Long‐Distance and Proximal Romantic Relationship Satisfaction: Attachment and Closeness Predictors

Relationship satisfaction was examined in college student long-distance romantic relationships (LDRRs) and geographically proximal romantic relationships (PRRs). LDRR/PRR attachment style proportions and relationship satisfaction were similar. Multiple regression analyses revealed that low attachment avoidance contributed uniquely to high LDRR satisfaction and that low attachment avoidance, low attachment anxiety, and living apart contributed uniquely to high PRR satisfaction. Relational closeness was not a unique predictor of LDRR or PRR satisfaction. ********** Romantic relationships are relevant to college student development and are a frequent college counseling concern (Grayson, 2006). According to Stafford 2005), up to 75% of college students may have a long-distance romantic relationship (LDRR). Consequently, college counselors may need to provide services to LDRR clients (Westefeld & Liddell, 1982). Yet, the LDRR theory-based research foundation for counseling is still fairly small (Stafford, 2005). Relatively little is known about how or if LDRRs differ from proximal romantic relationships (PRRs), and intuition and current knowledge may not provide accurate indicators for LDRRs (Stafford, 2005). Unlike PRRs, LDRRs are punctuated by a separation-reunion cycle. LDRR partners choose to live in geographically distant locations for a period of days or weeks then travel (e.g., every other week) to be together, often for only a few days. After this reunion, the partners again separate for another length of time. Counterintuitively, research has not found significant differences between LDRRs and PRRs on important relationship qualities such as intimacy and commitment (Guldner & Swensen, 1995; Van Horn et al., 1997), and college LDRRs are more stable than college PRRs (Stafford, 2005). Stable LDRRs were characterized by higher relational satisfaction than were LDRRs who later broke up (Schwebel, Dunn, Moss, & Renner, 1992). Research comparing LDRRs with PRRs found that satisfaction was (a) significantly higher in LDRRs (Stafford, 2005), (b) not significantly different between the two (Guldner & Swensen, 1995), and (c) significantly lower in LDRRs (Van Horn et al., 1997). As an important LDRR quality, satisfaction merits further study. Satisfaction has been related to attachment (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003, for a review of romantic attachment research) and closeness (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). Theoretically, the LDRR separation-reunion cycle, not present in PRRs, would elicit attachment concerns (Bowlby, 1988), and the LDRR physical distance could inhibit relational closeness (Stafford, 2005). Therefore, this study was designed to examine attachment and closeness as predictors of LDRR and PRR satisfaction. Attachment Attachment refers to an organic behavior system, an enduring emotional bond, and the lifelong propensity to seek proximity to important caregivers, such as the adult romantic partner (Bowlby, 1988). The function of attachment is protection, with the romantic partner being accessible to provide safe haven (i.e., soothing as needed) and secure base (e.g., guidance as needed) functions that result in felt security. Proximity maintenance (i.e., keeping the partner accessible for any needed attachment functions) and separation distress are also defining features of attachment (Bowlby, 1979; Hazan, Gur-Yaish, & Campa, 2004). Because of the potential for the partner to be nonaccessible, planned separation from the partner (e.g., caused by travel; see Fraley & Shaver, 1998) or prolonged separation can activate the attachment system (Bowlby, 1979). The person may then exhibit separation protest: feel anxious, sad, or angry; yearn for the partner; and try to regain a comfortable level of proximity (Bowlby, 1979; Fraley & Shavcr, 1998). Learning may be hindered until proximity is reestablished (Bowlby, 1988; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). …