Commitment Predictors: Long‐Distance Versus Geographically Close Relationships

In today's world, long-distance relationships (LDRs) are visible in the entertainment industry, are used in telephone and airline advertisements, are prevalent on college campuses, and exist among married and nonmarried dual-career couples (Stafford, 2005). As important romantic relationships, LDRs are attachments that are relevant to adults' development, health, and well-being (S. Cohen, 2004). Counselors may not, however, be well-informed about LDRs. Like others, counselors may mistakenly believe that LDRs reflect relationship distress (Stafford, 2005). This misperception is easy to understand. Unlike persons in geographically close relationships (GCRs), LDR partners live in distal sites for days or weeks, reunite for a short time, and then separate again. The view of LDRs as distressed may be reinforced when time apart is cited as a cause of breakup (Knox, Zusman, Daniels, & Brantley, 2002), especially by celebrities. Research has suggested, however, that LDRs are more stable than are GCRs (Stafford, 2005). * Relationship Persistence/Commitment: The Investment Model The Investment Model (IM; Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998), a relational stability theory, is well suited to studying LDR persistence. IM theory does not include elements that require frequent physical contact (e.g., sexual intimacy), which is not possible in LDRs. Rusbult et al. (1998) developed the IM to account for some relationships enduring or persisting (i.e., being stable) despite difficulties or dissatisfaction. It can be puzzling, however, to understand LDR stability. In the IM (Rusbult et al., 1998), persistence is felt psychologically as commitment, which is the primary quality accounting for relational stability. Commitment, which predicts relational persistence for both short and long relationships (Le & Agnew, 2003), is an individual's long-term relational direction. Commitment is uniquely influenced by (a) satisfaction, or happiness with the relationship; (b) perceived alternatives, such as other attractive partners; and (c) investments that would be lost if the relationship ended. These elements are interrelated: Greater satisfaction can lead to decreased alternatives, increased investments, and commitment. Research has indicated that LDRs are characterized by commitment. Quantitative research (Guldner & Swensen, 1995) has not found significant LDR/GCR commitment differences, and moral commitment, "the personal meaning of the relationship" (Lydon, Pierce, & O'Regan, 1997, p. 111), distinguished persisting and nonpersisting LDRs. Interviews (Arditti & Kauffman, 2001) also verified LDR commitment. As one LDR partner noted, "the reason for the commute is our commitment to each other" (Jackson, Brown, & Patterson-Stewart, 2000, p. 30). Research has not, however, identified factors that contribute uniquely to LDR commitment. In the IM, satisfaction is the primary predictor of commitment (Le & Agnew, 2003), at least in GCRs. In LDR research, lower satisfaction predicted LDR breakups (Schwebel, Dunn, Moss, & Renner, 1992), whereas satisfaction was related to a reliable alliance (i.e., "sure the relationship will last no matter what"; Van Horn et al., 1997, p. 29), which is similar to commitment. Nonetheless, when comparing LDRs/GCRs, even with similar samples, results are mixed: no satisfaction differences, higher LDR satisfaction, and higher GCR satisfaction (see Stafford, 2005, for a review). The discrepant findings might be explained by methodology that measures satisfaction with several items reflecting physical togetherness. Such items may contribute uniquely to GCR satisfaction. Most research has suggested, however, that when measured as a general relational quality, satisfaction would predict LDR and GCR commitment. As for IM alternatives, LDR partners would seemingly have attractive potential partners in the same geographical area. Nonetheless, college (Sahlstein, 2004) and married community LDR partners (Jackson et al. …