Comm 88 Research Paper

LDDR Satisfaction: Perceptions vs. Realities1

Long Distance Dating Relationship Satisfaction:

Perceptions vs. Realities

Sheena Wadhwa

Britney Craighead

Section: Friday 1PM

3 June 2014


Long Distance Dating Relationship Satisfaction: Perceptions vs. Realities

Long Distance Dating Relationships are becoming more popular in the dating world with the

progression of technology, especially with college students. Because of the increasing

commonality of these relations, researchers are beginning to analyze Long Distance Dating

Relationships (LDDRs) and how couples in them create and maintain relational stability. There

are even fewer studies on how single people and couples in Close Proximity Dating

Relationships (CPDRs) perceive the satisfaction received in LDDRs. Due to the physical

separation in these cases, these relationships have a reputation of being less satisfactory, more

stressful, and more likely to end sooner than CPDRs. Researchers haven’t studied the

perceptions of LDDRs but instead focused on the problems, insecurities, and uncertainties of

them and how these aspects predict satisfaction. Other focuses include coping methods that

females use to help the relational strain that develops from long periods of physical distance. Lee

and Pistole (2012) examined the correlation between insecurities and satisfaction in LDDRs and

CPDRs. These researchers found, through a web-based survey, that insecurities are related to

self-disclosure in relationships, which is related to attachment and satisfaction. But, they found

differences in these elements in CPDRs and LDDRs. Van Horn, Arnone, Nesbitt, Desilets, Sears,

Giffin, and Brudi,(1997) also analyze self-disclosure and insecurities but concentrate on college

relationships. They took it one step further, though, and used this information to predict stability

with a two-part study. Their first part questionnaire and second part phone interview study

concluded that LDDRs are not more likely to end sooner than CPDRs and satisfaction is “the

best predictor of stability” (Van Horn, et al., 1997, p. 25). Cameron and Ross (2007) also focused

on predicting survival of relationships through a similar two-part study. But instead, these

researchers examined the participant’s negative affectivity rather than self-disclosure. They


discovered a gender difference in this area of study but still concluded the negative affectivity

did predict relational stability (Cameron & Ross, 2007). Maguire and Kinney (2010) also found

gender differences in psychological aspects of relationships. They studied female college student

satisfaction in LDDRs as well as communication and coping methods. The study revolved

around the perceived helpfulness of coping methods in a survey with all female participants to

gather information and conclude the perceived helpfulness of coping methods predicted

satisfaction of participants in both high and low distress LDDRs (Maguire & Kinney, 2010).

This study, similar to the previous one mentioned, focuses on perceptions of satisfaction

in LDDRs. There is little research on LDDRs in general and even less on the perceptions of

them. In particular, studies of college students in LDDRs examine insecurities and coping

mechanisms in relationships rather than the happiness and satisfaction that come from their

relationships. Due to the few studies on LDDRs focusing on the negative aspects of being

physical separated from a partner, it seems as though LDDRs are seen as less satisfactory in

comparison to CPDRs. The three aspects this study predicts are: there is a negative

misunderstanding of satisfaction in LDDRs by UCSB students who are single or in a CPDR,

there is a positive correlation between the amount of communication and satisfaction in LDDRs,

and there is a positive correlation between couples who frequently video chat and relationship

satisfaction. This study will help gain a better understanding of the perceptions and realities of

long distance relationships at UCSB. This difference between perceptions versus realities of

LDDRs will add a different dimension to the understanding of how LDDRs stay in tact.


Method

Participants

University of California, Santa Barbara undergraduate students with access to Facebook

were sampled in this study. There were ninety-five participants (n=95) that volunteered to

complete the survey without any incentive. Being a UCSB undergraduate student was the only

qualification to take the survey. Other qualifications were not necessary in the study because the

main focus was on perceptions vs. realities of the satisfaction of LDDRs so all types of

relationships were included. In order to reach these UCSB undergraduate students, we posted the

survey on Facebook’s “UCSB Class of 2015” group page and the students took the survey on

their own computers at home. Out of the total ninety-five participants, thirteen were male and

eighty-two were female. The average time CPDR couples have been together is 28.083 months

whereas the average time LDDR couples have been together is 30.617 months. The ranges of

these lengths were from 1.5 months to 84 months and 1 month to 180 months, respectively.

Because we left the definition of a LDDR up for interpretation, the participants were asked how

far away they lived from their partner. All couples in LDDRs lived over 50 miles away from

each other and the number of times the couples saw each other ranged from once a week to once

a year. Distances between the partners were correlated with how often they are able to see each

other and this correlation was compared to overall relational satisfaction.

Procedure

Participants completed the survey on their own time and voluntarily. We constructed the

survey through Google Drive and posted the link to Facebook for convenience since it was only

web-based. Students, who saw the post on the UCSB Class of 2015 page and chose to

participate, completed the survey without any incentives. Accompanied by the survey link, there


was an invitation to participate in the survey as well as request of consent. By clicking the

survey, they gave us their consent to participate (See Appendix A). There wasn’t a follow up

survey or interview.

Measures

Relational satisfaction as well as perceived satisfaction and stability were measured

through various questions geared toward understanding personal happiness, stability of the

relationship through length of time together, communication between partners, and relationship

satisfaction. The survey was split into sections so participants would answer questions based on

their relationship status. It began with a general section regarding everyone’s personal happiness.

The last question on this page asked for relational status and based on the participant’s response,

the survey jumped to the appropriate section. Single people answered questions concerning past

relationships as well as their perceptions of various aspects of LDDRs. People who responded

with CPDR skipped to the next section regarding length, communication, and satisfaction in their

current relationship as well as their perceptions of these aspects in LDDRs. If the participant

answered LDDR, they skipped to the last section regarding length, distance, communication, and

satisfaction in their LDDR. The following will contain portions of the survey. Refer to Appendix

A for more information.

Personal happiness. In order to assess the personal happiness of the participants, the

survey began with seven statements regarding various aspects of the individual’s happiness and

self-esteem. They responded to these statements on a Likert-type scale from one (Strongly

Disagree) to seven (Strongly Agree). Statements included, “I am content with my life”, “I

consider myself to be a happy person”, and five more. After reverse coding the negative words,

their responses were averaged on a scale of one (not happy) to seven (very happy).


Length of relationship. Relationship stability was based on was how long the couple had

been exclusively dating for. To gain more accurate results, it was an open-ended question so the

participants could respond with the exact length of the relationship thus far. Single people

answered this question with their longest past relationship in mind and people in CPDRs and

LDDRs answered this with their current relationship in mind. With these results, we were able to

average the lengths of CPDRs and LDDRs to see if LDDRs are more likely to end sooner than

CPDRs.

Communication. Openness and communication between partners is related to

relationship satisfaction as well as stability so many aspects were considered in this section. For

the single students, all questions were directed toward their perceptions of LDDRs. They were

asked close-ended questions such as “What do you think is the most beneficial method of

communication between couples in long distance relationships?” with answer options including

texting, video calls, talking on the phone, and Snapchat. The CPDR and LDDR groups answered

these questions as well with slight word variation so they were directed toward their current

relationships. For example, they answered questions about the frequency of their communication

via these same methods. CPDR and LDDR sections also included the question “How often do

you see your significant other?” with options ranging from every day to once a year.

Satisfaction. In order to assess satisfaction, many questions covering various aspects

were required, making this section the largest portion of the survey. All satisfaction sections

were formatted on a Likert-type scale for singles, CPDRs, and LDDRs. The single group

responded purely through perception regarding LDDRs while CPDRs answered based on their

own relationship and then completed a perception portion. As for LDDRs, all questions were

directed toward their current relationships. For example, statements claimed, “I am content with


the amount of time my significant other and I spend together” and “I often question whether or

not I should stay in this relationship” with a scale from one (Strongly Disagree) to seven

(Strongly Agree). These numbers were reverse coded and averaged to find overall perceived

satisfaction of LDDRs and actual satisfaction in CPDRs and LDDRs.

Results

The data set (n=95) was reviewed and separated into three relationship categories as well

as different aspects of them including personal happiness, communication, and satisfaction.

These dependent variables add up to reflect overall relationship satisfaction and are contingent

on the independent variables such as the frequency and methods of communication between

partners in LDDRs. These exemplify the reality of satisfaction in LDDRs and the same process

was completed for perceptions of satisfaction in LDDRs by using survey responses of the single

participants. Hypothesis one, which claimed the reality of satisfaction from LDDRs is

misunderstood in a negative manner by UCSB students who are either single or in a CPDR, was

analyzed first. Perceived and real LDDR satisfactions were measured on an interval level Likert-

type one to seven scale (one being not satisfactory and seven being very satisfactory). Perceived

satisfaction was a 3.144 on the scale whereas real LDDR satisfaction was a 4.629 yet 66.667% of

people in CPDRs claimed they would be willing to enter a LDDR. These results supported the

first hypothesis of the study. Secondly, the data supported the claim of a positive correlation

between the amount of communication between partners and satisfaction in LDDRs.

Communication was measured on a ratio level because frequency was calculated as the number

of times in a day or week, depending on the method. Satisfaction was once again measured on an

interval level with a Likert-type scale. On a scale of one to five (one being no communication

and five being consistent communication), LDDR communication (texting, phone calls, video


calls, and Snapchat) was a 2.849 on the frequency scale. On a one to seven scale (one being not

satisfactory and seven being very satisfactory), satisfaction was a 4.629. There was a positive

correlation between the two at 0.183. Lastly, the study did not support a positive correlation

between couples who frequently video call and relationship satisfaction. On a scale of one to five

(one being never and five being every day), only threes and above were included in order to only

take into account frequent video callers. The average satisfaction of these frequent video call

users on a one to seven scale (one being not satisfactory and seven being very satisfactory) was

4.778. But, when the frequent video caller averages were correlated with relationship

satisfaction, the correlation was -0.0202. The study disproves the hypothesis stating more

frequent video calls results in higher levels of relationship satisfaction.

Discussion

The findings of this study relates to the previous research examined in many ways. First

off, it supports the idea that LDDRs are not more likely than CPDRs to discontinue. In this study,

the mean for LDDR Satisfaction is actually higher than CPDR Satisfaction. On a scale of one to

seven (one being not satisfactory and seven being very satisfactory), LDDR was 4.629 and

CPDR was 4.26. Also, the average length the LDDRs have been together (30.617 months) is

greater than the average length of the CPDRs (28.083 months).

Strengths and Critiques

The study’s greatest strength was including people from all relationship types. This

inclusion provided the ability to analyze satisfaction perceptions and realities from all three

categories as well as directly compare CPDRs and LDDRs. The ultimate critique of this study is

the ratio of men to women in the sample compared to the ratio of men to women UCSB

undergraduate students. UCSB undergraduate students consist of 47% males and 53% females


(Trust, 2012) whereas the study consisted of 14% male and 86% female participants. Because of

psychological discrepancies of how males vs. females view relationships and love, this could

have seriously skewed the results of LDDR satisfaction perceptions. Another critique is lack of

verification of the participant being a UCSB undergraduate student. Because we cannot prove

whether or not all the participants were UCSB undergraduate students, we cannot make this

assumption in our analysis and cannot generalize our findings. Also, a question should have been

included to examine the relationship’s level of importance to the participant. This would have

given the ability to exclude relationships that are not serious and exclusive. Lastly, 49% of

participants claimed to be in LDDRs and this may have been because of our distribution method

and lack of definition. Because participants volunteered, people in LDDRs were more likely to

participate due to personal interest and involvement in the subject. Also, we allowed the

participants to choose whether or not their relationships were long distance based on their

personal definition. This created discrepancies because everyone’s definitions differed. This

study would have had high external validity and generalizability if these weaknesses had been

avoided. If the study didn’t have these weaknesses, the results could have been generalized to

UCSB undergraduate students and even college students in general. We were able to make one

causal statement regarding the positive correlation between communication and satisfaction in

LDDRs. Unfortunately we were unable to support our second causal statement regarding a

positive correlation between video calls and satisfaction in LDDRs.

Future Studies

Correcting the weaknesses mentioned above and turning them into additional strengths

can improve this study. Also, future researchers can go into further depth regarding the negative

perception of LDDRs and how this affects the outcome of LDDRs. Another interesting outlook


on this subject is how social media affects relationship satisfaction. Social media aspects include

whether putting a relationship in the public eye or keeping private and not posting about it is

more beneficial and creates more stability. Also, reactions of CPDRs seeing posts about LDDRs

and vice versa and whether CPDR posts trigger jealousy in LDDR couples because the CPDRs

get to be together more often.


References

Cameron, J. J. & Ross, M. (2007). In times of uncertainty: Predicting the survival of long-

distance relationships. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147:(6), 581-606.

Lee, J. & Pistole, C. (2012). Predictors of satisfaction in geographically close and long-distance

relationships. Journal of counseling psychology, 59:(2), 303-313.

Maguire, K. C. & Kinney, T. A. (2010). When distance is problematic: Communication, coping,

and relational satisfaction in female college students’ long-distance dating relationships.

Journal of Applied Communication, 38:(1), 27-46.

Singleton, R. A., & Straits, B. C. (2010). Approaches to social research (5th Edition). New York:

Oxford.

Trust, T. (2012, April 10). UCSB Undergraduate Population Infographic. The GradPost at UC

Santa Barbara. Retrieved June 3, 2014, from http://gradpost.ucsb.edu/life/2012/4/10

/ucsb-undergraduate-population-infographic.html

Van Horn, R. V., Arnone, A., Nesbitt, K., Desilets, L., Sears, T., Giffin, M., & Brudi, R. (1997).

Physical distance and interpersonal characteristics in college students’ romantic

relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 25-34.


Appendix A

Request of consent in the Facebook post: “You are being invited to participate in a research

study that examines satisfaction in close proximity relationships and long distance relationships.

This survey will also incorporate questions on perceptions of relationship satisfaction for those

participants who are single. This survey will take approximately 10 minutes to complete and will

be completely anonymous. This is no anticipated risk or discomfort for this survey but if the

participant is uncomfortable with a question/s, he or she can choose to skip the uncomfortable

portions or stop the survey all together. Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary

and there is no incentive given for completing the survey. The results of this study will be

presented in an analytical research paper for Communication 88 (Research Methods) in Spring

2014. By clicking the link to continue, you are authorizing the researchers to use the results of

the survey as well as acknowledging that you have read and understood the information

presented above.”

Documents

Comm 88 Research Paper