Long-distance relationship

A long-distance relationship (LDR) or long-distance romantic relationship is an intimate relationship between partners who are geographically separated from one another. Partners in LDRs face geographic separation and lack of face-to-face contact.[1][2][3][4] LDRs are particularly prevalent among college students, constituting 25% to 50% of all relationships.[5] Even though scholars have reported a significant number of LDRs in undergraduate populations, long-distance relationships continue to be an understudied phenomenon.[6]

Also, a romantic long-distance relationship (rLDR) refers to a relationship when communication opportunities are limited due to geographical factors, and the individuals involved in the relationship have expectations of maintaining a close connection.[7]

Characteristics

LDRs are qualitatively different from geographically close relationships; that is, relationships in which the partners are able to see each other, face-to-face, most days. According to Rohlfing (1995) he suggests the following unique challenges for those in long-distance relationships:

• Increased financial burdens to maintain relationships
• Difficulty maintaining geographically close friendships while in long-distance romantic relationships
• Difficulty judging the state of a relationship from a distance
• High expectations by partners for the quality of limited face-to-face meetings in the relationship

LDRs with friends and family

Not all long-distance relationships are romantic. When individuals go away to school, their relationships with family and friends also become long-distance. Pew Internet (2004) asserts that 79% of adult respondents from the United States reported using the Internet for communication with family and friends.[8] Also, Pew Internet (2002a) states that because of new technologies, college students will have greater social ties with their friends than their family members. Therefore, examining email among college students helps explore how the Internet is affecting college students emotionally and socially.[9]

Under the great influence of globalization, together with the advancement in transportation and communication technologies, migration has gradually become a feature of contemporary society. As a result, transnational families have become increasingly common in which family members live in different regions and countries, yet hold a sense of collective unity across national borders.[10] For instance, children choose to leave home to study abroad, parents decide to leave home for better prospects and salaries, or siblings pursue different life paths around the world.

Sustaining family relationships

A qualitative study that conducted 50 interviews with adult migrant children in Australia and their parents in Italy, Ireland, and the Netherlands found that geographically separated family members generally exchanged all types of care and support that proximate families did, including financial, practical, personal, accommodation, and emotional or moral support.[11] According to Loretta Baldassar, a closely related ethnographic analysis of 30 transnational families between grown-up migrant children living in Australia and their parents in Italy from the 1950s to 2000s illustrated that the exchange of emotional and moral support between parents and children was the fundamental factor for sustaining and staying committed to family relationships in transnational families.[12] The prevalence of Internet technologies has facilitated remote family members’ emotional exchange, and provided them with the opportunity of accessible and affordable long-distance communication on a daily basis for sustaining relationships.[12]

Cao (2013) conducted a series of interviews with 14 individuals who constantly communicated with family members living in different time zones, namely the UK, US, Canada, and China.[13][14] Analysis revealed that among a variety of communication methods, including synchronous means such as telephone and Internet audio/video call (e.g., Skype) and asynchronous methods such as email or text messaging, remote family members relied heavily on synchronous methods for virtual contact.[13] The real-time interactivity from synchronous communication provides a sense of presence, connectedness, and dedication between family members, which is regarded by Cao as an essential component of emotional support.[13] However, it is worth noting^[according to whom?] that the Internet technologies have not replaced the use of older, less useful forms of communication, in which transnational families still use letters, cards, gifts, and photographs, etc. for showing their care and love.[12]

Research has shown that people sustain close relationships using different communication patterns with different family members. While people usually communicate heavily with immediate family members such as parents or children, they tend to communicate less frequently and regularly with other family members including siblings across time zones.[13] It is suggested^[by whom?] that siblings feel less obligated to communicate dedicatedly with each other, especially for the younger generation, and they prefer ad hoc communication such as through instant messages to update each other's status.[13]

The effects of geographical separation on children’s well-being

Globally, there is a considerable number of parents who travel to another country in search of work, leaving behind their children in their home country. These parents hope to provide their children with better future life chances. The impacts of parents’ migration for work on left-behind children's growth are mixed, depending on various factors and the outcomes of transnational living arrangements on children's well-being vary. For instance, through surveying a sample of 755 Mexican households with at least one family member who had migrated to the US, researchers reported that left-behind children might benefit economically from the remittances their parents sent home while suffering emotionally from long-term separation.[15]^[non-primary source needed] Similar results were found by Lahaie, Hayes, Piper, and Heymann (2009), a correlational study investigating the relationship between parental migration and children's mental health outcomes using a representative sample of transnational families in Mexico and the US.[16]^[non-primary source needed]

In addition, whether the mother or father migrates for work also plays a role. Based on the interviews and observations with Filipina transnational families, children tended to experience more emotional problems from transnational motherhood than fatherhood, taking the traditional family gender roles into account.[17] The impacts of parent migration on children's psychological well-being are also distinctive in different countries. With reference to the data collected from the cross-sectional baseline study of Children Health and Migrant Parents in Southeast Asia (CHMPSEA), Graham and Jordan (2011) showed that children of migrant fathers in Indonesia and Thailand were more likely to suffer from poor psychological health when compared to children in non-migrant families, while the findings did not replicate in children from Philippine and Vietnam.[18]^[non-primary source needed] Special care arrangement for left-behind children, such as asking the extended family members for help to take on caregiving tasks, affects children's growth substantially. Lahaie et al. (2009) revealed that children who took care of themselves had a higher probability to exhibit behavioral and academic problems when compared to other children with care arrangements.[16]^[non-primary source needed] The feeling of being abandoned by parents is proposed to be one of the reasons that the children commit to undesirable behaviors such as quitting school or gang involvement as retaliation.[16][17]

Formats of LDR

Long-distance relationships (LDRs) exhibit considerable variation based on their specific contexts. For example, Smith-Osborne and Jani(2014)[19] note that military LDRs are influenced by military culture, where mission priorities often overshadow personal relationships.

Similarly, Nickels(2019)[20] investigates relationships involving incarcerated partners, highlighting challenges such as restricted communication, societal stigma, and significant financial burdens.

In commuter relationships, where partners reside in different cities, regular visits and communication help maintain their connection. Research by Rhodes(2002)[21] indicates that these relationships can endure through a mix of in-person meetings and digital communication, providing flexibility despite the physical distance.

Transnational relationships involve partners from different countries, requiring them to navigate cultural differences alongside geographical separation. These relationships heavily depend on technology for communication,[22] which facilitates bridging cultural divides and enhancing mutual understanding between partners.

Challenges

According to Tara Suwinyattichaiporn(2017)[7] research, there are some issues in long-distance relationships.

Idealization of partners

Idealization is a major concern in LDRs that involve unrealistic positive impressions of the partner and the relationship. Additionally, Stafford(2007)[23] in his study concluded that idealization during separation corresponds with postreunion instability.

The study concluded that LDRs partners are more likely to have a break up after getting back together than when they are separated. Reunion stability was positively related to face-to-face contact during the time apart but was negatively related to CMC and mail contact. Also, idealization during separation has a negative effect on stability after changing the status of the relationship from separation to proximity.

The absence of close contact and the use of computer technologies in communication lead to positive impression management.

Although idealization can maintain LDRs by enhancing relational satisfaction and stability, it becomes problematic when couples move to physical proximity because reality tends to differ with the idealized images.

Relational uncertainty

LDRs are characterised by physical separation of the partners and, therefore, the partners are bound to experience higher levels of uncertainty.

Types of uncertainty

• Self-uncertainty, including skepticism regarding one’s own emotion.
• Partner uncertainty as a feeling insecure about the partner’s affection and devotion.
• Relationship uncertainty of the general status of the relationship.

LDRs are also characterised by limited contact and fewer visits hence the element of uncertainty is more pronounced. It is most commonly linked to decreased satisfaction.

Jealousy

Jealousy occurs more frequently in LDRs due to relational uncertainty or use of social media and other similar platforms.

Communication challenges

LDRs are especially dependent on technology, and while they allow for high-quality interactions, they can also exacerbate such concerns as idealization. LDR partners claim their communication is more purposeful but have higher levels of conflict when they move to live close to each other

However, Tara Suwinyattichaiporn(2017)[7] mentioned one positive aspect of long-distance relationships (LDRs) that gives them an advantage over geographically close relationships (GCRs): the opportunity to have higher quality interactions during the time that is spent with each other. According to the survey, LDR couples said that the time they spent communicating or meeting is more meaningful, focused and purposeful than GCR couples couples. Such intentionality may result in more profound emotional entwinement and less daily conflict between them during their communications.

Moreover, according to Stafford[24](2010) the lack of physical proximity and the fact that the relationship is often considered taboo to have such conversations with a partner who lives nearby are normal and beneficial for LDRs .

Military long-distance relationship

The partners of military personnel deployed abroad experience a significant amount of stress, before and during the deployment. The difference between a military LDR and a regular LDR is that, while the regular LDR there is more communication the military LDR communication is unexpected and controlled by military regulations or there is not much time to talk. Because of the communication restrictions and the overall process of deployment, this leaves the partner back home feeling lonely, and stressing on how to keep a strong relationship moving forward.[25] Other stressors that add to the emotional situation are the realization that the service member is being deployed to a combat zone where their life is threatened. Through all the stages of the deployment the partner will exhibit many emotional problems, such as anxiety, loss, denial, anger, depression, and acceptance.[25]

This type of long-distance relationship is very hard to maintain. That is why there are some ways of adjustment that partners follow to stay together and prevent problems from arising.

Independence of the non-deployed Partner:

First is independence of a non-deployed partner and rejection of traditional gender roles. Due to the fact that the deployed partner is busy with his mission, the non-deployed partner should understand that all responsibility of making  decisions about family, household, handling finances and caring for children should be done by himself

Flexibility and adjustment to expectations:

Both partners should be flexible and accept that traditional expectations, like consistent communication, shared parenting, may not always be feasible. Moreover, non-deployed partners should accept “military culture” which posits that mission and military duties are priorities over personal relationships and love. These adjustments help to manage expectations and make both partners comfortable together.[19]

Limitations of research

Most of the knowledge regarding changes in military long-distance relationships is based on research carried out in a particular cultural and geographical settings, namely American. These findings may not capture the differences in military cultures and norms of societies in other countries.[19]

Incarcerated Long-Distance Relationships

Incarcerated long-distance relationships[7] have their own features that are similar to military ones but with some differences that make them harder to maintain.

• Stigma and lack of support

Non-prisoned partner can face lack of support from surroundings  to stay in a relationship with an incarcerated partner and as a result feel more lonely, isolated and unmotivated to maintain the relationship.

• Barriers to maintaining the relationship

These barriers include limited intimacy due to prison restrictions, high communication costs, physical distance, and stress about the future with an incarcerated partner.

• Behaviors for maintaining incarcerated LDRs

A study identified five key behaviors that support the maintenance of incarcerated LDRs:

• Positivity: behaving cheerfully and optimistically during interactions.
• Openness: sharing thoughts, feelings, and discussing the quality of the relationship.
• Assurances: expressing affection and commitment to the relationship.
• Sharing tasks: collaborating on shared responsibilities where possible.
• Social network involvement: spending time with mutual friends and involving family in activities.

Limitations of research

This research is a quantitative cross-sectional study done at a national level and can be assumed to reflect the results of the country’s cultural and institutional environment. It may not hold true in every country because the structure of prison systems, cultural differences, and financial situations can greatly affect these kinds of relationships.

Statistics in the US

In 2005 a survey suggested that in the United States, 14 to 15 million people considered themselves to be in a long-distance relationship. By 2015, this number remained at about 14 million. About 32.5% of college relationships are long-distance. The average amount of distance in a long-distance relationship is 125 miles. Couples in a long-distance relationship call each other every 2.7 days. On average, couples in long-distance relationships will visit each other 1.5 times a month. Also couples in long-distance relationships expect to live together around 14 months into the relationship. About 40% of couples in long-distance relationships break up; around 4.5 months into the relationship is the time when couples most commonly start having problems. 70% of couples in a long-distance relationship break up due to unplanned circumstances and events. 75% of all engaged couples have, at some point, been in a long distance relationship, and around 10% of couples continue to maintain a long-distance relationship after marriage. About 3.75 million married couples are in a long-distance relationship in the US alone.[26]

Means of staying in contact

New communication technologies such as cellular phone plans make communication among individuals at a distance easier than in the past.[27] Before the popularity of internet dating, long-distance relationships were not as common, as the primary forms of communication between the romance lovers usually involved either telephone conversations or corresponding via mail. According to Pew Internet, American citizens were asked how often they used the Internet on a typical day, they reported 56% sending or reading email, 10% reported sending instant messages, and 9% reported using an online social network such as Facebook[28] or Twitter. However, with the advent of the Internet, long-distance relationships have exploded in popularity as they become less challenging to sustain with the use of modern technology. Ultimately, communicating and setting realistic goals can help prevent disconnection and the loss of touch.[29]

The increase in long-distance relationships is matched by an increasing number of technologies designed specifically to support intimate couples living apart. In particular there have been a host of devices which have attempted to mimic co-located behaviors at a distance including hugging[30] and even kissing.[31] The success of these technologies has, so far, been limited.

Couples who have routine, strategic relational maintenance behaviors, and take advantage of social media can help maintain a long-distance relationship.[32] Having positivity (making interactions cheerful and pleasant), openness (directly discussing the relationship and one's feelings), assurances (reassuring the partner about the relationship and the future), network (relying on support and love of others), shared tasks (performing common tasks) and conflict management (giving the partner advice) are some of the routine and strategic relation maintenance behaviors [33]

The differentiation of social media usage during LDR consists of several actions, including video-calls(Instagram, Whatsapp, Snapchat, Viber, Skype, Discord, Telegram etc), phone-calls, and everyday chatting.

Research of Abel, Machin and Brownlow(2020)[34] discusses the main themes regarding interactions in a social media context.

Families utilize various social media platforms for functional and transactional tasks, engaging in bonding activities through audiovisual calls that are often used for casual conversations or group chats help maintain bonds without intruding on each other's time. However, barriers such as limited internet access, lower socioeconomic status, and digital literacy can hinder these interactions. Also they demonstrate resilience by recreating face-to-face rituals online, maintaining traditions despite geographic separation.

According to Morgan R. Kuske(2020),[35] long-distance partners use social media to keep in contact such as  Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Twitter. It is the most convenient way to have private communication.

Shared online activities are also the methods of staying in contact.[36] There will be engaging in online-games (in Discord and other platforms), watching movies together (due to the technological advance of such services), sharing shortcut videos like in Tiktok and Reels in Instagram. Couples[37] can organize virtual dates where they participate in the same activities, like preparing a meal together or watching a film at the same time. Engaging in multiplayer games offers them an interactive way to connect through friendly competition and teamwork. Additionally, utilizing technology to discover new locations together — such as through virtual museum tours or live-streamed travel experiences — can strengthen their sense of partnership. Participating in creative activities, like painting portraits of one another during a video call, can be both enjoyable and insightful.

The idea of giving and receiving gifts exists as an important factor of LDR lasting and duration. Gift exchange across distances can disrupt the solitude of distance, becoming a way of exchanging experiences between people who are geographically apart. This research points out that such gifts are most fulfilling because the recipient gets to receive much more than the physical item, it is a message of the self that may be difficult to put into words.Some sites on the Internet consist of different gifts that could be shared with one’s partner. Continuing, when a person lacks money for delivery or transportation, there is an opportunity to make various types of DIV’s, so called “hand-made” gifts. Attention should be paid also to the seriosity of pages and sites, not to ruin the relationship because of the strangers’ blogs.[38]

The lack of physical touch is not disappearing. However, scientists, consumers and psychologists already have devices that could try to fulfill the gap that untouchability causes.  Starting from the sensory bracelets, heartbeat rings, and ending with the adult toys, the variety for choice is increasing everyday. The research conducted by Saadatian and Samani(2014)[39] presents the idea of "kiss messaging," a digital technology created to replicate the sensation of kissing. This innovation seeks to close the emotional gap caused by physical separation by offering a way for partners to show affection. Kiss messaging acts as a substitute for physical contact, enabling couples to perform intimate actions that would be unattainable due to distance.

Relationship maintenance behaviors

Intimate relationship partners constantly work to improve their relationship. There are many ways in which they can make their partner happy and strengthen the overall relationship.[40] The ways in which individuals behave have a major effect on the satisfaction and the durability of the relationship. Researchers have found systems of maintenance behaviors between intimate partners. Maintenance behaviors can be separated into seven categories: assurances in relation to love and commitment in the relationship, openness in sharing their feelings, conflict management, positive interactions, sharing tasks, giving advice to their partner, and using social networks for support (Dainton, 2000; Stafford, Dainton, & Haas, 2000).

Dindia and Emmers-Sommer (2006) identified three categories of maintaining behaviors that are used by partners to deal with separation. "Prospective behaviors, such as telling the partner goodbye, which addresses anticipated separation; introspective behaviors, which is communication when the partners are apart; and retrospective behaviors which are basically talking to each other face to face, which reaffirms connection after separation." (Dindia, & Emmers-Sommer, 2006). These are known as the relationship continuity constructional units (RCCUs). Maintenance behaviors as well as the RCCUs are correlated with an increase in relationship satisfaction, as well as, commitment (Pistole et al., 2010).

Research

In a study of jealousy experience, expression, in LDRs, 114 individuals who were in LDRs indicated how much face-to-face contact they had in a typical week. Thirty-three percent of participants reported no face-to-face contact, whereas 67% reported periodic face-to-face contact with a mean of one to two days.[41] The researchers compared LDRs to GCRs (geographically close relationships) and discovered that those in LDRs with no face-to-face contact experience more jealousy than those with periodic face-to-face contact or those in GCRs. Furthermore, those without periodic face-to-face contact were more likely to use the internet to communicate with their partner. They found that the presence of periodic face-to-face contact is a crucial factor in the satisfaction, commitment, and trust of LDR partners. Those who do not experience periodic face-to-face contact reported significantly lower levels of satisfaction, commitment, and trust.

Another study generated a sample of 335 undergraduate students who were in LDRs and became geographically close.[42] Of the reunited couples, 66 individuals terminated their relationships after moving to the same location, whereas 114 continued their relationship.

A study done by Stafford, Merolla, and Castle (2006)[43] reported that the transition from being separated geographically to proximal increased partner interference. Based on the Communicative Interdependence Perspective, it was found that when partners switched from technologically mediated communication (TMC) to face-to-face (FtF) or vice versa, they experienced certain levels of discomfort.[44] The transition from FtF to TMC communication can make it difficult to express one's emotions and can be easier to cause miscommunication. It is believed to be plausible that transitions can be a risk factor towards long-distance dating relationships.[45]

Based on the analysis of the open-ended responses, 97% of respondents noted some type of relationship change associated with the LD-GC (geographically close) transition. When the respondents were asked about having the ability to have more face-to-face time when GC and the enjoyment of increased time spent together most comments were positive. For example, "We finally got to do all the 'little' things we'd been wanting to do for so long; we get to hold each other, wake up next to each other, eat together, etc." Many Individuals reported a loss of autonomy, following reunion. For example, many individuals liked and missed the "freedom" or "privacy" the distance allowed. Reports of "nagging", demanding or expecting "too much" were also frequent responses. Several individuals reported more conflict and "fighting" in their relationship after it became geographically close. Many said they felt the conflict in their relationship was not only more frequent but also more difficult to resolve. For example, one individual stated that, when his/her relationship was long-distance, they "fought less and if we did fight, problems were solved in a shorter amount of time." For some individuals living in the same location led to increased feelings of jealousy. After witnessing their partner's behavior, some participants said that they became increasingly concerned that their partners were currently "cheating" on them or had "cheated on them in the past." Reunion allowed the discovery of positive as well as negative characteristics about their partner, feeling that the partner had changed in some way since the relationship was long-distance.

See also

• Living apart together
• Dual-career commuter couples

References

1. Stafford, Laura (2009). "Long-Distance Relationships". The International Encyclopedia of Communication. doi:10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecl033.
2. Oakes, Kelly Finch; Brown, Kristina S. (2016). "Long-Distance Relationships". Encyclopedia of Family Studies: 1–3. doi:10.1002/9781119085621.wbefs037.
3. Stafford, Laura (2015). "Long-Distance Relationships". The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication: 1–8. doi:10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic075.
4. Lamba, Deepika; Bansal, Sai Prashant; Somani, Aditya (2023). "Long-Distance Relationship". Encyclopedia of Sexual Psychology and Behavior. Springer, Cham. pp. 1–4. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_31-1. ISBN 978-3-031-08956-5.
5. Maguire, Katheryn C.; Terry A. Kinney (February 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. S2CID 144663621.
6. (Rholfing, 1995)
7. Suwinyattichaiporn T, Amy Mary Oommen; Fontana J, Arjun Sekhar PM (2024-03-20). "Bridging the Distance: Effective Communication and Honesty Among College Students in Romantic Long-Distance Relationships". Kentucky Journal of Communication. 6 (2): 69–89. doi:10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i02.14732. ISSN 2582-2160.
8. "The Internet and daily life: Many Americans use the Internet in everyday activities, but traditional offline habits still dominate". Archived from the original on 2009-01-25.
9. "The Internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with today's technology" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-03-06.
10. Bryceson, Deborah Fahy; Vuorela, Ulla (2020-12-16). The Transnational Family: New European Frontiers and Global Networks (1 ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003087205. ISBN 978-1-003-08720-5.
11. Baldassar, L., Wilding, R., & Baldock, C. (2007). Long-distance care-giving: transnational families and the provision of aged care. In I. Paoletti (Ed.), Family caregiving for older disabled people: Relational and institutional issues (pp. 201-227). New York: Nova Science.
12. Baldassar, Loretta (2007). "Transnational families and the provision of moral and emotional support: The relationship between truth and distance". Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power. 14 (4): 385–409. doi:10.1080/10702890701578423. S2CID 144607595.
13. Cao, Xiang; Sellen, Abigail Jane; Brush, Alice Jane Bernheim; Kirk, David; Edge, Darren; Ding, Xianghua (2010). "Understanding family communication across time zones". Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. Savannah, Georgia, USA: ACM Press. pp. 155–158. doi:10.1145/1718918.1718947. ISBN 9781605587950. S2CID 629200.
14. Bales, Elizabeth; Li, Kevin A.; Griwsold, William (2011). "CoupleVIBE". Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work. Hangzhou, China: ACM Press. pp. 65–74. doi:10.1145/1958824.1958835. ISBN 9781450305563. S2CID 1190996.
15. Heymann, Jody; Flores-Macias, Francisco; Hayes, Jeffrey A; Kennedy, Malinda; Claudia, Lahaie; Earle, Alison (2009). "The impact of migration on the well-being of transnational families: New data from sending communities in Mexico". Community, Work & Family. 12 (1): 91–103. doi:10.1080/13668800802155704. S2CID 144719024.
16. Lahaie, Claudia; Hayes, Jeffrey A; Piper, Tinka Markham; Heymann, Jody (2009). "Work and family divided across borders: The impact of parental migration on Mexican children in transnational families". Community, Work & Family. 12 (3): 299–312. doi:10.1080/13668800902966315. S2CID 144862760.
17. Mazzucato, Valentina; Schans, Djamila (2011). "Transnational families and the well-being of children: Conceptual and methodological challenges". Journal of Marriage and Family. 73 (4): 704–712. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00840.x. PMC 3258421. PMID 22262926.
18. Graham, Elspeth; Jordan, Lucy P (2011). "Migrant parents and the psychological well-being of left-behind children in Southeast Asia". Journal of Marriage and Family. 73 (4): 763–787. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00844.x. PMC 3229683. PMID 22163371.
19. Smith-Osborne, Alexa; Jani, Jayshree (2014-10-02). "Long Distance Military and Civilian Relationships: Women's Perceptions of the Impact of Communication Technology and Military Culture". Military Behavioral Health. 2 (4): 293–303. doi:10.1080/21635781.2014.963759. ISSN 2163-5781.
20. Nickels, Bonnie M. (2020-01-02). "Love Locked Up: An Exploration of Relationship Maintenance and Perceived Barriers for Women Who Have Incarcerated Partners". Journal of Family Communication. 20 (1): 36–50. doi:10.1080/15267431.2019.1674853. ISSN 1526-7431.
21. Rhodes, Angel R. (October 2002). "Long-Distance Relationships in Dual-Career Commuter Couples: A Review of Counseling Issues". The Family Journal. 10 (4): 398–404. doi:10.1177/106648002236758. ISSN 1066-4807.
22. Janning, M, M. (2017). [doi:10.1177/0192513x1769872 "Constructing Shared "Space": Meaningfulness in Long-Distance Romantic Relationship Communication Formats"]. Journal of Family Issues. 39 (5): 1281–1303. doi:10.1177/0192513x1769872 (inactive 24 December 2024). {{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help)
23. Stafford, Laura; Merolla, Andy J. (February 2007). "Idealization, reunions, and stability in long-distance dating relationships". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 24 (1): 37–54. doi:10.1177/0265407507072578. ISSN 0265-4075.
24. Huge, Michael; Glynn, Carroll J. (March 2010). "Hostile Media and the Campaign Trail: Perceived Media Bias in the Race for Governor". Journal of Communication. 60 (1): 165–181. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01473.x.
25. Marnocha, Suzanne (2012). "Military Wives' Transition and Coping: Deployment and the Return Home". ISRN Nursing. 2012: 798342. doi:10.5402/2012/798342. PMC 3403397. PMID 22844613.
26. "Long Distance Relationship Statistics | What are the stats?". www.longdistancerelationshipstatistics.com. Retrieved 2015-11-02.
27. Zucker Saltz, Lizzie (2009). Crafting Romance. Athens: Athens Institute of Contemporary Art. p. 5. Certainly one of the reasons that long-distance relationships are so difficult to maintain is due to the physical separation that no advance in communication technologies has yet been able to reconcile. Playfully drawing our attention to this fact, Cindy Hinant's telephone sculptures tease out the sexually suggestive language of telephone services that insist on denying the separation of the speakers...Here the objects of communication-the now outdated landline telephones-take on the physicality of human relationships, not against technology's domination but by and through it. As we shift over to cellular phones, Hinant's sculptures are both nostalgic for the materiality of older devices and instructive as to the ways in which we might preserve for our modern age what Jean Baudrillard called the 'ecstasy of communication.'
28. Johnson, A.; Haigh, M.; Becker, J.; Craig, E.; 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 (2): 381–404. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00401.x.
29. "Starting A Long-Distance Relationship". True Medallion. 2019-03-06.
30. Mueller, Florian 'Floyd'; Vetere, Frank; Gibbs, Martin R.; Kjeldskov, Jesper; Pedell, Sonja; Howard, Steve (2005-01-01). "Hug over a distance" (PDF). CHI '05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI EA '05. New York, NY, USA: ACM. pp. 1673–1676. doi:10.1145/1056808.1056994. hdl:1959.3/352536. ISBN 1-59593-002-7. S2CID 11898447.
31. Samani, Hooman Aghaebrahimi; Parsani, Rahul; Rodriguez, Lenis Tejada; Saadatian, Elham; Dissanayake, Kumudu Harshadeva; Cheok, Adrian David (2012-01-01). "Kissenger". Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference. DIS '12. New York, NY, USA: ACM. pp. 48–57. doi:10.1145/2317956.2317965. ISBN 978-1-4503-1210-3. S2CID 16210323.
32. Haque, A (September 2013). "Maintaining Trust in a Long Distance Relationship". Expatriates Magazine (2): 21.
33. Sidelinger, R.; Ayash, G.; Godorhazy, A.; Tibbles, D. (2008). "Couples Go Online: Relational Maintenance Behaviors and Relational Characteristics Use in Dating Relationships". Human Communication.
34. Abel, Susan; Machin, Tanya; Brownlow, Charlotte (March 2021). "Social media, rituals, and long-distance family relationship maintenance: A mixed-methods systematic review". New Media & Society. 23 (3): 632–654. doi:10.1177/1461444820958717. ISSN 1461-4448 – via free.
35. Kuske, M. R (2020). "Social media use in the maintenance of long-distance romantic relationships in college". UWL Journal of Undergraduate Research. 23: 1–6.
36. Janning, M, M. (2017). [doi:10.1177/0192513x1769872 "Constructing Shared "Space": Meaningfulness in Long-Distance Romantic Relationship Communication Formats"]. Journal of Family Issues. 39 (5): 1281–1303. doi:10.1177/0192513x1769872 (inactive 24 December 2024) – via free. {{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help)
37. Chien, Wei-Chi; Hassenzahl, Marc (2020-05-03). "Technology-Mediated Relationship Maintenance in Romantic Long-Distance Relationships: An Autoethnographical Research through Design". Human–Computer Interaction. 35 (3): 240–287. doi:10.1080/07370024.2017.1401927. ISSN 0737-0024.
38. "Overcome Rejection". The Major Gifts Report. 25 (12): 6. 2023-11-08. doi:10.1002/mgr.32273. ISSN 1527-7712.
39. Saadatian, Elham; Samani, Hooman; Parsani, Rahul; Pandey, Anshul Vikram; Li, Jinhui; Tejada, Lenis; Cheok, Adrian David; Nakatsu, Ryohei (2014-10-10). "Mediating intimacy in long-distance relationships using kiss messaging". International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 72 (10–11): 736–746. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.05.004. ISSN 1071-5819 – via free.
40. "Long Distance Relationship: An Ultimate Guide To Survive & Thrive (2018)". LoveySigns. 2018-02-27. Retrieved 2018-04-09.
41. Aylor, B; Dainton M. (2002). "Patterns of Communication channel use in the maintenance of long-distance relationships". Communication Research Reports. 19 (2): 118–129. doi:10.1080/08824090209384839. S2CID 143956896.
42. Stafford, Laura; Andy J. Merolla; Janessa D. Castle (2006). "When long-distance dating partners become geographically close". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 23 (6): 901–919. doi:10.1177/0265407506070472. S2CID 32143886.
43. Stafford, L.; Merolla, A. J.; Castle, J. D. (2006). "When long-distance dating partners become geographically close". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 23 (6): 23. doi:10.1177/0265407506070472. S2CID 32143886.
44. Caughlin, J. P.; Sharabi, L. L. (2013). "A communicative interdependence perspective of close relationships: The connections between mediated and unmediated interactions matter". Journal of Communication: 873. doi:10.1111/jcom.12046.
45. Wang, Ningxin; Roache, David; Pusateri, Kimberly (October 1, 2019). "Interconnection of Multiple Communication Modes in Long-Distance Dating Relationships". Western Journal of Communication. 83 (5): 605. doi:10.1080/10570314.2018.1552986. S2CID 149764379.

Bibliography

• Chris Bell, Kate Brauer-Bell, The Long-Distance Relationship Survival Guide (New York: Ten Speed Press, 2006)
• Dindia, K., & Emmers-Sommer, E. M., (2006). What partner do to maintain their close relationships. In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.) Close relationships: Functions, forms, and processes (pp. 302–324). New York: Psychology Press.
• Dainton, M (2000). "Maintenance behaviors, expectations for maintenance, and satisfaction: Linking comparison levels to relational maintenance strategies". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 17 (6): 827–842. doi:10.1177/0265407500176007. S2CID 146284130.
• Pistol, M. C.; Roberts, A.; Chapman, M. L. (2010). "Attachment, relationship maintenance, and stress in long distance and geographically close romantic relationships". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 27 (4): 535–552. doi:10.1177/0265407510363427. S2CID 31663667.
• Seetha Narayan, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Long-Distance Relationships (Alpha Books: 2005)
• Rohlfing, M. E. (1995). Doesn't anyone stay in one place anymore? An exploration of the understudied phenomenon of long-distance relationships. In J. Woods & S. Duck (Eds.), Understudied relationships: Off the beaten track (pp. 173–196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
• Marnocha, Suzanne. "Military Wives' Transition and Coping: Deployment and the Return Home." Military Wives' Transition and Coping: Deployment and the Return Home. International Scholarly Research Notices, 5 Mar. 2012. Web. 3 Nov. 2015.
• Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2002a). The Internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with today's technology. Retrieved October 15, 2005
• Pew Internet & American Life Project (2004). The Internet and daily life: Many Americans use the Internet in everyday activities, but traditional offline habits still dominate. Retrieved October 11, 2007
• Suwinyattichaiporn, T., Fontana, J., Shaknitz, L., & Linder, K. (2017). Maintaining long-distance romantic relationships: The college students' perspective. Kentucky Journal of Communication, 36(1), 67–89.
• Smith-Osborne, A., & Jani, J. (2014). Long-distance military and civilian relationships: Women’s perceptions of the impact of communication technology and military culture. Military Behavioral Health, 2(4), 293–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2014.963759
• Nickels, B. M. (2019). Love locked up: An exploration of relationship maintenance and perceived barriers for women who have incarcerated partners. Journal of Family Communication, 20(1), 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2019.1674853
• Rhodes, A. R. (2002). Long-Distance Relationships in Dual-Career Commuter Couples: A Review of Counseling Issues. The Family Journal, 10(4), 398–404. doi:10.1177/106648002236758
• Janning, M., Gao, W., & Snyder, E. (2017). Constructing Shared “Space”: Meaningfulness in Long-Distance Romantic Relationship Communication Formats. Journal of Family Issues, 39(5), 1281–1303. doi:10.1177/0192513x1769872
• Chien, W.-C., & Hassenzahl, M. (2017). Technology-Mediated Relationship Maintenance in Romantic Long-Distance Relationships: An Autoethnographical Research through Design. Human–Computer Interaction, 1–48. doi:10.1080/07370024.2017.1401927
• Stafford, L., & Merolla, A. J. (2007). Idealization, reunions, and stability in long-distance dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 37–54. doi:10.1177/0265407507072578
• Stafford, L. (2010). Geographic distance and communication during courtship. Journal of Communication, 60(1), 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01473.x
• Abel, S., Machin, T., & Brownlow, C. (2020). Social media, rituals, and long-distance family relationship maintenance: A mixed-methods systematic review. New Media & Society, 146144482095871. doi:10.1177/1461444820958717
• Kuske, M. R., Leahy, R. (Sponsor). (2020). Social media use in the maintenance of long-distance romantic relationships in college. UWL Journal of Undergraduate Research, 23, 1–6.
• Latinytė, R. (2023). Communication Through Shared Experience: Gifts that Overcome Distance. LITUANUS.
• Saadatian, E., & Samani, R. (2016). Bridging intimacy in long-distance relationships: The advent of sensory technology. Journal of Digital Interactions, 12(3), 45–62.