race with non-White = 1). Path estimates demonstrated that partner-specific support was associated with commitment and satisfaction (H1), and satisfaction, but not commitment, was associated with less stress (H2). H3 proposed an indirect effect between relationship support and mental well-being through relational well-being. Results indicate that the indirect path between partner-specific network support and stress through relationship satisfaction was significant, B = −.054, SE = .022, p = .015, showing partial support for H3. Finally and for sake or comparision, the final model (i.e., Figure 1) was estimated without covariates. The results suggest the path estimates were strengthened for the three significant paths, but the nonsignificant path (i.e., partner-specific support on commitment) was not raised to a significant level.

Figure 1.

Study 2 final path model for network support predicting relational and mental well-being. Notes: N = 217; *p > .05, **p > .01; Path estimates control for participant age, sex, length of relationship, and race. Final model fit: X² = 4.49, df = 3, p = .213, CFI. = .99, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .048; SRMR = .036.

H4 suggested that social support would differ by type of relationship and RQ3 queried whether relational well-being would differ by type of relationship. A MANCOVA, controlling for age, sex, race, and length of relationship, explored mean differences in all study variables by type of relationship. In response to RQ3, results indicate that support for relationship differs by relationship type, with LDRRs reporting significantly lower support for relationship type than those in GCRRs, but there was no significant difference found in relational well-being by relationship type (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Inter-item correlations and descriptive statistics.

		Relationship Type Approval	Partner Approval	Satisfaction	Commitment	Stress	Range	Mean	SD
LDRR	Relationship Type Approval						5	4.94	1.07
	Partner Approval	.55**					3.6	5.69	.87
	Rel. Satisfaction	.22*	.46**				3.2	6.25	.82
	Commitment	.15	.28**	.63**			3.12	6.28	.86
	Stress	−.09	−.16	−.09	.06		2.4	2.77	.50
	Loneliness	.08	−.01	−.09	−.04	−.25*	2.95	2.88	.72
GCRR	Relationship Type Approval						3.67	5.95	.81
	Partner Approval	.44**					5.6	6.04	.92
	Rel. Satisfaction	.19*	.58**				5.4	6.45	.81
	Commitment	.29**	.45**	.53**			4	6.38	.80
	Stress	−.27**	−.21*	−.24*	−.19		3.4	2.72	.54
	Loneliness	.10	.17	.18	.18	−.29**	3	2.94	.74

Note: LDRR is long-distance romantic relationship, GCRR is geographically-close romantic relationship.

* Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); **Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Finally, H5 queried whether the effect of relationship support on relational well-being would be conditional on the relationship type. Interaction terms were estimated in Mplus for both types of support on both types of relational well-being. Results suggest only one significant effect: the effect of relationship-specific support on commitment, B = −.123, SE = .148; p = .406, was conditional on relationship type, B = .900, SE = .524; p = .008, the interaction term, B = .138, SE = .074; p = .070. Decomposing the conditional effects demonstrated that for participants in GCRRs there was a significant positive association with commitment, B = .276, SE = .078, p < .001. There was no association between relationship-specific support and commitment for participants in LDRRs, B = .107, SE = .089, p = .221.

Study 2: Discussion

The purpose of this study was to compare the predictive value of perceived network support directly on relationship well-being and indirectly on mental well-being. The results indicate that network support for specific relationship type (i.e., GCRR and LDRR) is predictive of commitment and only for those in GCRRs. By contrast, perceptions that friends and family approve of the relational partner significantly predicted the well-being of the relationship (i.e., commitment and satisfaction) for participants in LDRRs and GCRRs.

General discussion

The present mixed methods investigation makes three important contributions to understanding social support in romantic relationships in LDRRs and GCRRs. The qualitative results of Study 1 provide suggests young adults in LDRRs feel compelled to conceal the existence and maintenance of their romantic relationship because they feel others misunderstand their relationship. To shield it from criticism, they spoke to the exceptional nature of their own relationship, defying their peer’s expectations of its failure. Second, the present investigation revealed that young adults in LDRRs perceived lower network support for their relationship compared to GCRRs. This contributes to the literature suggesting that young adults in LDRRs may be marginalized by peers who assume GCRRs are the norm (Baxter et al., 2001; Parcell, 2019). Finally, the present investigation contributes to research that documents the influence of network support on relational and mental health (Lehmiller & Agnew, 2007), while expanding the literature on marginalized relationships (Blair & Holmberg, 2008). Below, we explain the results in light of prior literature.

Network support for LDRRs and GCRRs

Young adults in LDRRs perceived lower network support for their relationship, and the association between support for relationship type and relational well-being was significant for GCRRs, but not LDRRs. There are multiple reasons that this could be. Based on the results from Study 1, when people in LDRRs encounter people who make unsupportive statements about those types of relationships, they may chalk it up to, “Well, they just don’t understand.” Because they relied upon the discourse that LDRRs are misunderstood, unsupportive behaviors and/or comments might not have impacted the well-being of the romantic relationship. In doing so, however, it is possible this negatively affects the relationship with the unsupportive person. The results of Study 1 suggest that young adults in LDRRs might self-censor when disclosing about their romantic relationship to unsupportive persons in particular. One participant noted that instead of explicitly telling unsupportive others that she was going to Skype with her partner, she would instead say something vague like “I just don’t feel like going out tonight” or “I’m tired.” Another participant stated that he “no longer cared” what negative comments people had about LDRRs, which suggests a tendency to simply ignore the lack of support from others. Perhaps such discourses protect the relationship because they prevent those in LDRRs from falling into self-fulfilling prophecies—that LDRRs cannot work (Van Horn et al., 1997). Faced with a lack of support, young adults in LDRRs concealed their relationship-maintaining activities from peers, further insulating the relationship from the negative effects of disapproval.

In contrast to those in LDRRs, social network approval of their romantic relationship was associated with relational well-being for those in GCRRs. This could be because having more social integration of one’s romantic partner within one’s social network makes support for the relationship type more influential. It is possible that by using strategies of concealment to manage the lack of support from one’s network, those in LDRRs may not benefit from the relationship-boosting effect of support from one’s social network. This insulation may unfortunately further contribute to the marginalization of that relationship by peers who might not even know about the existence of successful LDRRs.

Study 2 showed that there was a significant difference in the level of perceived support for the relationship between LDRRs and GCRRs with long-distance participants reporting lower network approval of their relationships. Given the low reliability for the measure of relationship-specific support for those in GCRRs, it is important to interpret these findings with caution. Despite perceiving lower support, however, LDRRs did not differ in their degree of relational well-being when compared to GCRRs. This is consistent with previous research on LDRRs, which have found that those in LDRRs experience just as much commitment and satisfaction in their relationships as those in GCRRs (Butler & Goodfriend, 2015; Dargie et al., 2015; Jiang & Hancock, 2013; Kelmer et al., 2013; Van Horn et al., 1997). The results from Study 1 may add insight on this past finding. Specifically, the discourses of exceptionalism that LDRR partners used to rationalize or reframe unsupportive discourses may boost commitment and satisfaction. Unfortunately, this buffering effect is managed within a discursive system that limits disclosures about their LDRR to friends and family. This suggests, but cannot demonstrate causally, that the sensemaking process that protects the LDRR may also result in the loss of the supportive gains of social network approval for the relationship itself (Weiner & Hannum, 2012). That is, the relationship was buffered, but in doing so, it was not as supported or as well understood by peers.

In a more positive light, the results suggest partner-specific support from close others (i.e., friends and family) predicted the relational well-being of partners in both LDRRs and GCRRs. The results from this research indicate that both types of relationships equally benefit from family and friends approval of one’s romantic partner. Furthermore, the mediation analyses were supported: the more approval for one’s partner participants perceived, the less stress participants reported, in part, because of greater satisfaction in the relationship. This suggests that romantic partners in both types of relationships can benefit from the approval of family and peers for the partner specifically. Thus, it is possible that the discourse of exceptionalism in LDRRs could be navigated more productively if peers are given an opportunity to get to know one’s LDRR partner. When peers like and approve of one’s romantic partner, the results suggest that the relationship might be experienced as exceptional—more satisfying and more reductive of one’s stress.

Limitations

Limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of both studies. The concept of social support is broad and there are many ways beyond perceived network support to understand it, which were not explored in this research (e.g., emotional, informational, esteem). Considering the differences in support for the relationship type between LDRRs and GCRRs, social integration during times of difficulty may deserve further study. For example, if people in LDRRs have a conflict with their partner, do they feel comfortable turning to their social network for support? It would have been insightful to have collected longitudinal data to explore fluctuations in relationship functioning and perceptions of support over time. Furthermore, future research could examine whether integration of a LDRR partner with one’s social network in online spaces (e.g., social media) has similarly beneficial effects as those suggested here.

Another limitation of the current research is that the data gathered and analyzed in Study 1 was part of a study that encompassed multiple topics pertaining to LDRRs, network support being just one of those topics. Because of this, the interviews did not go into great detail on issues of marginalization or how lack of support from others was handled.

All of the data gathered was cross-sectional and cannot assume causality. All associations reported in Study 2 are bi-directional, thus reverse causality is also possible (i.e., less stress leads to more relationship well-being leading to more network support). Furthermore, the sample was primarily composed of college-aged students at the early stages of their romantic relationships. It is very likely that perceived support for LDRRs and partner support is different in relationships with partners that have been together for a longer time. The single participant in Study 1 that was a member of the armed forces reported distinctly positive support from their social support network. The results of both studies are likely most applicable to emerging adults in the early stages of romantic relationships.

Finally, the measurement of support for committed romantic relationships made for GCRR participants did not meet the acceptable standards of reliability. The goal of this measure was to provide a point of comparison to LDRRs. It is often the case that asking individuals to evaluate a normative relationship is challenging because it is taken-for-granted, while nonnormative relationships are seen as such because they depart from the norm (Parcell, 2019). The measures were pilot tested and factor analyzed before data collection began, and problems with reliability were not detected prior to the main study. However, without reliability, the validity of the measure is unknown. The results regarding that perceived network support for GCRRs should be interpreted with this caveat in mind. Furthermore, the term used (i.e., a committed romantic relationship) is not synonymous with a geographically-close relationship, but it was the best approximation for a comparison group that could be identified. It would have been confusing to ask the participants to what extent they feel others support their geographically-close romantic relationship (as a general approval for that type of relationship) because such relationships are not typically distinguished as geographically close except when used in contrast to LDRRs.

In conclusion, Study 1 can help researchers understand how young adults in LDRRs maintain their relationships despite lack of network support from their peers. Those in LDRRs offer oppositional discourses in response to unsupportive narratives as a way to shield their relationship from negativity. Study 2 indicated that for individuals in LDRRs support for LDRRs specifically does not seem to affect their relational well-being. Regardless of relationship type, however, network support for young adults’ romantic partners may be particularly important for relational well-being directly, and, indirectly, mental health. This suggests that young adults in LDRRs should attempt to introduce their relationship partner to their peers in the geographically-proximate community to both disrupt negative discourses and potentially benefit from increased network support for their partner as an individual.

Footnotes

Authors’ note

A previous version of this manuscript was presented at the 2019 National Communication Association Conference.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Rebecca M. Johnson

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are not available. The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained by emailing: rmjohnson24@ku.edu.

References

Baxter

L. A.

(2011). Voicing relationships: A dialogic perspective. SAGE. http://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230344

Baxter

L. A.

Dun

Sahlstein

(2001). Rules for relating: Communication among social network members. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 173–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407501182002

Baxter

L. A.

Norwood

K. M.

(2014). Relational dialectics theory: Navigating meaning from competing discourses. In Braithwaite

D. O.

Schrodt

(Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 279–292). SAGE.

Blair

K. L.

Holmberg

(2008). Perceived social network support and well-being in same sex versus mixed-sex romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(5), 769–791. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508096695

Butler

A. C.

Goodfriend

(2015). Long distance vs proximal romantic relationships: Predicting commitment, investments, and bias. Modern Psychological Studies, 20(2), 31–40.

Byrne

B. M.

(2011). Structural equation modeling with Mplus. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203807644

Cohen

Kamarck

Mermelstein

(1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404

Copeland

A. P.

Norell

S. K.

(2002). Spousal adjustment on international assignments: The role of social support. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(02)00003-2

Dargie

Blair

K. L.

Goldfinger

Pukall

C. F.

(2015). Go long! Predictors of positive relationship outcomes in long-distance dating relationships. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 41(2), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623x.2013.864367

10.

Felmlee

(2001). No couple is an island: A social network perspective on dyadic stability. Social Forces, 79, 1259–1287. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2001.0039

11.

Firmin

M. W.

Firmin

K. L.

Lorenzen

(2014). A qualitative analysis of loneliness dynamics involved with college long-distance relationships. College Student Journal, 48(1), 57–71.

12.

Fleming

Baum

Gisriel

M. M.

Gatchel

R. J.

(1982). Mediating influences of social support on stress at Three Mile Island. Journal of Human Stress, 8(3), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/0097840x.1982.9936110

13.

Jiang

L. C.

Hancock

J. T.

(2013). Absence makes the communication grow fonder: Geographic separation, interpersonal media, and intimacy in dating relationships. Journal of Communication, 63, 556–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12029

14.

Kelmer

Rhoades

G. K.

Stanley

Markman

H. J.

(2013). Relationship quality, commitment, and stability in long-distance relationships. Family Process, 52(2), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01418.x

15.

Lehmiller

J. J.

Agnew

C. R.

(2006). Marginalized relationships: The impact of social disapproval on romantic relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(1), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205278710

16.

Lehmiller

J. J.

Agnew

C. R.

(2007). Perceived marginalization and the prediction of romantic relationship stability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 69(4), 1036–1049. https://doi.org/10.1037/e578682006-001

17.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2012–2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

18.

Norton

(1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45(1), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1037/t14088-000

19.

Parcell

E. S.

(2019). Distance, dialectics, and discourses in personal relationships. In Wilson

S. R.

Smith

S. W.

(Eds.), Reflections on interpersonal communication research (pp. 337–354). Cognella.

20.

Rodríguez-Ardura

Meseguer-Artola

(2020). How to prevent, detect and control common method variance in electronic commerce research. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 15, 1–5. DOI: 10.4067/S0718-18762020000200101

21.

Rusbult

C. E.

Martz

J. M.

Agnew

C. R.

(1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x

22.

Russell

(1982). The measurement of loneliness. In Peplau

L. A.

Perlman

(Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research, and therapy (pp. 81–104). Wiley.

23.

Schmall

(2018). Long-distance relationships are more successful than you think. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2018/10/31/long-distance-relationships-are-more-successful-than-you-think/

24.

Sprecher

Felmlee

(1992). The influence of parents and friends on the quality and stability of romantic relationships: A three-wave longitudinal investigation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(4), 888–900. https://doi.org/10.2307/353170

25.

Uchino

B. N.

Cacioppo

J. T.

Kiecolt-Glaser

J. K.

(1996). The relationship between social support and physiological processes: A review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms and implications for health. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 488–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.3.488

26.

Van Horn

K. R.

Arnone

Nesbitt

Desilets

Sears

Giffin

Brudi

(1997). Physical distance and interpersonal characteristics in college students’ romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1997.tb00128.x

27.

Weiner

A. S. B.

Hannum

J. W.

(2012). Differences in the quantity of social support between geographically close and long-distance friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(5), 662–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512465997